|
Posted by John Pollard on June 19, 2007, 9:06 pm
Please log in for more thread options R. C. White wrote:
> Hi, John.
>
> Me? A spammer? Hah!
>
> But I can see how someone could easily have gotten that idea
> from my
> post. ;^[
>
> Yes, it really was me who posted that. As I said, my son
> emailed the
> story to me and I immediately thought of the discussion here a
> week
> or so ago. And I thought that, even if you were not
> interested, John,
> some of the others here might be.
>
> No hard feelings, David. In fact, I quite agree with you!
> But I
> would have simply ignored me - as I've ignored a few spammers
> here
> over the years. Giving them attention simply feeds their ego,
> especially if they think that they have made us angry.
>
> Sorry to have caused a furor. I'll try to be more discreet
> next time.
You caused no furor (nor any other problem) for me. I assumed
it was you.
It was the poster that claimed you were a spammer that caused me
a problem. I was ready to have someone prove otherwise, but
gladly, it was not so.
And if the post in question had been spam, I would have no
different reaction than I would to any other spammer ...
basically I would have ignored them (in this group). [Well, to
be honest, I would have taken notice that spamming was getting a
bit more sophisticated ... but what the hell; since there has
been no useful response to the existing level of spam, why would
I expect anything else.]
Bottom line: thanks for the info. I am definitely looking into
it.
--
John Pollard
First initial underscore Last name at mchsi dot com
Please reply to newsgroup
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap