Maybe, what you're thinking of is quilts, not patches.

and "...you can't help those who don't want to be helped."

Approve or Decline

Weeee Dogies! Y'all're gonna have ta excuse mah cogitations, Mister Drysdale, but Ah figgers this's one thread just about the perfect Phishin' hole fer them there squattin' folk. Ahmah gonna has ta asks y'al tah not pay no never-mind t'mah sig. Yore Friend, Jed Clampett

Au, contraire. By definition, HIV, as a retrovirus, says you are wrong about that; lemme guess, you can't get pregnant the first time, either?

More likely, it has less to do with size, and more to do with the motions and noises.

Dog-saves-owner's-family-by-chewing-apart-phone; owner then buys groceries for hungry family of 3.14. Dog found still chasing tail with owner.

Ha, ha, ha! Mp3re: X-Files.

...remember when we could, without delay, without an account, a
background check, or an extra 20 dollars or so every month for service...

listen to popular music of the day...

...view a program in video with sound, without a network logo
and ticker feed blocking "certain" portions of it...

Computers are not very good radios, and
they are even crappier televisions.

Internet technology hasn't been much help, either; It
looks to me like a pack of youngbloods have their horse pushing the cart.

(Let us assume, for example, the sender uses software or a mass-email account with a company:)

Suppose an email Recipient receives ve$0.02 credit for every message reported as spam, debited against the Sender's account and payable to the Recipient's email account, in increments of ve$10;

Further suppose, the otherwise legitimate source of said software or mass-email account must by regulatory restrictions through CAN-SPAM register for the purposes suggested herein; and

(among other things,) pay the Recipient, as the Service is commercially benefiting, and/or restrict the Sender'(s) account - bear in mind, no one wants to set up or install commercial email routines every 100 messages while racking up $50 expenses, but it takes money to make money, and customer satisfaction...

Although the following is very much the clear and present reality, Heaven forbid even one person, objecting to spam, should receive the following notification-

"You have received a collect spam from [nobody]; do you accept the charge(s)?

Painfully, this indeed is what is currently going on, but to put it in those precise words, well, you get the idea.




What ever happened to the thing about, "...it takes money to make money..." anyhow? The internet gives only spam the right to negate that? Yeah, right... get a life, you lawbot.

And why, for goodness' sake, hasn't it been the case, all along.


Anything else is simply a case of WHOIS harrassment through a third party.



A no brainer, out-of-place, casts a lot of pennies the wrong direction, and were talkin' a lot of pennies, here.

...being that it has long been the case that, it takes money to make money, the idea is not only good practice, but sound business.

...I didn't get 5 feet from my terminal before I thought I heard Charleton Heston exclaiming, "They finally did it... Those S.O.B's..."

If it were an oil field, Wall Street, Detroit or Silicone Valley, you could count on something being done about it right away. NSLIG (no such luck, I guess.)

Nothing further. Or, is this about intestinal fortitude...

...why not, 'Tiffany?' Anyhow, it's name is Mudd, now.

I second the motion. Now, if naked people and their babies could decide, in a timely manner,which one of two ways to express themselves (verbally - oral/written, or non-verbally) the discrepancies between what they 'said' and what they 'meant' would no longer be an issue or tie up the courts. Oops. I'm a man and I said something... does that make me wrong?