On Mar 1, 4:52 pm, "Paul T. Holland" <pholl...@bellatlantic.net>
wrote:
Look you moron, Mr. Holland is only protecting us here in the group from
scammers and spammers such as yourself!!!
If you truly had a legitimate business, you wouldn't need to be flooding
news groups with your unwanted spam!!!
So, take a hike!
.
.
.
Donna G.
.
.
.
ANGELS EXIST, but some times, since they don't all have wings, we call
them FRIENDS......
LOLOLOL,,,, thanks mr. holland for doing what you do better than anyone.
Don't ya just love the way spammers think as if they have the right to put
their crap in a Support Group for Arthritis. You have shown this one what
he/she has a right to. Rain on you???? You have not seen anything yet if
you return.
Harv
> Dear Mr Holland,
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> DMN
Daryl M. Nelson wrote:
> Dear Mr Holland,
> I have every right to share any marketing ideas or programs with others.
> That is what networking is all about!
WRONG, onager. Groups have charters that prohibit advertising.
You have no First Amendment rights in a newsgroup.
> Dear Mr Holland,
>
> I can't believe that you are actually wasting your time and
> trippin on what I'm doing?!
the above is not surprising, your cognitive abilities are well known,
and amply demonstrated
some spammers just don't want to think that they are subject to any
rules -,until they are forced to...lolol
>I have every right to share any marketing
> ideas or programs with others.
really? you think so? gosh but you are going to be fun...lololol
>That is what networking is all about!
actually it's not - it's about sharing with those that would be/are
receptive...but we do understand that this may be a trifle difficult to
understand given your intellectual level...
> Mr. Holland you should
lol - very parental and overbearing, but let's see where you're going to
try to take this:
>remember:
since i remembered who you were from previous forays, i probably won't
have any problems
>"When you change the way you look at
> things, the things you look at change" "Duane Dyer".
lolol, daryl, this is just too precious to pass by, so let me give you a
little bit more of an education:
- you quote "Duane Dyer"
it's so very typical of spammers like yourself - you can't even get the
man's name correct.
for your information, it's "wayne dyer"
but since you bring it up, here's another dyer quote that's more apt for
the situation you find yourself in here:
Maxim for life: You get treated in life the way you teach people to
treat you.
you see, spammer, you are just being treated like what you are...
a stupid, opportunistic, spammer...
>So I suggest that
> you go about your day Sir,
why thank you daryl, that is exactly what i have already done - lololol
> and seize your own dream!
but daryl, addressing your spamming is what i have chosen - and i DID
seize it...lololol
>Don't rain on
> mine!
that is exactly what i shall do where and whenever you are brought to my
attention...
do try to have a better day - somewhere else
paul
Fire Chief - 07 Mar 2007 18:23 GMT
Paul wrote
>> Don't rain on mine!
> that is exactly what i shall do where and whenever you are brought to my attention...
> do try to have a better day - somewhere else
Perhaps he had better heed the news from this morning. <g>
Scotsman Successfully Sues Company for Sending Him Spam
Wednesday, March 7, 2007 0213 PST
LONDON, England -- Most people just grumble and hit delete, but when
Gordon Dick received a spam message advertising Internet services, he
fought back.
The 30-year-old Web marketing specialist from Edinburgh sued the
sender, Transcom Internet Services Ltd., in small-claims court. The
court ordered the company to pay $1,445 in damages and $1,190 in court
costs.
"If someone was throwing stones through your window, would you just
ignore it?" Dick said. "It's anti-social behavior and they shouldn't
be doing it in the first place."
Dick argued that Transcom had taken his e-mail address from an
Internet forum without his consent, violating the European Union Data
Protection Act.
Transcom director William Smith denied that the message was spam. He
said Dick received the mailing last year after his address was
accidentally taken from a group e-mail and added to a company
database. Smith said the e-mail went to 41,000 people.
Transcom's lawyers argued damages were unwarranted because the e-mail
did not hurt Dick financially. But the court rejected the argument.
Nick Lockett, a London attorney who specializes in Internet law, said
the ruling could prompt other cases in which spam recipients seek
damages to cover the costs of e-mail filtering software and server
space.
Indeed, Dick has set up a Web site offering advice on how to fight
spammers in court. So has Nigel Roberts, a Briton who won a 300-pound
($580) settlement in 2005 over spam from a car company and a fax
broadcasting business.
"The majority of people," Roberts said, "don't know how to look at the
spam e-mail and identify who sent it."
___
On the Net:
Scotch Spam: http://scotchspam.org.uk
Spam Legal Action: http://spamlegalaction.pbwiki.com