Re: BBC's awful tech/mydoom coverage
From: Dave Hinz (davehinz_at_spamcop.net)
Date: 02/04/04
- Next message: Phil Weldon: "Re: Last Net Critical Update"
- Previous message: Patrick Casher: "Re: W32.Swen.A@mm"
- In reply to: Alan Connor: "Re: BBC's awful tech/mydoom coverage"
- Next in thread: Grant Edwards: "Re: BBC's awful tech/mydoom coverage"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 4 Feb 2004 02:01:02 GMT
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 00:32:00 GMT, Alan Connor <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:11:15 GMT, Rich Teer wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Jim Slager wrote:
>>
>> Please don't top post.
>
> Right! He can't top post but YOU can have an overly-large signature that
> amounts to nothing but spam.
Let's see - Rich Teer, long time and valued contributer to comp.unix.admin.
You, well, who knows.
> I wonder who would do business with an obvious hyocrite and scofflaw?
Law? Yeah, it's more than 4 lines, but his quality posts have historically
distracted me from noticing that his sigfile is longer than suggested.
> A clear Netiquette violation: The limit for sigs is 4 lines.
>
> And it is downright SLEAZY to use the Usenet as a vehicle for
> commercial ads.
And yet, Rich provides signal, while you provide...what's that word again?
Oh yeah, "noise".
- Next message: Phil Weldon: "Re: Last Net Critical Update"
- Previous message: Patrick Casher: "Re: W32.Swen.A@mm"
- In reply to: Alan Connor: "Re: BBC's awful tech/mydoom coverage"
- Next in thread: Grant Edwards: "Re: BBC's awful tech/mydoom coverage"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
