Usability Job Opportunities

[Andy Jacobs]

You shouldn't be practicing medicine without a license, Andy.

Probably Aspergers. A tendency to take everything literally. I kind of
thought the reference to 'cocksucker' would have given the game away.

 

[RafaMinu]

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
In <[email protected]> on Thu, 03 Jan
2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle <[email protected]>
wrote:
Dick Gaughan wrote:
In <C3A2D429.F13D%[email protected]> on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
I don't get it.  Why was the original post spam?
It wasn't. It was many things, including being a
pathetically-badly disguised festering heap of marketing shite,
but it wasn't spam.
Those insisting it was spam are merely flaunting their
cluelessness. A post is *only* defined as being spam when it
breaches the Breidbart Index. Nobody has provided any evidence
that that particular bit of midge's effluence has exceeded the BI.
The Breidbart Index is woefully out of date.
When was that decided? I must have missed that debate.
It's been dismissed as virtually meaningless for quite a while, now.
SPAM has changed, but the index hasn't.
In a.w.w, ads of any kind are considered SPAM.
What aww might or might not consider is about as relevant outside
aww as a spider's fart. I'm not reading this thread in aww.
Fine.  I am reading this in a.w.w., and it is spam here.
The BI was adopted as a way of avoiding would-be Usenet vigilantes
deciding to classify posts as spam on the basis that they disliked
the contents. This discussion shows that the wisdom of that
concern still has relevance.
So you have some meaningless, out of date measurement which doesn't say
something is spam or not, but only classifies the severity of the SPAM.
Right.  Try again.
Until someone else comes up with a better content-blind objective
definition of spam, the BI is still the benchmark.
There is.  The charter and/or FAQs for the newsgroup.  And the FAQs for
a.w.w., which were agreed to by the majority of the regulars here,
classify this as spam.
LIA[SLAP]
FAQs aren't charters and are not enforceable.  Charters in unmoderated
alt gorups are also uninforceable.  Off charter in comp groups, on the
other hand, is something that can get your news provider's attention..
That's funny.  I've gotten quite a few hosting of accounts canceled
because I've reported spam.
Only if it's real spam.  What you're calling spam isn't.  There are
very specific rules.  
And according to the FAQ's in a.w.w, it is spam.  And this is.
 Hosting companies DO pay attention to spam
in alt groups, also.  And the good ones don't keep spammers around.
The good ones would ignore frivolus complaints.  The good ones know
that FAQ stands for Frequently asked Questions, not an inforcable
document and that charters mean nothing in non-moderated alt groups.
They're called alt. for a reason.  
Gee, it's the good ones who cancel accounts because I show them the
spam.  It is ENFORCEABLE (get a spell checker).  And it DOES mean something.
Sorry.  Your arguments don't work.  They're too far out of date.
But in this case the op is a troll well-known in a.w.w.  He just morphed
names, and it took a little while to catch on (good catch, Karl!).
SO? What does that have to do with comp.lang.php?  
I didn't start it.  I'm just trying to show people who Rafael
Martinez-Minuesa Martinez really is - a troll and a spammer.

You did start it.
It's there for everyone to see.

Wrong answer, Rafael.  You started it by spamming several newsgroups.

I've asked you in a very polite way to stick to the thread's topic,
which in case you have forgotten (the poor dimwit) is, or rather was
thanks to you, "Usability Job Opportunities".

You didn't because you just can't help making a bigger fool of
yourself, you are as arrogant as stupid.
If you had some sense, you will stop showing the world what a dumbass
you are and cease in your SPAM and SCAM attempts.

If I were you I would start by not posting that inexistent Corporation
in your signature anymore. Every time you do, you're adding more
weight to the criminal actions that might be taken against you.

Think Jerry, just for once, stop and THINK.

 

[RafaMinu]

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
47:33 GMT, Doug Baiter <[email protected]>
wrote:
In <[email protected]> on Thu, 03 Jan
2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle <[email protected]>
wrote:
Dick Gaughan wrote:
In <C3A2D429.F13D%[email protected]> on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
I don't get it.  Why was the original post spam?
It wasn't. It was many things, including being a
pathetically-badly disguised festering heap of marketing shite,
but it wasn't spam.
Those insisting it was spam are merely flaunting their
cluelessness. A post is *only* defined as being spam when it
breaches the Breidbart Index. Nobody has provided any evidence
that that particular bit of midge's effluence has exceeded the BI.
The Breidbart Index is woefully out of date.
When was that decided? I must have missed that debate.
It's been dismissed as virtually meaningless for quite a while, now.
SPAM has changed, but the index hasn't.
In a.w.w, ads of any kind are considered SPAM.
What aww might or might not consider is about as relevant outside
aww as a spider's fart. I'm not reading this thread in aww.
Fine.  I am reading this in a.w.w., and it is spam here.
The BI was adopted as a way of avoiding would-be Usenet vigilantes
deciding to classify posts as spam on the basis that they disliked
the contents. This discussion shows that the wisdom of that
concern still has relevance.
So you have some meaningless, out of date measurement which doesn't say
something is spam or not, but only classifies the severity of the SPAM.
Right.  Try again.
Until someone else comes up with a better content-blind objective
definition of spam, the BI is still the benchmark.
There is.  The charter and/or FAQs for the newsgroup.  And the FAQs for
a.w.w., which were agreed to by the majority of the regulars here,
classify this as spam.
LIA[SLAP]
FAQs aren't charters and are not enforceable.  Charters in unmoderated
alt gorups are also uninforceable.  Off charter in comp groups, on the
other hand, is something that can get your news provider's attention..
My bad - didn't look first at the group list. While perfectly
acceptable in AWW, in a comp group you're right in that its off
charter which *is* enforcable. Perhaps the zealots in AWW should
attempt to have it reclassified into a group that has an official
charter, but in the meantime nobody cares )
There's really no such thing as a valid charter in an alt.* group.
Alt.config is a bogus group of morons who want to turn alt into
another form of big8 groups.  Never gonna happen.  Of course,
moderated groups can and do control content but non-moderated groups
are freeform.  Stukkie will just have to learn to use a killfile
there.
Nevertheless, please accept my apologies for the mistake.
Accepted.  Unfortunately, Jerry won't stop crossposting back to
comp.*.
Sorry, Gary.  I have been attacked and maligned by two trolls in a.w.w
who have cross-posted to c.l.p. and other newsgroups.  I will not let
those go away.

You are the one that attacked me.
Funny that being a SCAMMER, you have the nerve to attack honest
people.
Proof that besides being a scammer, you are an idiotic moron as well.

However, it may not be a problem from at least one of these for much longer.

Kiss my arse, Jerry.

You'd like that, wouldn't you, Rafael.  But I'm not into boys.

I know Jerry, I know.
If you remember (probably not), in another occasion I have already
posted other records related to your sick preferences.
Please, don't make me do it again.

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 06 Jan 2008 17:06:01
GMT Gary L. Burnore scribed:

No, in general the entire thread is off charter for comp groups and
off topic in the alt groups. NOT spam.

Spam is well defined and has been for years. Jerry and a few dipshits
want to redefine spam. If they could succeed (they can't) they'd make
USENet unreadable as real spam would be free to pass.

Well, I admittedly might not be adhering to the technical definition of
"spam" but spam to me is anything off-subject which I find offensive and in
particular attempts to influence the reader in ways not germane to the
scope of the group. Be that as it may, I'm not going to argue about it and
promulgate the offense. Whatever it is or isn't, most of the posts in this
thread are definitely not wanted by the vast majority of perusers where
they do, indeed, appear. The posters of said material are clearly either
oblivious or indifferent to the fact. Ergo, one man's spam is another
man's crap - all of which is undesirable.

 

[RafaMinu]

He always does "ignore" folks

Jerry thinks he owns aww.  

I left that group because of him and the others just like him.  Was not
worth the grief.

Some folks in aww are knowledgeable there but jerry and his ilk pollutes the
group beyond belief.

Just watch him attack me again now that I have posted this

You're not the only one.
He's very fond of threatening anybody that disagrees with him.
On his own he is just a pathetic troll, problem is that for some
unfathomable reason some people in aww like to dance along with this
maniac.

 

[RafaMinu]

I did not say suing was illegal, idiot.

Yes, you did, moron
"I don't need to sue you.  There are other ways to handle people like
you.  I prefer the legal ways."

Memory problems, Jerry?
Man, you are a complete waste, you can't even recall what you've just
written ...

 

[RafaMinu]

"Neredbojias" says after the statements of:





I get around 50-60 emails per day trying to sell me sexual enhancement
drugs, I couldn't give a gorilla's gonads if somebody posts an ad for their
business on Usenet once a month so I posted the first response with light
hearted sarcasm. Now we have anarchy because people have grudges.

You posted the first response with light hearted sarcasm and you got a
wonderful and highly informative reply, according to your own words.
And everything was fine and cordial until Jerry showed up.

Anybody fancy a pint?

Sure, I'll buy the next one.

 

[Gary L. Burnore]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 06 Jan 2008 17:06:01
GMT Gary L. Burnore scribed:


Well, I admittedly might not be adhering to the technical definition of
"spam" but spam to me is anything off-subject which I find offensive and in
particular attempts to influence the reader in ways not germane to the
scope of the group. Be that as it may, I'm not going to argue about it and
promulgate the offense. Whatever it is or isn't, most of the posts in this
thread are definitely not wanted by the vast majority of perusers where
they do, indeed, appear. The posters of said material are clearly either
oblivious or indifferent to the fact. Ergo, one man's spam is another
man's crap - all of which is undesirable.

The problem is, calling something spam when it's not does two
things(*): It lessens the real meaning of the term, making it harder
to fight those things that are actual spam, and it makes the person
claiming it be spam to fight an unwinable fight.

Instead of calling it spam, call it what it is. Off topic. If you're
in a comp.* group, covered by an enforceable charter, that's enough to
get someone to stop in most cases.

(*) probably more than two but those are the two that are relevent.


--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³
Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 06 Jan 2008 18:28:35
GMT dE|_ scribed:

"Neredbojias" says after the statements of:

I get around 50-60 emails per day trying to sell me sexual enhancement
drugs, I couldn't give a gorilla's gonads if somebody posts an ad for
their business on Usenet once a month so I posted the first response
with light hearted sarcasm. Now we have anarchy because people have
grudges.

Yep. Although I don't like ads on newsgroups, I go for the light-hearted
sarcasm myself. However, compared to the storm of invective which followed
the latest incident, the actual ads pale in their "undesirablity quotient"
by a good margin. It's like those revolutionaries who overthrow a corrupt,
tyrannical government only to become corrupt and tyrannical themselves.
Geez.

Anybody fancy a pint?

I think I'd prefer a stein. -Or 6.

 

[RafaMinu]

And nothing there claims suing is illegal.  But you can't understand
basic English, troll.

"I don't need to sue you.  There are other ways to handle people like
you.  I prefer the legal ways."
What you're basically saying is that you prefer "the legal ways" as
opposite to "suing".

And you call yourself a programmer and can't even cipher a simple rule
of three?

 

[Jerry Stuckle]

"I don't need to sue you. There are other ways to handle people like
you. I prefer the legal ways."
What you're basically saying is that you prefer "the legal ways" as
opposite to "suing".

And you call yourself a programmer and can't even cipher a simple rule
of three?

Not at all, Raphael. Your logic is faulty - as usual.

All I said was there are other ways to handle you. Some of those other
ways are legal. Some are not. But I prefer to use the legal ways -
just to make it clear I'm not making any threats of illegal actions
against you.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
(e-mail address removed)
==================

 

[Jerry Stuckle]

Yes, you did, moron
"I don't need to sue you. There are other ways to handle people like
you. I prefer the legal ways."

Memory problems, Jerry?
Man, you are a complete waste, you can't even recall what you've just
written ...

Try again, idiot. Your logic is faulty.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
(e-mail address removed)
==================

 

[Jerry Stuckle]

RafaMinu wrote:
RafaMinu wrote:
Gary L. Burnore wrote:
Let's say I post the following:
Let's say that next time you do so on purpose I (and probably several
others) /will/ report it as spam. You're quite the hypocrite with your
(e-mail address removed).
In short: foad, thank you.
D'oh! Sorry John, but I don't recollect the election where you won the
right to dictate what gets posted here.
It's off charter in at least one of the comp groups. Do you care? Bet
not.
[snip advert]
Is that spam?
Advertisements aren't always spam. Now, if you were to ask if it were
an asanine thing to do, the answer would be yes. Do you care? Bet
not.
Forget Master Baiter. He's a troll who would love to see a.w.w. go to
the spammers.
The serious people in a.w.w. have him blocked. I don't even see his
posts unless someone copies him. Most others don't, either.
Most honest people have you blocked, because you are a scammer, as I
have proved in previous posts:
SCAM Alert - Jerry Stuckle
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.html.critique/browse_thread/thread...
FRAUD Alert - SMARTECH HOMES, INC.:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.html.critique/browse_thread/thread...
Besides other criminal actions ...
ROFLMAO! Try again, TROLL. As you've been told before3, in the United
States, a corporation can be registered in ANY state.
But your claims of fraud are criminal. Would you like me to contact the
Federal District Attorney's office? Being in the Washington, DC, area,
I do know people there. And some of them are my customers.
And the U.S. does have extradition agreements with Spain. How would you
like to have free room and board for the next 10 years, courtesy of the
U.S. Government?
And be sure about your answer. Because once they start, they won't stop
just because you ask them to - or apologize. They won't stop until they
have a verdict against you.
Of course, you might get off. And it would only cost you $20-50K US in
attorney's fees...
Since you asked for it:
We believe that you should all know that the member of these Groups
named Jerry Stuckle, who advertises himself as the MD of JDS Computer
Training Corp. is blatantly lying in each and every message he posts
with the unequivocally purpose of committing FRAUD.
There's no such JDS Computer Training corporation and there has never
been one.
The only JDS Computer company that existed in Maryland was forfeited
in 1996 by the Maryland Taxpayer Services Division.
In case you ignore it, for a Maryland entity to be forfeited, means
that its existence has been ended by the State for some delinquency.
If you have been the victim of any Jerry Stuckle's scams, or have been
approached by him in any way to offer you any kind of commercial
transaction involving his fake companies, you can report it to the
Federal Trade Commission or by contacting your State Attorneys
General:
http://www.consumerfraudreporting.org/stateattorneygenerallist.php
Your state Attorney General or local office of consumer protection is
also listed in the government pages of your telephone book.
Any kind of Internet Fraud that might have been committed by Jerry
Stuckler can be reported by contacting the U.S. government's Internet
Crime Complaint Center (IC3) at:
http://www.ic3.gov/complaint/
You may also contact the FBI Internet Fraud Complaint Center:
http://www.ifccfbi.gov/index.asp
If you have fallen victim of a Phishing scam originated at any of the
fake Jerry Stuckler's pages, such as the one at:
http://www.icca.org/member/memberpage.asp?id=400
you can report it at the Consumer Fraud Reporting website:
http://www.consumerfraudreporting.org/
If you are approached by Jerry Stuckler, please don't give out any
financial information, such as checking account and credit card
numbers; and especially your social Security number.
NEVER buy anything from a company that is listed as forfeited, as
Jerry Stuckler's are.
Don't even visit his Phishing and Spoofed websites or ask for more
information.
It is like feeding a stray cat. Give it one morsel of food, and it
will be there all the time.
We're sorry to have to be the ones to tell you all this, but the
bottom line is, if you want to secure your hard-earned money, then you
better have your feet on the ground, and don't let yourself be cheated
by the likes of Jerry Stuckler.
Thank you for your attention.
OK, you asked for it.
For your information, JDS Computer Training Corporation was NEVER
registered as a Maryland Corporation. So it could NEVER have been
forfeited as a Corporation. In fact, I didn't even live in Maryland in
1996. I challenge you to prove your statement.
For your information, JDS Computer Training Corporation was NEVER
registered as any Corporation.
It is a FRAUD sheme of yours.

WRONG ANSWER, FRAUD. It has been and is registered. You just can't
find a web page for it. Sorry, troll.

The income for this corporation for last year probably exceeded anything
you could possibly make in your lifetime.
Then you'll have to be made accountable for all that fraudulent
income.

Not at all, stoopid troll. It's all completely legal. Unlike your
shady 1001webs operation.

I also challenge you to prove any site which have been spoofed.
I have already.
However, since you have falsely accused me and my corporation of a
criminal offense. I have no choice but to tell everyone that:
Rafael Martinez-Minuesa Martinez ([email protected])
+34.620443347
Fax:
Puerto Marina
Benalmadena, MALAGA 29630
ES
makes completely unfounded accusations against other people. He is a
liar and cannot support his lies with facts. He is the fraud here.
Sue me, then.

You'd like that, wouldn't you? But I don't need to sue you. There are
other ways to handle people like you. I prefer the legal ways.

Obviously your idea of "legal ways" has nohing to do with what
respectable people understand as legal, you stupid SCAMMER.

Sorry, spammer Rafael. I follow the law. Unlike you.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
(e-mail address removed)
==================

 

[Jerry Stuckle]

Let's say I post the following:
Let's say that next time you do so on purpose I (and probably several
others) /will/ report it as spam. You're quite the hypocrite with your
(e-mail address removed).
In short: foad, thank you.
D'oh! Sorry John, but I don't recollect the election where you won the
right to dictate what gets posted here.
It's off charter in at least one of the comp groups. Do you care? Bet
not.
[snip advert]
Is that spam?
Advertisements aren't always spam. Now, if you were to ask if it were
an asanine thing to do, the answer would be yes. Do you care? Bet
not.
Forget Master Baiter. He's a troll who would love to see a.w.w. go to
the spammers.
Your post is off topic in comp.lang.php as well, Jerry. The least you
could do is drop it in the crosspost. When you don't, you're just as
bad as him.
Sorry, Gary,
Liar.
I just wanted to let everyone where he crossposted be aware
that he is a known troll.
All you're doing is showing yourself to be the fool. I, for one, know
how to ignore him. You're STILL crossposting so you're not at all
sorry.
Sorry, Gary,
Liar.
I have the right to defend myself, also. If you don't like
it, you can ignore the thread.
Same thing for you. You can ignore the posts you don't like instead
of calling them spam to try to silence that which you do not like to
read.

I will call spam what it is.

You'll call spam what you like and you call legal what you want as
well,
and you're obliviously wrong in both accounts.

You are sooo wrong, Rafael. But then you're wrong about a lot of
things, aren't you? ROFLMAO!

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
(e-mail address removed)
==================

 

[Gary L. Burnore]

[uk.net.web.authoring removed at their request]

"I don't need to sue you.  There are other ways to handle people like
you.  I prefer the legal ways."
What you're basically saying is that you prefer "the legal ways" as
opposite to "suing".

And you call yourself a programmer and can't even cipher a simple rule
of three?

Of course he can't. Do you actually expect him to admit he made a
mistake? Please.

BTW, can you check to see why your newsreader is adding spaces between
the newsgroups in the Newsgroups: line? We've been doins some resarch
to see where that's cropping into the net and it'd help.


--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³
Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================

 

[Cujo DeSockpuppet]

I didn't start this thread in your newsgroup, fuckhead. Talk to those
who did.

What part don't you understand?

You're continuing it, dipshit. Only a kook thinks they're exempt, kook.

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 06 Jan 2008 22:15:42
GMT Gary L. Burnore scribed:

The problem is, calling something spam when it's not does two
things(*): It lessens the real meaning of the term, making it harder
to fight those things that are actual spam, and it makes the person
claiming it be spam to fight an unwinable fight.

Instead of calling it spam, call it what it is. Off topic. If you're
in a comp.* group, covered by an enforceable charter, that's enough to
get someone to stop in most cases.

(*) probably more than two but those are the two that are relevent.

Well, I agree with your basic statement, but allowances should be made for
general usage because whether we like it or not, many people will so-
generalize typical "crap" as "spam" in blythe unconcern for the actual
definition of the term. This seems quite reasonable to me but I suppose
reasonability is out of place in these specific environs...

 

[Jerry Stuckle]

What, and miss you getting your azzz kicked? No way.


Nope, No one blocked. Your post are the only ones appearing other
than those of people here telling you to go away. Why did you add our
group in the first place?

Then your news hosting company has some of the others blocked. But
that's not surprising that they would be blocking certain people.

It's there now. That means you added it. Doesn't matter if it was
there before, you have control over the newsgroups line. It's up to
you to make sure the right groups are there. Can't do it? Ask for
help. Someone will tell you how.

No, it doesn't mean I added it. It means it was set when I replied to
the message. Check some of the other newsgroups where this is cross
posted. Or maybe check your newsgroup in google groups. Because others
are definitely posting to your newsgroup.

Maybe someone can help you figure out why you aren't seeing them?

Prove it and remove alt.fucknozzles. Here's your chance to prove
you're not a liar.

And miss my chance to respond to you? ROFLMAO. But it's been removed
from the FUP. As have other newsgroups.

And you reply.

Yep.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
(e-mail address removed)
==================

 

[Gary L. Burnore]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 06 Jan 2008 22:15:42
GMT Gary L. Burnore scribed:


Well, I agree with your basic statement, but allowances should be made for
general usage because whether we like it or not, many people will so-
generalize typical "crap" as "spam" in blythe unconcern for the actual
definition of the term. This seems quite reasonable to me but I suppose
reasonability is out of place in these specific environs...

The problem with general usage of the wrong term is that people know
that ISPs will Term an account when someone spams. So you send a spam
complaint but it's about something you just don't like to read or
something off topic and a lazy admin nukes someone's internet access
for no good reason.

If enough people call shoplifting pack of gum robbery long enough,
shuld the kid stealing a pack of gum be charged as a felon? Of course
not.

Alt.* is set up the way it is for a reason. So to the Big-8 groups.
Alt is mostly a free-for-all. If someone wants more control, they
propose a proper big 8 group with a valid charter. Then, in most
cases, the stuckkles of the world will back down when faced with
charter violations. A single advert to a comp group can be reported
as off charter. Not spam, but off charter.

All that said, yeah. I understand that you'd like a nice quiet place
to talk. Killfiles are good for that. I've NO problem if you want to
killfile me. In fact, in posts to stukkie, I've been adding
alt.usenet.kooks specifically so that you and anyone else who wishes
to ignore the threads about jerry can simply killfile on that. If it's
crossposted to alt.usenet.kooks, it's not really worth reading.





--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³
Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================

 

[dE|_]

Loads of people wrote in various unwanted groups, sh*t like;

Dick, I understand the nature of Gary. He's quite famous, it seems. But
it doesn't change the fact I OWN HIM. He keeps proving it.

Of course, you could just ignore this entire thread.

(I popped this in at a random point in the thread so don't take it
personally)

Whilst down the pub this evening there was a bunch of -just about 18- chavs
pissing about with the list of names for the pool table and poking each
other about the Arsenal match this afternoon.

Guess who came to mind?