Re: [OT]The Great Global Warming Swindle
I think we should use the homeless as fuel. They are a renewable resource. --- "Helio W." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Good for balance. > > Anyway fossil fuels must be replaced, > notwithstanding global warming. > > HW > > On 3/5/07, Adam Buckland > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Will watch it > > > > > ___ > Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com > Subscription Maintenance: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox > OT-free version of this list: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech > ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, > are the opinions of the author, and do not > constitute legal or medical advice. This statement > is added to the messages for those lawyers who are > too stupid to see the obvious. > Saint Patrick's Day Gear! http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingmike/2269253 ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT]The Great Global Warming Swindle
Good for balance. Anyway fossil fuels must be replaced, notwithstanding global warming. HW On 3/5/07, Adam Buckland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Will watch it > ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [OT]The Great Global Warming Swindle
I wonder if the Enviroterrorist have this guy killed. --- Adam Buckland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Will watch it > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Michael Madigan > Sent: 05 March 2007 01:34 > To: profox@leafe.com > Subject: [OT]The Great Global Warming Swindle > > http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindl > e/index.html > > > ___ > Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com > Subscription Maintenance: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox > OT-free version of this list: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech > ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, > are the opinions of the author, and do not > constitute legal or medical advice. This statement > is added to the messages for those lawyers who are > too stupid to see the obvious. > ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [OT] How Gore's Massive Energy Consumption Saves The World. LOL
Where am I supporting terrorism? --- Adam Buckland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nice to see you supporting nationalistic terrorism > in your T Shirt sales > Michael > > BTW It's the old revolutionary one about throwing > Britain (as the Trash) > out of Northern Ireland. > > > ::a > > > > > > ___ > Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com > Subscription Maintenance: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox > OT-free version of this list: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech > ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, > are the opinions of the author, and do not > constitute legal or medical advice. This statement > is added to the messages for those lawyers who are > too stupid to see the obvious. > ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [OT]The Great Global Warming Swindle
Will watch it -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Madigan Sent: 05 March 2007 01:34 To: profox@leafe.com Subject: [OT]The Great Global Warming Swindle http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindl e/index.html ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [OT] How Gore's Massive Energy Consumption Saves The World. LOL
Nice to see you supporting nationalistic terrorism in your T Shirt sales Michael BTW It's the old revolutionary one about throwing Britain (as the Trash) out of Northern Ireland. ::a ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
ProFox Advertisements for Monday, Mar 05, 2007
The following advertisements are brought to you as a free service of the ProFox mailing list. To enter your own ad, visit http://leafe.com/adpost.html, and follow the instructions on that page. There is no charge for posting an ad, and the only restriction is that all ads must in some way relate to the needs and interests of Visual FoxPro and FoxPro developers. ** ** Help support ProFox! If you're browsing anywhere on the leafe.com site, and see a Google ad that interests you, click it! This will help target the ads on the site better, and keep me from going broke! ;-) Please don't cheat and click everything, though - that's against Google's policy, and not what I want. Only click if the ad is something that truly interests you. Thanks for your support! ** Try a BroadBand Phone Service today !! Free Hardware, Free Activation and 50 dollars cash back on signup! see http://efgroup.net/packet8.html - Need DSL ? see http://efgroup.net/shopfordsl.html - Need DSL with NO BLOCKED PORTS? see http://efgroup.net/speakeasy.html - need eFax? Try it for Free for 30 days at http://efgroup.net/efax.html Need webhosting ?? see http://efgroup.net/efglunar.html LunarPages up'ed its storage to 35 Gigabytes the at same low monthly rate of 6.95/month plus 2500 GB/monthly throughput with *unlimited* mySql AND PostGreSql backend databases!!! Plus php, jsp, asp and perl support. - Need a Domain Name ? see http://efgroup.net/domains.html - need T1 ?? see http://efgroup.net/t1.html - on the fence about linux ? why not try a knoppix distro ? see http://efgroup.net/knoppix - Great Telecom Rates - see http://efgroup.net/efgcog.html - Need adhoc or on-demand conference calling for your clients? Rates as low as 9.8c / minute - see http://efgroup.net/ccall.html - got a good app and you need help with a white paper write-up? VFP Versions 5/6/7/8/9 email me - writeups at efgroup dot net Tired of that failing dot net project? Want to Blow Out Winforms ? Tired of writing Code to Update your data ? We'll take your Dot Net App and Convert back to Desktop, Com, Com+, or WebApp in less time than you have to complete your DOT NET APP ! see http://www.dotnetconversions.com for all the scoop! == Need to provide WORKING front-ends quickly for demo / sign off purposes with VFP 6/7/8/9 ? Take a look at Visual Kit 5 at http://www.ebendinger.com/us/default.asp - dl link at CNET doesn't work anymore - so check out Leafe.Com in the VFP area for a download. --- Want Lightening Fast ASCII output to printers with your VFP app? You Should Be Using DOSPrint ! DOSPrint is the easiest way to generate text-based reports for any dot-matrix printer, using all printer's features and speed. DOSPrint is based on the use of format files. This format files contains all report layout using a simple format based on sections. Then, mix a format file with a VFP data cursor and DOSPrint will generate a full text-based report, which can be sent directly to a dot-matrix printer or even to an standard text file.Take a look at DosPrint at http://victorespina.coolfreepages.com/infoproducto.php?id=38 --- Need an Accounting Solution written in VFP ? Take a Look at Software Masters (tm) at http://smvfp.com/sld002a.shtml Great Deals on Source Code!!! Need a SFA/CRM System written in VFP ? Take a Look at TeleMagic, 45 day Full Demo - see http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~TeleMagic~VFP for all the details. Need a MRP Solution written in VFP? Take a look at PCMRP - see http://www.pcmrp.com for more info Need Online Remote Computer Backup ? How About a Solution written in VFP ? Check out http://www.enveloc.com/ for more info Need Better FoxDiff Tools ? Check Out FoxTrak at http://www.hallogram.com/foxtrak/ Need Great Factoring Services for your Accounts Receivable? Check out http://www.texnational.com/cfm.htm Making the CrossOver from VB6 to VFP ? Need a little help ? Take a look at http://www.affordablecustomsoftware.com/vbtofox/ Need an online, continuous,hands-off fundraiser for your UserGroup or Non-Profit Organization? visit http://efgroup.net/fr for more info. New VFP9 HowTo Book Available http://www.lulu.com/content/106787 Visual FoxPro 9 for Developers by Michael Cummings [this book is off the market currently for an update] Description: Designed to help you rapidly build Visual FoxPro applications. Targeted to working software developers, we rapidly cover the basics of table design, SQL and xBase navigation. We build local views (VFP editable queries) for record editing. We quickly move into building a minimalist framework that can be used to build any size application. The material is very hands on. [wcs note - most of the material here w
[NF] can VFP handle the no-spam list?
> Bill -- this isn't Fox, and is probably [OT], but at the very > least, [NF]. But Mike, I was just getting around to the best part! Bill > Michael J. Babcock, MCP ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Problem getting latest price in subquery join (VFP9 app and database)
I recently added a price history child table for my material vendor, and now I'm trying to get the vendor record with the latest price record. I've got some sort of logic flaw in my SQL and was hoping someone might see it. It's one of those things where I've been staring at this screen too long tonight and need a fresh set of eyes.I was going to use the dActive field, but if a user updates the price and just leaves the active date the same, I'm wondering if I shouldn't just make the dactive an internal field that gets set immediately and just use the MAX(iid) so that I get the latest record? Here's the SQL: SELECT v1.iid, ; v1.nVendorID, ; c1.cCompany, ; v1.cSKU, ; p1.nUnitCost, ; p1.dActive; FROM eiwdb!luMatlVendors v1 ; JOIN eiwdb!luMatlPrices p1 ; ON p1.nMatlVendID = v1.iid ; JOIN ; (SELECT iid, nMatlVendID, MAX(dActive); FROM eiwdb!luMatlPrices p2 ; GROUP BY 1, 2) d1 ; ON d1.iid = p1.iid ; JOIN eiwdb!luCompanies c1 ; ON c1.iid = v1.nVendorID ; WHERE v1.nMatlID = ?viMatlID ; ORDER BY c1.cCompany Here's the dataset (screenshot of BROWSE showing data) for this query: http://mbsoftwaresolutions.com/images/dataset.jpeg The red circles show the relationship of the parent (vendor) table to the child (prices) table. The blue dots next to the dActive values show the records I would expect to have come back. However, this is the result of my query, and you can see that I get records with older prices as well (indicated with red dots next to price): http://mbsoftwaresolutions.com/images/resultset.jpeg Any tips on how to only get the latest price record, and/or how to handle this kind of setup in design? I thought I was on target, but perhaps need an adjustment? If no solution tips by morning, I'll put the CREATE CURSOR / INSERT statements together to help others test a potential solution to this. For now, it's off to bed for this weary developer. tia, --Michael -- Michael J. Babcock, MCP MB Software Solutions, LLC http://mbsoftwaresolutions.com http://fabmate.com "Work smarter, not harder, with MBSS custom software solutions!" ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: Video CNN
Bill Arnold wrote: Bill -- this isn't Fox, and is probably [OT], but at the very least, [NF]. -- Michael J. Babcock, MCP MB Software Solutions, LLC http://mbsoftwaresolutions.com http://fabmate.com "Work smarter, not harder, with MBSS custom software solutions!" ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT
The three most important things in stopping power for any weapon are: 1) Shot placement. 2) Shot placement 3) Shot placement Regards, LelandJ john harvey wrote: > I've got a couple of Barettas, a couple of S&W autos and a Glock. The Glock > is the one with the lightest pull. I like the Smiths, but they are .9mms and > I would rather carry a .40 cal. > > John > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Leland F. Jackson, CPA > Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 9:39 PM > To: ProFox Email List > Subject: Re: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT > > It seem to me that the trigger pull on the glock may be too light, if a > DEA agent could accidentally discharge the weapon while trying to > holster it. That makes me wonder if a glock might be discharge by an > accidental trigger pull when aimed at a target of an arrest or during > other hazardous duty. I've never fired a glock, but my understanding is > the glock has a lighter trigger pull than the Beretta, at least on the > first shot. The Beretta has a double action first shot (eg full trigger > pull), but subsequent shots are in a single action lighter trigger pull > mode (eg the hammer is clocked back and ready to go). > > Regards, > > LelandJ > > john harvey wrote: > >> I carry a Glock model 27 .40 cal. It has no safety other than the little >> second trigger. Having said that, if I were to hand it to someone, I would >> lock the slide back and remove the clip. ALL GUNS ARE LOADED, EVEN >> > UNLOADED > >> ONES! >> >> The Memphis PD had an incident during a training exercise several years >> > ago > >> where one officer shot another. Now they and most area LE agencies use >> > "red > >> handled" guns. Those are guns that have been disabled and the grips are >> painted red. That is the safest route for training on handgun retention or >> disarming someone. If you were doing a demonstration in front of a bunch >> > of > >> people, I would think you would empty the weapon (without discharging) and >> then do the demo! >> >> John >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >> Of Leland F. Jackson, CPA >> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 9:09 PM >> To: ProFox Email List >> Subject: Re: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT >> >> The video just goes to show how easily accidents can happen, when you >> don't have your head in the game. I assume the agent thought the weapon >> was unloaded, but evidentially: >> >> 1) A magazine with live ammo was inserted into the gun. The DEA agent >> should have hit the magazine release button to check the status of the >> magazine before proceeding with the lecture. >> 2) The slide had been racked back and locked. >> 3) The slide was then released loading a round into the barrel. >> 4) If I understand it correctly, a glock does not have a safety and >> only fires in a double action mode, (eg a full trigger pull is required >> every time the gun is fired) , so somehow the DEA agent managed to pull >> the trigger while trying to holster the gun. This is strange because >> the glock folks say the trigger pull is the safety mechanism. >> >> He was lucky he only injured his foot and pride and nothing more serious. >> >> Regards, >> >> LelandJ >> >> Michael Madigan wrote: >> >> >>> They let college jocks be DEA agents? Don't you have >>> to be able to read and write? >>> >>> >>> --- john harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> I think I heard that he was an ex-NFL player, or maybe it was just a college jock, but either way John -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Madigan Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 8:47 PM To: ProFox Email List Subject: RE: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT Are you sure that he's a DEA Agent and not a Rastafarian Ganja User? --- john harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This happened a couple of years ago. The latest I > have heard is he is suing > some people for making him look stupid! Hahaha > > > Kinda > reminds me of the wife > asking, "does this dress make me look fat?" The > honest answer is NO. It's > all the fat oozing out of it that makes her look > fat, and it was this idiot > who made himself look stupid. There should > > > probably > be an IQ test > administered before allowing someone to even hold > one! > > John > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Leland F. Jackson, CPA > Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 8:24 PM > T
RE: Video CNN
> > The question is "how do we stop that from happening"? > > I see your two desires - unfettered, untracked, anonymous > access - and the ability to stop folks who are abusing the system - as mutually > exclusive. > > If I can access 'the system' anonymously, then I can send out > spam and you can't find (thus, stop) me. You're missing a step: the no-spam list. With that in place, then it becomes a violation to send unsolicited spam to people who have registered their wish not to receive spam. Complaint comes in from recipient to ISP who permitted entry of the spam ... ISP refers to (30 day limited details; for this use only) logs of email rec'd from IP's it controls, tracks mailing to an IP - and an account - and culprit is identified. ISP does nothing 'x' number of times = license suspended; keeps ignoring = license cancelled. I'm talking about getting rid of 80% of it. There will always be exceptions, unfortunately. Bear in mind that spam's nature is exponential growth. Today we're getting 10x what we got last year - and that's a trend that sooner or later will demand a solution. I'm worried that if a solution that serves us isn't implemented, we'll get one that serves our rulers, e.g. postage stamps for email and/or positive identification and permanent records. The no-spam list approach can make a difference without draconian measures. > > First of all, regardless of what happens next, we need a rule that > > says we have a right to not be subjected to unwanted advertising, > > solicitations and dangerous mail. Without that, there is no > basis to > > proceed. > > Kinda like the advertisements at the front of DVDs. And billboards on > the highways. And full page ads in the newspaper. And banner > ads on Web sites. I don't want any of that.. Oh, wait. That's a separate issue. This is more like junk calls and faxes, where the sender is literally stealing our resources (machine cycles, storage space, time and attention) and effectively forcing us to install software to block his garbage, which costs in other ways. On the other junk we're exposed to, my theory (belief) is that we'd all be much better off without in-our-face advertising of any sort. Advertising is a resource, very valuable when needed, but worthless and very annoying when not needed - which is most of the time. If it were up to me, I'd banish it all to the Internet and invite people search when they want to buy something. Now, I know that the argument is advertising fuels our economy, but I say we don't need that kind of fuel, even if it means slowing things down. Besides, we've got a ton of other things to do with the economy that we're not doing as it is. > > I will attempt to get past this by saying that, for the most part, > > rules are in place regarding the same situation as it applies to cell > > phones and faxes, which are just different devices that handle digital > > transmissions. Thus, my first proposition would be to institute the > > same mechanics for Internet based digital transmissions (the no-spam > > list). I would hold the relative success with cell phones and faxes is > > an example of an approach that more or less works - at least knocking > > down the volume considerably by getting honest business people who are > > just taking advantage of something that's free and readily available > > to them. > > But the difference is that the sender has to pay for cell > phone and fax spam. Maybe not a lot, but there is still a definitive cost involved. > Spam costs zilch, particularly if you're relying on pwned > Windows machines. Free email is a good thing, especially for poor folks, and we should keep it free. You know darn well there are going to be forces at work to ruin it, spam is one such, but not the only. Look at our phone bills and all those taxes ... > > That leaves us with a smaller group to deal with: those who will break > > the rules for their purposes, be they promotional/financial or > > destructive. > > > > At this point, we turn to the ISP's, the Internet license holders who > > are receiving incoming traffic at the local level to respect the > > shared no-spam list within a certain threshold, with their license at > > risk. > > I thought we needed anonymous access... so how is the ISP going to find > me if I'm anonymous? I suspect I'm missing something in your proposal. See above on limited record keeping at the ISP level for this purpose. Beyond say, 30 days, ISP cannot keep records. Both sides accommodated. > I still think a few frequent flyer miles and a box of shells would be > the least expensive and most effective method. /sigh/ ? Bill > Whil ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the op
Re: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT
I've have a Beretta PX4 and 90-TWO, both in 9MM. My favorite is the 90-TWO, as I have a much easier time in hitting the target with it. The PX4 take a little more effort to insure the shot is in the zone. Regards, LelandJ john harvey wrote: > I've got a couple of Barettas, a couple of S&W autos and a Glock. The Glock > is the one with the lightest pull. I like the Smiths, but they are .9mms and > I would rather carry a .40 cal. > > John > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Leland F. Jackson, CPA > Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 9:39 PM > To: ProFox Email List > Subject: Re: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT > > It seem to me that the trigger pull on the glock may be too light, if a > DEA agent could accidentally discharge the weapon while trying to > holster it. That makes me wonder if a glock might be discharge by an > accidental trigger pull when aimed at a target of an arrest or during > other hazardous duty. I've never fired a glock, but my understanding is > the glock has a lighter trigger pull than the Beretta, at least on the > first shot. The Beretta has a double action first shot (eg full trigger > pull), but subsequent shots are in a single action lighter trigger pull > mode (eg the hammer is clocked back and ready to go). > > Regards, > > LelandJ > > john harvey wrote: > >> I carry a Glock model 27 .40 cal. It has no safety other than the little >> second trigger. Having said that, if I were to hand it to someone, I would >> lock the slide back and remove the clip. ALL GUNS ARE LOADED, EVEN >> > UNLOADED > >> ONES! >> >> The Memphis PD had an incident during a training exercise several years >> > ago > >> where one officer shot another. Now they and most area LE agencies use >> > "red > >> handled" guns. Those are guns that have been disabled and the grips are >> painted red. That is the safest route for training on handgun retention or >> disarming someone. If you were doing a demonstration in front of a bunch >> > of > >> people, I would think you would empty the weapon (without discharging) and >> then do the demo! >> >> John >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >> Of Leland F. Jackson, CPA >> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 9:09 PM >> To: ProFox Email List >> Subject: Re: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT >> >> The video just goes to show how easily accidents can happen, when you >> don't have your head in the game. I assume the agent thought the weapon >> was unloaded, but evidentially: >> >> 1) A magazine with live ammo was inserted into the gun. The DEA agent >> should have hit the magazine release button to check the status of the >> magazine before proceeding with the lecture. >> 2) The slide had been racked back and locked. >> 3) The slide was then released loading a round into the barrel. >> 4) If I understand it correctly, a glock does not have a safety and >> only fires in a double action mode, (eg a full trigger pull is required >> every time the gun is fired) , so somehow the DEA agent managed to pull >> the trigger while trying to holster the gun. This is strange because >> the glock folks say the trigger pull is the safety mechanism. >> >> He was lucky he only injured his foot and pride and nothing more serious. >> >> Regards, >> >> LelandJ >> >> Michael Madigan wrote: >> >> >>> They let college jocks be DEA agents? Don't you have >>> to be able to read and write? >>> >>> >>> --- john harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> I think I heard that he was an ex-NFL player, or maybe it was just a college jock, but either way John -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Madigan Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 8:47 PM To: ProFox Email List Subject: RE: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT Are you sure that he's a DEA Agent and not a Rastafarian Ganja User? --- john harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This happened a couple of years ago. The latest I > have heard is he is suing > some people for making him look stupid! Hahaha > > > Kinda > reminds me of the wife > asking, "does this dress make me look fat?" The > honest answer is NO. It's > all the fat oozing out of it that makes her look > fat, and it was this idiot > who made himself look stupid. There should > > > probably > be an IQ test > administered before allowing someone to even hold > one! > > John > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
RE: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT
I've got a couple of Barettas, a couple of S&W autos and a Glock. The Glock is the one with the lightest pull. I like the Smiths, but they are .9mms and I would rather carry a .40 cal. John -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Leland F. Jackson, CPA Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 9:39 PM To: ProFox Email List Subject: Re: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT It seem to me that the trigger pull on the glock may be too light, if a DEA agent could accidentally discharge the weapon while trying to holster it. That makes me wonder if a glock might be discharge by an accidental trigger pull when aimed at a target of an arrest or during other hazardous duty. I've never fired a glock, but my understanding is the glock has a lighter trigger pull than the Beretta, at least on the first shot. The Beretta has a double action first shot (eg full trigger pull), but subsequent shots are in a single action lighter trigger pull mode (eg the hammer is clocked back and ready to go). Regards, LelandJ john harvey wrote: > I carry a Glock model 27 .40 cal. It has no safety other than the little > second trigger. Having said that, if I were to hand it to someone, I would > lock the slide back and remove the clip. ALL GUNS ARE LOADED, EVEN UNLOADED > ONES! > > The Memphis PD had an incident during a training exercise several years ago > where one officer shot another. Now they and most area LE agencies use "red > handled" guns. Those are guns that have been disabled and the grips are > painted red. That is the safest route for training on handgun retention or > disarming someone. If you were doing a demonstration in front of a bunch of > people, I would think you would empty the weapon (without discharging) and > then do the demo! > > John > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Leland F. Jackson, CPA > Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 9:09 PM > To: ProFox Email List > Subject: Re: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT > > The video just goes to show how easily accidents can happen, when you > don't have your head in the game. I assume the agent thought the weapon > was unloaded, but evidentially: > > 1) A magazine with live ammo was inserted into the gun. The DEA agent > should have hit the magazine release button to check the status of the > magazine before proceeding with the lecture. > 2) The slide had been racked back and locked. > 3) The slide was then released loading a round into the barrel. > 4) If I understand it correctly, a glock does not have a safety and > only fires in a double action mode, (eg a full trigger pull is required > every time the gun is fired) , so somehow the DEA agent managed to pull > the trigger while trying to holster the gun. This is strange because > the glock folks say the trigger pull is the safety mechanism. > > He was lucky he only injured his foot and pride and nothing more serious. > > Regards, > > LelandJ > > Michael Madigan wrote: > >> They let college jocks be DEA agents? Don't you have >> to be able to read and write? >> >> >> --- john harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> I think I heard that he was an ex-NFL player, or >>> maybe it was just a college >>> jock, but either way >>> >>> John >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >>> Of Michael Madigan >>> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 8:47 PM >>> To: ProFox Email List >>> Subject: RE: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT >>> >>> Are you sure that he's a DEA Agent and not a >>> Rastafarian Ganja User? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> --- john harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> This happened a couple of years ago. The latest I have heard is he is suing some people for making him look stupid! Hahaha >>> Kinda >>> >>> reminds me of the wife asking, "does this dress make me look fat?" The honest answer is NO. It's all the fat oozing out of it that makes her look fat, and it was this idiot who made himself look stupid. There should >>> probably >>> >>> be an IQ test administered before allowing someone to even hold one! John -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Leland F. Jackson, CPA Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 8:24 PM To: profox@leafe.com Subject: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT Whoops, talking about shooting yourself in the >>> foot! >>> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhIJOVD8hwY&NR or http://tinyurl.com/2mvlbh Regards, LelandJ [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.
Re: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT
It seem to me that the trigger pull on the glock may be too light, if a DEA agent could accidentally discharge the weapon while trying to holster it. That makes me wonder if a glock might be discharge by an accidental trigger pull when aimed at a target of an arrest or during other hazardous duty. I've never fired a glock, but my understanding is the glock has a lighter trigger pull than the Beretta, at least on the first shot. The Beretta has a double action first shot (eg full trigger pull), but subsequent shots are in a single action lighter trigger pull mode (eg the hammer is clocked back and ready to go). Regards, LelandJ john harvey wrote: > I carry a Glock model 27 .40 cal. It has no safety other than the little > second trigger. Having said that, if I were to hand it to someone, I would > lock the slide back and remove the clip. ALL GUNS ARE LOADED, EVEN UNLOADED > ONES! > > The Memphis PD had an incident during a training exercise several years ago > where one officer shot another. Now they and most area LE agencies use "red > handled" guns. Those are guns that have been disabled and the grips are > painted red. That is the safest route for training on handgun retention or > disarming someone. If you were doing a demonstration in front of a bunch of > people, I would think you would empty the weapon (without discharging) and > then do the demo! > > John > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Leland F. Jackson, CPA > Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 9:09 PM > To: ProFox Email List > Subject: Re: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT > > The video just goes to show how easily accidents can happen, when you > don't have your head in the game. I assume the agent thought the weapon > was unloaded, but evidentially: > > 1) A magazine with live ammo was inserted into the gun. The DEA agent > should have hit the magazine release button to check the status of the > magazine before proceeding with the lecture. > 2) The slide had been racked back and locked. > 3) The slide was then released loading a round into the barrel. > 4) If I understand it correctly, a glock does not have a safety and > only fires in a double action mode, (eg a full trigger pull is required > every time the gun is fired) , so somehow the DEA agent managed to pull > the trigger while trying to holster the gun. This is strange because > the glock folks say the trigger pull is the safety mechanism. > > He was lucky he only injured his foot and pride and nothing more serious. > > Regards, > > LelandJ > > Michael Madigan wrote: > >> They let college jocks be DEA agents? Don't you have >> to be able to read and write? >> >> >> --- john harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> I think I heard that he was an ex-NFL player, or >>> maybe it was just a college >>> jock, but either way >>> >>> John >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >>> Of Michael Madigan >>> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 8:47 PM >>> To: ProFox Email List >>> Subject: RE: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT >>> >>> Are you sure that he's a DEA Agent and not a >>> Rastafarian Ganja User? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> --- john harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> This happened a couple of years ago. The latest I have heard is he is suing some people for making him look stupid! Hahaha >>> Kinda >>> >>> reminds me of the wife asking, "does this dress make me look fat?" The honest answer is NO. It's all the fat oozing out of it that makes her look fat, and it was this idiot who made himself look stupid. There should >>> probably >>> >>> be an IQ test administered before allowing someone to even hold one! John -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Leland F. Jackson, CPA Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 8:24 PM To: profox@leafe.com Subject: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT Whoops, talking about shooting yourself in the >>> foot! >>> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhIJOVD8hwY&NR or http://tinyurl.com/2mvlbh Regards, LelandJ [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT
I carry a Glock model 27 .40 cal. It has no safety other than the little second trigger. Having said that, if I were to hand it to someone, I would lock the slide back and remove the clip. ALL GUNS ARE LOADED, EVEN UNLOADED ONES! The Memphis PD had an incident during a training exercise several years ago where one officer shot another. Now they and most area LE agencies use "red handled" guns. Those are guns that have been disabled and the grips are painted red. That is the safest route for training on handgun retention or disarming someone. If you were doing a demonstration in front of a bunch of people, I would think you would empty the weapon (without discharging) and then do the demo! John -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Leland F. Jackson, CPA Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 9:09 PM To: ProFox Email List Subject: Re: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT The video just goes to show how easily accidents can happen, when you don't have your head in the game. I assume the agent thought the weapon was unloaded, but evidentially: 1) A magazine with live ammo was inserted into the gun. The DEA agent should have hit the magazine release button to check the status of the magazine before proceeding with the lecture. 2) The slide had been racked back and locked. 3) The slide was then released loading a round into the barrel. 4) If I understand it correctly, a glock does not have a safety and only fires in a double action mode, (eg a full trigger pull is required every time the gun is fired) , so somehow the DEA agent managed to pull the trigger while trying to holster the gun. This is strange because the glock folks say the trigger pull is the safety mechanism. He was lucky he only injured his foot and pride and nothing more serious. Regards, LelandJ Michael Madigan wrote: > They let college jocks be DEA agents? Don't you have > to be able to read and write? > > > --- john harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> I think I heard that he was an ex-NFL player, or >> maybe it was just a college >> jock, but either way >> >> John >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >> Of Michael Madigan >> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 8:47 PM >> To: ProFox Email List >> Subject: RE: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT >> >> Are you sure that he's a DEA Agent and not a >> Rastafarian Ganja User? >> >> >> >> >> --- john harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>> This happened a couple of years ago. The latest I >>> have heard is he is suing >>> some people for making him look stupid! Hahaha >>> >> Kinda >> >>> reminds me of the wife >>> asking, "does this dress make me look fat?" The >>> honest answer is NO. It's >>> all the fat oozing out of it that makes her look >>> fat, and it was this idiot >>> who made himself look stupid. There should >>> >> probably >> >>> be an IQ test >>> administered before allowing someone to even hold >>> one! >>> >>> John >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >>> Of Leland F. Jackson, CPA >>> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 8:24 PM >>> To: profox@leafe.com >>> Subject: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT >>> >>> Whoops, talking about shooting yourself in the >>> >> foot! >> >>> >>> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhIJOVD8hwY&NR >>> >>> or >>> >>> http://tinyurl.com/2mvlbh >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> LelandJ >>> >>> >>> [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT
The video just goes to show how easily accidents can happen, when you don't have your head in the game. I assume the agent thought the weapon was unloaded, but evidentially: 1) A magazine with live ammo was inserted into the gun. The DEA agent should have hit the magazine release button to check the status of the magazine before proceeding with the lecture. 2) The slide had been racked back and locked. 3) The slide was then released loading a round into the barrel. 4) If I understand it correctly, a glock does not have a safety and only fires in a double action mode, (eg a full trigger pull is required every time the gun is fired) , so somehow the DEA agent managed to pull the trigger while trying to holster the gun. This is strange because the glock folks say the trigger pull is the safety mechanism. He was lucky he only injured his foot and pride and nothing more serious. Regards, LelandJ Michael Madigan wrote: > They let college jocks be DEA agents? Don't you have > to be able to read and write? > > > --- john harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> I think I heard that he was an ex-NFL player, or >> maybe it was just a college >> jock, but either way >> >> John >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >> Of Michael Madigan >> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 8:47 PM >> To: ProFox Email List >> Subject: RE: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT >> >> Are you sure that he's a DEA Agent and not a >> Rastafarian Ganja User? >> >> >> >> >> --- john harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>> This happened a couple of years ago. The latest I >>> have heard is he is suing >>> some people for making him look stupid! Hahaha >>> >> Kinda >> >>> reminds me of the wife >>> asking, "does this dress make me look fat?" The >>> honest answer is NO. It's >>> all the fat oozing out of it that makes her look >>> fat, and it was this idiot >>> who made himself look stupid. There should >>> >> probably >> >>> be an IQ test >>> administered before allowing someone to even hold >>> one! >>> >>> John >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >>> Of Leland F. Jackson, CPA >>> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 8:24 PM >>> To: profox@leafe.com >>> Subject: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT >>> >>> Whoops, talking about shooting yourself in the >>> >> foot! >> >>> >>> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhIJOVD8hwY&NR >>> >>> or >>> >>> http://tinyurl.com/2mvlbh >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> LelandJ >>> >>> >>> [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
[NF] MySQL IFNULL() Question
I'm trying to substitute an empty string when a derived field returns None
(null).
In VFP 9 I can do it like this:
artfield = '(SELECT ICASE(musPerfs.arttype == "P", ' ;
+ 'ALLTRIM(musPeople.firstname) + " "
+ ALLTRIM(musPeople.lastname), ' ;
+ 'musPerfs.arttype == "B", ' ;
+ 'musBands.bandname," ") ' ;
+ 'FROM musPerfs ' ;
+ 'JOIN musPeople ON musPeople.pkid = musPerfs.artid ' ;
+ 'JOIN musBands ON musBands.pkid = musPerfs.artid ' ;
+ 'WHERE musPerfs.songid = musSongs.pkid)'
thequery = 'SELECT musSongs.song, IIF(ISNULL(' + artfield + '),"", ' ;
+ artfield + ') AS artist ' ;
+ 'FROM musSongs ' ;
+ 'JOIN musPerfs ON musPerfs.songid = musSongs.pkid ' ;
+ 'JOIN musRecs ON musRecs.perfid = musPerfs.pkid ' ;
+ 'ORDER BY song, artist'
That query works fine in VFP.
However, when I try to do the equivalent thing in MySQL, as follows, I get
a SQL syntax error:
artfield = '(SELECT CASE musPerfs.arttype WHEN "P" ' ;
+ 'THEN CONCAT(musPeople.firstname,"
",musPeople.lastname) ' ;
+ 'WHEN "B" THEN musbands.bandname ELSE " " END ' ;
+ 'FROM musPerfs ' ;
+ 'JOIN musPeople ON musPeople.pkid = musPerfs.artid ' ;
+ 'JOIN musBands ON musBands.pkid = musPerfs.artid ' ;
+ 'WHERE musPerfs.songid = musSongs.pkid)'
thequery = 'SELECT musSongs.songname, CASE IFNULL(' + artField + ') THEN "
" ELSE ' ;
+ artField + ' END ' ;
+ 'AS artist, ' ;
+ 'musRecs.pkid ' ;
+ 'FROM musSongs ' ;
+ 'JOIN musPerfs ON musPerfs.songid = musSongs.pkid ' ;
+ 'JOIN musRecs ON musRecs.perfid = musPerfs.pkid ' ;
+ 'ORDER BY songname, artist'
The query works fine if I don't try to use the IFNULL() substitution, so
it's not the use of double quote delimiters in MySQL.
It doesn't matter whether I use the artfield variable or write the whole
subquery out twice. I still get:
"'You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds
to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near ') THEN " "
ELSE (SELECT CASE musPerfs.arttype WHEN "P" THEN CONCAT(musPeople.fir' at
line 1')"
Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.
Ken Dibble
www.stic-cil.org
___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT
Apparently not! John -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Madigan Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 8:51 PM To: ProFox Email List Subject: RE: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT They let college jocks be DEA agents? Don't you have to be able to read and write? --- john harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think I heard that he was an ex-NFL player, or > maybe it was just a college > jock, but either way > > John > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Michael Madigan > Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 8:47 PM > To: ProFox Email List > Subject: RE: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT > > Are you sure that he's a DEA Agent and not a > Rastafarian Ganja User? > > > > > --- john harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This happened a couple of years ago. The latest I > > have heard is he is suing > > some people for making him look stupid! Hahaha > Kinda > > reminds me of the wife > > asking, "does this dress make me look fat?" The > > honest answer is NO. It's > > all the fat oozing out of it that makes her look > > fat, and it was this idiot > > who made himself look stupid. There should > probably > > be an IQ test > > administered before allowing someone to even hold > > one! > > > > John > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > Of Leland F. Jackson, CPA > > Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 8:24 PM > > To: profox@leafe.com > > Subject: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT > > > > Whoops, talking about shooting yourself in the > foot! > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhIJOVD8hwY&NR > > > > or > > > > http://tinyurl.com/2mvlbh > > > > > > Regards, > > > > LelandJ > > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT
They let college jocks be DEA agents? Don't you have to be able to read and write? --- john harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think I heard that he was an ex-NFL player, or > maybe it was just a college > jock, but either way > > John > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Michael Madigan > Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 8:47 PM > To: ProFox Email List > Subject: RE: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT > > Are you sure that he's a DEA Agent and not a > Rastafarian Ganja User? > > > > > --- john harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This happened a couple of years ago. The latest I > > have heard is he is suing > > some people for making him look stupid! Hahaha > Kinda > > reminds me of the wife > > asking, "does this dress make me look fat?" The > > honest answer is NO. It's > > all the fat oozing out of it that makes her look > > fat, and it was this idiot > > who made himself look stupid. There should > probably > > be an IQ test > > administered before allowing someone to even hold > > one! > > > > John > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > Of Leland F. Jackson, CPA > > Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 8:24 PM > > To: profox@leafe.com > > Subject: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT > > > > Whoops, talking about shooting yourself in the > foot! > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhIJOVD8hwY&NR > > > > or > > > > http://tinyurl.com/2mvlbh > > > > > > Regards, > > > > LelandJ > > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT
I think I heard that he was an ex-NFL player, or maybe it was just a college jock, but either way John -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Madigan Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 8:47 PM To: ProFox Email List Subject: RE: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT Are you sure that he's a DEA Agent and not a Rastafarian Ganja User? --- john harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This happened a couple of years ago. The latest I > have heard is he is suing > some people for making him look stupid! Hahaha Kinda > reminds me of the wife > asking, "does this dress make me look fat?" The > honest answer is NO. It's > all the fat oozing out of it that makes her look > fat, and it was this idiot > who made himself look stupid. There should probably > be an IQ test > administered before allowing someone to even hold > one! > > John > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Leland F. Jackson, CPA > Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 8:24 PM > To: profox@leafe.com > Subject: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT > > Whoops, talking about shooting yourself in the foot! > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhIJOVD8hwY&NR > > or > > http://tinyurl.com/2mvlbh > > > Regards, > > LelandJ > > [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: Fox's Half Hour News Hour at 10:00 EST tonight on Fox New Channel
Michael Madigan wrote: > Don't forget Fox's Half Hour News Hour at 10:00 EST > tonight on Fox New Channel. > > Saint Patrick's Day Gear! > http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingmike/2269253 > > BZZZT! Foul.that's a $1 payable fine to the Hotlanta Slush Fund (aka FoxForward 2K7 conference)... [OT] Mike! -- Michael J. Babcock, MCP MB Software Solutions, LLC http://mbsoftwaresolutions.com http://fabmate.com "Work smarter, not harder, with MBSS custom software solutions!" ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT
Are you sure that he's a DEA Agent and not a Rastafarian Ganja User? --- john harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This happened a couple of years ago. The latest I > have heard is he is suing > some people for making him look stupid! Hahaha Kinda > reminds me of the wife > asking, "does this dress make me look fat?" The > honest answer is NO. It's > all the fat oozing out of it that makes her look > fat, and it was this idiot > who made himself look stupid. There should probably > be an IQ test > administered before allowing someone to even hold > one! > > John > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Leland F. Jackson, CPA > Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 8:24 PM > To: profox@leafe.com > Subject: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT > > Whoops, talking about shooting yourself in the foot! > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhIJOVD8hwY&NR > > or > > http://tinyurl.com/2mvlbh > > > Regards, > > LelandJ > > [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT
This happened a couple of years ago. The latest I have heard is he is suing some people for making him look stupid! Hahaha Kinda reminds me of the wife asking, "does this dress make me look fat?" The honest answer is NO. It's all the fat oozing out of it that makes her look fat, and it was this idiot who made himself look stupid. There should probably be an IQ test administered before allowing someone to even hold one! John -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Leland F. Jackson, CPA Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 8:24 PM To: profox@leafe.com Subject: [OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT Whoops, talking about shooting yourself in the foot! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhIJOVD8hwY&NR or http://tinyurl.com/2mvlbh Regards, LelandJ [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: Fox's Half Hour News Hour at 10:00 EST tonight on Fox New Channel
Many years ago a friend of mine told his 4 year old daughter "NOTHING ON TV IS REAL". I think he may have been right! Jim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Madigan Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 9:16 PM To: profox@leafe.com Subject:Fox's Half Hour News Hour at 10:00 EST tonight on Fox New Channel Don't forget Fox's Half Hour News Hour at 10:00 EST tonight on Fox New Channel. Saint Patrick's Day Gear! http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingmike/2269253 [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
[OT] DEA AGENT SHOOTS OWN FOOT
Whoops, talking about shooting yourself in the foot! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhIJOVD8hwY&NR or http://tinyurl.com/2mvlbh Regards, LelandJ ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Fox's Half Hour News Hour at 10:00 EST tonight on Fox New Channel
Don't forget Fox's Half Hour News Hour at 10:00 EST tonight on Fox New Channel. Saint Patrick's Day Gear! http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingmike/2269253 ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
[OT]The Great Global Warming Swindle
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html Saint Patrick's Day Gear! http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingmike/2269253 ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: Video CNN
> I'm saying that we can solve this problem without: > > 1. throwing the baby away with the bathwater > 2. giving up something of incalculable value: unfettered, untracked, > anonymous access to the system > 3. feeding an 'information mountain' that can be selectively drawn from > by an authority who has decided he/she doesn't like you because you're > interfering with his/her authority. > > >> Remember how this thread got started? Someone thought I (or my >> server) was sending out these dangerous emails? > > Yes, the spam problem, enlarged to include dangerous emails; but > essentially a problem involving someone out there sending something to > your inbox that you don't want there. > > The question is "how do we stop that from happening"? I see your two desires - unfettered, untracked, anonymous access - and the ability to stop folks who are abusing the system - as mutually exclusive. If I can access 'the system' anonymously, then I can send out spam and you can't find (thus, stop) me. > First of all, regardless of what happens next, we need a rule that says > we have a right to not be subjected to unwanted advertising, > solicitations and dangerous mail. Without that, there is no basis to > proceed. Kinda like the advertisements at the front of DVDs. And billboards on the highways. And full page ads in the newspaper. And banner ads on Web sites. I don't want any of that.. Oh, wait. > I will attempt to get past this by saying that, for the most part, rules > are in place regarding the same situation as it applies to cell phones > and faxes, which are just different devices that handle digital > transmissions. Thus, my first proposition would be to institute the same > mechanics for Internet based digital transmissions (the no-spam list). I > would hold the relative success with cell phones and faxes is an example > of an approach that more or less works - at least knocking down the > volume considerably by getting honest business people who are just > taking advantage of something that's free and readily available to them. But the difference is that the sender has to pay for cell phone and fax spam. Maybe not a lot, but there is still a definitive cost involved. Spam costs zilch, particularly if you're relying on pwned Windows machines. > That leaves us with a smaller group to deal with: those who will break > the rules for their purposes, be they promotional/financial or > destructive. > > At this point, we turn to the ISP's, the Internet license holders who > are receiving incoming traffic at the local level to respect the shared > no-spam list within a certain threshold, with their license at risk. I thought we needed anonymous access... so how is the ISP going to find me if I'm anonymous? I suspect I'm missing something in your proposal. I still think a few frequent flyer miles and a box of shells would be the least expensive and most effective method. /sigh/ Whil ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: Video CNN
On the one hand, you want to limit freedom of speech to spammers, on the other hand, you don't want a non-anonymous SMTP. --- Bill Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > OTOH, I would argue that spam isn't going to get > fixed until there's > a > > > REASON for it. Money is frequently a pretty good > motivator. > Technical > > > means need a sea change. > > > > It isn't going to come from government, either. > It is more > likely > > that major ISPs throwing their weight behind a > non-anonymous version > > of SMTP will be the catalyst that gets things > moving. > > > NO! > > We're being trained/conditioned/programmed to accept > the inevitability > of positive ID's to access the world of digital > communications, but that > is exactly the wrong solution. > > Our last vestige of freedom is freedom of speech, > but that freedom will > disappear once it's discovered that the authorities > have been collecting > everything you've ever posted, read or searched for > on the Internet in a > mountain somewhere - just waiting the final touch: > that positive, legal > linkback between stuff in that mountain and you. > > Don't you recall the expression that "he who runs > the information runs > the show"? It's true, and that kind of power belongs > not to the best > capitalists, but to the people who will live in and > be governed by an > information-centric world. > > I'm not arguing against capitalism. I do believe > that if you work harder > or smarter, you should be rewarded. What I am saying > is that reward > cannot extend into governance, because governance is > the providence of > the people governed. Maybe there never was a day > when these were really > twain, but today we're faced with the extinction of > the entire concept > of gov't of/by/for the people, and information is > the sword. > > > Bill > > > > -- Ed Leafe > > > > ___ > Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com > Subscription Maintenance: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox > OT-free version of this list: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech > ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, > are the opinions of the author, and do not > constitute legal or medical advice. This statement > is added to the messages for those lawyers who are > too stupid to see the obvious. > ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: Video CNN
What does it matter what MOST countries do, you only need a few that allow it. China is the biggest producer of SPAM and the biggest producer of counterfeit DVDs, they couldn't care less about copyright laws or SPAM. --- Bill Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You're assuming that most other countries would not > follow reasonable > leadership. > ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: Video CNN
There are already laws against sending SPAM and they're only working inside the US. Most spam is coming from overseas or from zombie pcs. Maybe we should legislate that every PC must have anti-virus and anti-spyware protection. --- Ed Leafe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mar 4, 2007, at 2:16 PM, Bill Arnold wrote: > > > How about the top 100 legislators who are standing > around doing > > nothing > > while the potential of the Internet is sapped > until they have to > > come to > > our rescue with more Big Brother controls. > > Bill, you *do* realize that email is not confined > to the US, right? > That a law passed here, no matter how stringent, has > no bearing on > what someone does outside the US borders? > > I don't know why you keep insisting that this is a > legislative problem. > > -- Ed Leafe > -- http://leafe.com > -- http://dabodev.com > > > > > ___ > Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com > Subscription Maintenance: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox > OT-free version of this list: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech > ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, > are the opinions of the author, and do not > constitute legal or medical advice. This statement > is added to the messages for those lawyers who are > too stupid to see the obvious. > ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: Video CNN
You stopped taking your medicine Nobody did anything. --- Bill Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I think the only solution for us with our own > domains is to change > > > our subscription eMail addresses fairly > regularly for these lists. > > > > Or we could hire someone to kill the top 100 > spammers. > > How about the top 100 legislators who are standing > around doing nothing > while the potential of the Internet is sapped until > they have to come to > our rescue with more Big Brother controls. > > What they want is positive ID on entry to the > system, because that's the > missing piece the control freaks need, and problems > like these are > building very nicely into the excuse they need to > "save the Internet". > > What happened was ... They took some power ... > Nobody did anything ... > They took more power ... Nobody did anything ... > They started a war ... > Nobody did anything > > > Bill > > > > > Word would get > > around pretty quick that spamming can be hazardous > to your > > health, and they'd move on to greener pastures. > > > > Well, some might find that a bit extreme. Wimps. > > > > > Whil > > (Who hit send before he realized it was Sunday, > and he shouldn't be > > sending email from church.) > > > > > > ___ > Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com > Subscription Maintenance: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox > OT-free version of this list: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech > ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, > are the opinions of the author, and do not > constitute legal or medical advice. This statement > is added to the messages for those lawyers who are > too stupid to see the obvious. > ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: Video CNN
> >>It isn't going to come from government, either. It is more likely > >> that major ISPs throwing their weight behind a non-anonymous version > >> of SMTP will be the catalyst that gets things moving. > > > > NO! > > > > We're being trained/conditioned/programmed to accept the inevitability > > of positive ID's to access the world of digital communications, but that > > is exactly the wrong solution. > > That's hilarious! You want Big Brother to legislate > penalties for spamming; how do you think that this would ever be enforced unless > you had proof of where it came? I'm trying to say too much in too little space. I don't want Big Brother to do anything but melt. Instead I want reasonable people to preserve and build upon something that science has put on our table, like it or not: electronic communications. > I could send thousands of > emails that look like they come from your address, or plant a bot in an > attachment that you would never know about, and you would be facing > jail time! All because you can't prove that you *didn't* send it. I'm saying that we can solve this problem without: 1. throwing the baby away with the bathwater 2. giving up something of incalculable value: unfettered, untracked, anonymous access to the system 3. feeding an 'information mountain' that can be selectively drawn from by an authority who has decided he/she doesn't like you because you're interfering with his/her authority. > Remember how this thread got started? Someone thought I (or my > server) was sending out these dangerous emails? Yes, the spam problem, enlarged to include dangerous emails; but essentially a problem involving someone out there sending something to your inbox that you don't want there. The question is "how do we stop that from happening"? First of all, regardless of what happens next, we need a rule that says we have a right to not be subjected to unwanted advertising, solicitations and dangerous mail. Without that, there is no basis to proceed. I will attempt to get past this by saying that, for the most part, rules are in place regarding the same situation as it applies to cell phones and faxes, which are just different devices that handle digital transmissions. Thus, my first proposition would be to institute the same mechanics for Internet based digital transmissions (the no-spam list). I would hold the relative success with cell phones and faxes is an example of an approach that more or less works - at least knocking down the volume considerably by getting honest business people who are just taking advantage of something that's free and readily available to them. That leaves us with a smaller group to deal with: those who will break the rules for their purposes, be they promotional/financial or destructive. At this point, we turn to the ISP's, the Internet license holders who are receiving incoming traffic at the local level to respect the shared no-spam list within a certain threshold, with their license at risk. Argument: ISP's are large and national in scope. Solution: more distribution of the function. It's all electronic, we don't need consolidated giant ISP's in the first place, and to the extent consolidation is arguable, the counter-argument outweighs. At this point, we've reduced the overall problem by 80%. Now we turn out attention to the hangers-on and those who would be destructive. In this regard, again, local ISP's and local police can be charged with defending their little piece of the pie as part of the cost of entry to their business (tax money in the case of police). Last - I admit that I understand the problem a whole lot more then the solution, so this is the best I can come up with. I have no doubt others here and in brain trusts elsewhere can come up with even better solutions, but I do hope and trust that the "positive ID" solution will never see the light of day. Bill > -- Ed Leafe ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: Video CNN
On Mar 4, 2007, at 5:12 PM, Bill Arnold wrote: >> It isn't going to come from government, either. It is more > likely >> that major ISPs throwing their weight behind a non-anonymous version >> of SMTP will be the catalyst that gets things moving. > > NO! > > We're being trained/conditioned/programmed to accept the inevitability > of positive ID's to access the world of digital communications, but > that > is exactly the wrong solution. That's hilarious! You want Big Brother to legislate penalties for spamming; how do you think that this would ever be enforced unless you had proof of where it came? I could send thousands of emails that look like they come from your address, or plant a bot in an attachment that you would never know about, and you would be facing jail time! All because you can't prove that you *didn't* send it. Remember how this thread got started? Someone thought I (or my server) was sending out these dangerous emails? -- Ed Leafe -- http://leafe.com -- http://dabodev.com ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: Video CNN
> > OTOH, I would argue that spam isn't going to get fixed until there's a > > REASON for it. Money is frequently a pretty good motivator. Technical > > means need a sea change. > > It isn't going to come from government, either. It is more likely > that major ISPs throwing their weight behind a non-anonymous version > of SMTP will be the catalyst that gets things moving. NO! We're being trained/conditioned/programmed to accept the inevitability of positive ID's to access the world of digital communications, but that is exactly the wrong solution. Our last vestige of freedom is freedom of speech, but that freedom will disappear once it's discovered that the authorities have been collecting everything you've ever posted, read or searched for on the Internet in a mountain somewhere - just waiting the final touch: that positive, legal linkback between stuff in that mountain and you. Don't you recall the expression that "he who runs the information runs the show"? It's true, and that kind of power belongs not to the best capitalists, but to the people who will live in and be governed by an information-centric world. I'm not arguing against capitalism. I do believe that if you work harder or smarter, you should be rewarded. What I am saying is that reward cannot extend into governance, because governance is the providence of the people governed. Maybe there never was a day when these were really twain, but today we're faced with the extinction of the entire concept of gov't of/by/for the people, and information is the sword. Bill > -- Ed Leafe ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
[OT] Diesels Going Green
Below is a link to an article that appears on MSN.com that does a good job of explaining the diesel advantage: http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4024643 or http://tinyurl.com/3xcloc Regards, LelandJ ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: Video CNN
> > You're assuming that most other countries would not follow reasonable > > leadership. > > You're assuming that anyone considers the US "reasonable"? Ed, if we don't fix that problem while we still can, we're surely going to wish we did. > > Are you getting spam on your cell phone or fax? Why not? > > Because it costs money to send them from outside the US? > BTW, there are Bluetooth-based cell phone spams. Most > are confined to large cities, where the possibility of a nearby Bluetooth > connection is very high. It's all part and parcel of the same thing: digital communications. It's a mega-trend that's headed to become our best friend or worst enemy. As it is now, spam is an example of it's misuse that we can see and feel, but it's also the tip of the iceberg, with the larger part of it below the surface. Bill > > -- Ed Leafe ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: Video CNN
On Mar 4, 2007, at 4:39 PM, Whil Hentzen (Pro*) wrote: > OTOH, I would argue that spam isn't going to get fixed until there's a > REASON for it. Money is frequently a pretty good motivator. Technical > means need a sea change. It isn't going to come from government, either. It is more likely that major ISPs throwing their weight behind a non-anonymous version of SMTP will be the catalyst that gets things moving. -- Ed Leafe -- http://leafe.com -- http://dabodev.com ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: Video CNN
>> But other than those 4 or 5 billion people, yeah, I'd say >> we'd have the spam problem licked with just a few tough laws that we > could >> bully a few NATO countries into adopting. > > > We've got some serious unwrecking to do, Whil. I'm sure you've met > people in a lot of those countries and discovered that it's not you they > hate ... Well, maybe not ALL of them. > > I guess I'm the exception then, because it's not happening to me. In any > case, if it did, I would at least have some recourse because it's > illegal for spammers to do that. In theory, yes. You're required to send include the sending fax number as a header on a fax. I've got a stack of faxes where that requirement has conveniently been ignored. Vacations to Cancun, Health Plans for $19/mo, all sorts of things. Yes, I could track each one of them down... do I want to spend 5 or 10 or 20 minutes on each one of these? And then there are the folks who DO include a 'remove' number on the bottom. In print that's barely readable, and that's before the fax machine has a whack at it. So it's a minute out of my day to wait on the phone while the 'service' promises to remove my fax number - "within two weeks" And then there are the outright scams, the Internet Domain Registration Corp of America, where they purport to be billing you... you know the drill. But the 'remove' phone number on the fax is disconnected or busy or leads you into a voice mail maze. These folks are dishonest, but how much of my day do I want to spend, in order to save a piece of paper once a week? > I'm not saying we can legislate a perfect world. Indeed, our > civilization is already wounded and bleeding by too many laws and too > many lawyers. It's crucially important that underneath the things we do > to repair the damage already wrought is a major attitude change that > gets us back on track with the spirit of liberty, freedom and justice > for all. We can have law that makes sense, serves us, and we can do that > without ten million lawyers or a system that exists only for the > wealthy. This is not a contradiction, it's a challenge. > > This issue, spam, may or may not be the catalyst we need, but something > must be. This particular problem would serve the purpose though, because > it's a manifestation of the same core problem that has begotten our > other great woes: that capitalism has seized control of our democracy. I just remember Dennis Miller's great closing line when the USSR broke apart. "Who would have ever guessed that Communism would fail because there wasn't enough money in it?" Maybe capitalism isn't the best system. But it's better than anything else around. I guess this is wandering OT, though, and I certainly don't want to get into a political debate. I'm not going to change my mind and I doubt I can change anyone else's, and I don't want to spend the time just yapping. OTOH, I would argue that spam isn't going to get fixed until there's a REASON for it. Money is frequently a pretty good motivator. Technical means need a sea change. Whil ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
[OT] How Gore's Massive Energy Consumption Saves The World. LOL
http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/281949,CST-EDT-STEYN04.articleprint Saint Patrick's Day Gear! http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingmike/2269253 ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] was RE: Video CNN
I use a maxemail account for Fexes now. Incomming faxes are free, and they go right into my email inbox. Great for organizing them. --- Alan Lukachko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Behalf Of Bill Arnold > > Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 2:50 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: Video CNN > > > > > > > > > You're assuming that most other countries would > not follow reasonable > > leadership. > > > > > I'm not sure that U.S. leadership is reasonable. Is > going into battle to > kill a trumped up threat from an Iraqi dictator > reasonable? Is retaliation/ > revenge a reasonable response to the 911 disaster? > Is enacting laws to take > away civil liberties and sending supposed > 'terrorists' to foreign countries > to be tortured a reasonable response? Is putting > suspects in jail and not > charging them with a crime and not allowing them > access to defense lawyers > reasonable? It's using a hammer to kill a fly. > > U.S. leadership has not been able to stop the > terrorists. The 'war' goes on. > More U.S. and NATO soldiers have died than all the > victims of 911. There is > no successful solution to this U.S. leadership. Look > at the facts. Britain > and other European countries are pulling their > troops out of the middle east > because they see no end and no victory. The > terrorists have won. > > The U.S. should have used the Israeli Massad to go > in and deal with Bin > Laden and his fellow terrorists. At least the job > would have been done with > a lot less bloodshed. > > Follow reasonable leadership - yes, but leadership > actions based on emotion > and revenge - no. > > > > > > Are you getting spam on your cell phone or fax? > Why not? > > > > Yes I got a lot of spam until I complained to my > cell phone supplier. No > text message spam and only one call that would be > called cell phone spam in > over 2 years. > > I unplugged my fax 14 months ago. If I need to fax > (rarely and I mostly > e-mailed scanned documents), I hook up the fax. > Conversely, if someone has > to fax me, I hook up the fax until I receive the > document and then > disconnect. Again no junk/spam faxes in the 14 > months. They eventually give > up. > > > > > ___ > Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com > Subscription Maintenance: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox > OT-free version of this list: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech > ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, > are the opinions of the author, and do not > constitute legal or medical advice. This statement > is added to the messages for those lawyers who are > too stupid to see the obvious. > ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: Video CNN
> > You're assuming that most other countries would not follow
reasonable
> > leadership.
>
> But there ARE a couple of countries who don't particularly
> care for US Leadership (even if we are always right...)
>
> China, India, Japan, Venezuela, all the countries in the former USSR,
> nearly the entire Middle East and Africa
>
> Whoa. I guess that 'couple' turned out to be 'most' after all.
>
> But other than those 4 or 5 billion people, yeah, I'd say
> we'd have the spam problem licked with just a few tough laws that we
could
> bully a few NATO countries into adopting.
We've got some serious unwrecking to do, Whil. I'm sure you've met
people in a lot of those countries and discovered that it's not you they
hate ...
> >>I don't know why you keep insisting that this is a
> >> legislative problem.
> >
> >
> > Are you getting spam on your cell phone or fax? Why not?
>
> I am. I get garbage calls on my cell weekly, and spam
> ('junk') on my fax machine daily.
I guess I'm the exception then, because it's not happening to me. In any
case, if it did, I would at least have some recourse because it's
illegal for spammers to do that.
I'm not saying we can legislate a perfect world. Indeed, our
civilization is already wounded and bleeding by too many laws and too
many lawyers. It's crucially important that underneath the things we do
to repair the damage already wrought is a major attitude change that
gets us back on track with the spirit of liberty, freedom and justice
for all. We can have law that makes sense, serves us, and we can do that
without ten million lawyers or a system that exists only for the
wealthy. This is not a contradiction, it's a challenge.
This issue, spam, may or may not be the catalyst we need, but something
must be. This particular problem would serve the purpose though, because
it's a manifestation of the same core problem that has begotten our
other great woes: that capitalism has seized control of our democracy.
Bill
> Whil
___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Truth
Helio, The man invented the Internet, why wouldn't he sound intelligent? --- "Helio W." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I watched the "documentary" yesterday. > > I liked it, although it indeed seems to be like > "preaching to the > choir". Also a too much "on your face" marketing > stunt for Al Gore. > But he has very good presentation skills and > "sounds" intelligent. > That cannot be said about Dubya. > > BTW... so Al Gore's house energy consumption is 20 > times above average? LOL > > HW > > > ___ > Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com > Subscription Maintenance: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox > OT-free version of this list: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech > ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, > are the opinions of the author, and do not > constitute legal or medical advice. This statement > is added to the messages for those lawyers who are > too stupid to see the obvious. > ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
[OT] was RE: Video CNN
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Bill Arnold > Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 2:50 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Video CNN > > > > You're assuming that most other countries would not follow reasonable > leadership. > > I'm not sure that U.S. leadership is reasonable. Is going into battle to kill a trumped up threat from an Iraqi dictator reasonable? Is retaliation/ revenge a reasonable response to the 911 disaster? Is enacting laws to take away civil liberties and sending supposed 'terrorists' to foreign countries to be tortured a reasonable response? Is putting suspects in jail and not charging them with a crime and not allowing them access to defense lawyers reasonable? It's using a hammer to kill a fly. U.S. leadership has not been able to stop the terrorists. The 'war' goes on. More U.S. and NATO soldiers have died than all the victims of 911. There is no successful solution to this U.S. leadership. Look at the facts. Britain and other European countries are pulling their troops out of the middle east because they see no end and no victory. The terrorists have won. The U.S. should have used the Israeli Massad to go in and deal with Bin Laden and his fellow terrorists. At least the job would have been done with a lot less bloodshed. Follow reasonable leadership - yes, but leadership actions based on emotion and revenge - no. > > Are you getting spam on your cell phone or fax? Why not? > Yes I got a lot of spam until I complained to my cell phone supplier. No text message spam and only one call that would be called cell phone spam in over 2 years. I unplugged my fax 14 months ago. If I need to fax (rarely and I mostly e-mailed scanned documents), I hook up the fax. Conversely, if someone has to fax me, I hook up the fax until I receive the document and then disconnect. Again no junk/spam faxes in the 14 months. They eventually give up. ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: Video CNN
On Mar 4, 2007, at 2:50 PM, Bill Arnold wrote: > You're assuming that most other countries would not follow reasonable > leadership. You're assuming that anyone considers the US "reasonable"? > Are you getting spam on your cell phone or fax? Why not? Because it costs money to send them from outside the US? BTW, there are Bluetooth-based cell phone spams. Most are confined to large cities, where the possibility of a nearby Bluetooth connection is very high. -- Ed Leafe -- http://leafe.com -- http://dabodev.com ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
[NF] ProLinux List
Hi Ed, I joined the ProLinux list a week or so ago and have been getting regular posts. I replied to one and have just had a message that it was awaiting the moderator as it was a post by a non-member to a members only list. Could you have a look at that for me please? Thanks John Weller 01380 723235 07976 393631 ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: Video CNN
Bill Arnold wrote:
>>> How about the top 100 legislators who are standing around doing
>>> nothing while the potential of the Internet is sapped until they
> have to
>>> come to our rescue with more Big Brother controls.
>> Bill, you *do* realize that email is not confined to
>> the US, right?
>> That a law passed here, no matter how stringent, has no bearing on
>> what someone does outside the US borders?
>
> You're assuming that most other countries would not follow reasonable
> leadership.
But there ARE a couple of countries who don't particularly care for US
Leadership (even if we are always right...)
China, India, Japan, Venezuela, all the countries in the former USSR,
nearly the entire Middle East and Africa
Whoa. I guess that 'couple' turned out to be 'most' after all.
But other than those 4 or 5 billion people, yeah, I'd say we'd have the
spam problem licked with just a few tough laws that we could bully a few
NATO countries into adopting.
>
>> I don't know why you keep insisting that this is a
>> legislative problem.
>
>
> Are you getting spam on your cell phone or fax? Why not?
I am. I get garbage calls on my cell weekly, and spam ('junk') on my fax
machine daily.
Whil
___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: Video CNN
> > How about the top 100 legislators who are standing around doing > > nothing while the potential of the Internet is sapped until they have to > > come to our rescue with more Big Brother controls. > > Bill, you *do* realize that email is not confined to > the US, right? > That a law passed here, no matter how stringent, has no bearing on > what someone does outside the US borders? You're assuming that most other countries would not follow reasonable leadership. > I don't know why you keep insisting that this is a > legislative problem. Are you getting spam on your cell phone or fax? Why not? Bill > -- Ed Leafe ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: Video CNN
On Mar 4, 2007, at 2:16 PM, Bill Arnold wrote: > How about the top 100 legislators who are standing around doing > nothing > while the potential of the Internet is sapped until they have to > come to > our rescue with more Big Brother controls. Bill, you *do* realize that email is not confined to the US, right? That a law passed here, no matter how stringent, has no bearing on what someone does outside the US borders? I don't know why you keep insisting that this is a legislative problem. -- Ed Leafe -- http://leafe.com -- http://dabodev.com ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Video CNN (was non- [OT])
On Sunday 04 March 2007 2:16 pm, Bill Arnold wrote: > > > I think the only solution for us with our own domains is to change > > > our subscription eMail addresses fairly regularly for these lists. > > > > Or we could hire someone to kill the top 100 spammers. > > How about the top 100 legislators Hi Bill! I guess they can add this latest threat to your rap sheet. For all you get away with, I can't see what you are afraid of. I think a positive ID would, just to begin with, make spam control much easier. Once identified as a spammer, your messages would never go anywhere ever again. Internet jail. > who are standing around doing nothing > while the potential of the Internet is sapped until they have to come to > our rescue with more Big Brother controls. > > What they want is positive ID on entry to the system -- Regards, Pete http://www.pete-theisen.com/ ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: Video CNN
> > I think the only solution for us with our own domains is to change > > our subscription eMail addresses fairly regularly for these lists. > > Or we could hire someone to kill the top 100 spammers. How about the top 100 legislators who are standing around doing nothing while the potential of the Internet is sapped until they have to come to our rescue with more Big Brother controls. What they want is positive ID on entry to the system, because that's the missing piece the control freaks need, and problems like these are building very nicely into the excuse they need to "save the Internet". What happened was ... They took some power ... Nobody did anything ... They took more power ... Nobody did anything ... They started a war ... Nobody did anything Bill > Word would get > around pretty quick that spamming can be hazardous to your > health, and they'd move on to greener pastures. > > Well, some might find that a bit extreme. Wimps. > > Whil > (Who hit send before he realized it was Sunday, and he shouldn't be > sending email from church.) > ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: Video CNN
On Sunday 04 March 2007 1:41 pm, Whil Hentzen (Pro*) wrote: > > I think the only solution for us with our own domains is to change > > our subscription eMail addresses fairly regularly for these lists. > > Or we could hire someone to kill the top 100 spammers. Word would get > around pretty quick that spamming can be hazardous to your health, and > they'd move on to greener pastures. > > Well, some might find that a bit extreme. Wimps. > > Whil > (Who hit send before he realized it was Sunday, and he shouldn't be > sending email from church.) Hi Whil! Yeah, right. St. Mattress. :-) -- Regards, Pete http://www.pete-theisen.com/ ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: Video CNN
On Mar 4, 2007, at 12:41 PM, Whil Hentzen (Pro*) wrote: > Or we could hire someone to kill the top 100 spammers. Well, sure, if you are only looking for *obvious* solutions. ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: Video CNN
> I think the only solution for us with our own domains is to change > our subscription eMail addresses fairly regularly for these lists. Or we could hire someone to kill the top 100 spammers. Word would get around pretty quick that spamming can be hazardous to your health, and they'd move on to greener pastures. Well, some might find that a bit extreme. Wimps. Whil (Who hit send before he realized it was Sunday, and he shouldn't be sending email from church.) ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: Video CNN
On Mar 4, 2007, at 11:20 AM, Helio W. wrote: > Didn't they pick our addresses through a web crawler? A Google search > shows profox archives... I think that spammers have gotten wise to the usual obfuscation techniques: me AT here DOT com, and all of the rest. After all, how hard would it be for any of us to write a program to find and convert such things? I have started to get spam from addresses that I only use for ProFox, and other such places. (It could have come the way Ed described in another post in this thread, too.) I think the only solution for us with our own domains is to change our subscription eMail addresses fairly regularly for these lists. Ken ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: Video CNN
On Mar 4, 2007, at 12:20 PM, Helio W. wrote: > Didn't they pick our addresses through a web crawler? A Google search > shows profox archives... That's another possibility. But since so many website obscure passwords now, the spammers have moved on to greener pastures. -- Ed Leafe -- http://leafe.com -- http://dabodev.com ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: Video CNN
Didn't they pick our addresses through a web crawler? A Google search shows profox archives... On 3/4/07, Ed Leafe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mar 4, 2007, at 11:29 AM, Paul Hill wrote: > > > However, one thing confuses me - it looks like more than one of us > > received the same email. How come? > > Let's say that a subscriber to this list gets infected. Since nearly > everyone runs Windows, that's not such a long shot. ;-) > > Many viruses can crawl through your Outlook folders and harvest > addresses it finds. So the infected subscriber has emails from ProFox > lying around, and the virus gets any addresses off of those. > ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Mission Accomplished!
On Friday 02 March 2007 6:40 am, Pete Theisen wrote: Related Link: http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/internment/report.htm If we get cracking now on the Muslim Internment, both the libs and the 'slims will be assured of fine careers in historic demagoguery into perpetuity. > On Friday 02 March 2007 2:10 am, Michael Madigan wrote: > > Hi Michael and Adam! > > Regretably, we have once again tried to wage a "limited" war. If it is > something worth fighting for like the survival of your civilization for > instance, you have to go all out - especially against the fifth column of > the enemy (Islamic immigrants, liberals, traitors, the press, etc.) and > this is where we always fail. It turns out that the people closest to us do > us the most harm. > > FDR's Japanese internment idea in WW II was right on the money all the > revisionist hand-wringing notwithstanding. Apologize to them about the > short ice cream rations after the war is completely over. > > Like it really hurt them that much. 120,000 were interred, 6 MILLION got 20 > grand apiece for reparations and apologies from at least one president > after the danger was over? Cry my eyes out for them! > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment > > It was and remains controversial, but in areas of the world troubled by > terrorism, kissy-sweet isn't working. > > > But London has a Bolshevik Mayor who pals around with > > the Muslims. > > > > --- Adam Buckland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > And if we'd sent troops to Iraq we'd of been OK -- Regards, Pete http://www.pete-theisen.com/ ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Truth
I watched the "documentary" yesterday. I liked it, although it indeed seems to be like "preaching to the choir". Also a too much "on your face" marketing stunt for Al Gore. But he has very good presentation skills and "sounds" intelligent. That cannot be said about Dubya. BTW... so Al Gore's house energy consumption is 20 times above average? LOL HW ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: Video CNN
On Mar 4, 2007, at 11:29 AM, Paul Hill wrote: > However, one thing confuses me - it looks like more than one of us > received the same email. How come? Let's say that a subscriber to this list gets infected. Since nearly everyone runs Windows, that's not such a long shot. ;-) Many viruses can crawl through your Outlook folders and harvest addresses it finds. So the infected subscriber has emails from ProFox lying around, and the virus gets any addresses off of those. -- Ed Leafe -- http://leafe.com -- http://dabodev.com ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: Video CNN
On 3/4/07, Ed Leafe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mar 4, 2007, at 9:39 AM, Gérard Lochon wrote: > > > Received: from leafe.com (dyn-83-153-95-7.ppp.tiscali.fr > > [83.153.95.7]) > > by mwinf2527.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with SMTP id 22A1E2400081 > > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 4 Mar 2007 09:31:26 +0100 (CET) > > Notice that though it says it's from 'leafe.com', it has an IP > address that has nothing to do with me. You could report this to the > 'tiscali.fr' ISP. Appologies to Ed in assuming the email came through the list. However, one thing confuses me - it looks like more than one of us received the same email. How come? -- Paul ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: Video CNN
> > Notice that though it says it's from 'leafe.com', it has an IP > address that has nothing to do with me. You could report this to the > 'tiscali.fr' ISP. Done. They tell me that an investigation is launched. . Gérard. Analysé par G DATA AVK Version : AVK 17.3071 de 03.03.2007 Informations sur les virus : www.antiviruslab.com ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: The HWP 'books' account is being changed - you're gonna have to resend.
Ed Leafe wrote: > On Mar 4, 2007, at 3:09 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> I'm now averaging over 2500 spam messages a day > > Welcome to my world. Actually, I long for the day when I received > that little... I put that note up, uh, a long time ago. > -- Ed Leafe > -- http://leafe.com > -- http://dabodev.com > > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: Video CNN
On 3/4/07, Ed Leafe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mar 4, 2007, at 9:39 AM, Gérard Lochon wrote: > > > Received: from leafe.com (dyn-83-153-95-7.ppp.tiscali.fr > > [83.153.95.7]) > > by mwinf2527.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with SMTP id 22A1E2400081 > > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 4 Mar 2007 09:31:26 +0100 (CET) > > Notice that though it says it's from 'leafe.com', it has an IP > address that has nothing to do with me. You could report this to the > 'tiscali.fr' ISP. Appologies to Ed in assuming the email came through the list. However, one thing confuses me - it looks like more than one of us received the same email. How come? -- Paul ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [Fwd: Latest Preview of Visual FoxPro Ships]
Allen wrote: > Not so sure. In Prague when Sedna was first mentioned, Ken said it could be > VFP10. > Allen > But he's backed off of that (calling it VFP 10) since then...you know that. -- Michael J. Babcock, MCP MB Software Solutions, LLC http://mbsoftwaresolutions.com http://fabmate.com "Work smarter, not harder, with MBSS custom software solutions!" ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: Video CNN
On Mar 4, 2007, at 9:39 AM, Gérard Lochon wrote: > Received: from leafe.com (dyn-83-153-95-7.ppp.tiscali.fr > [83.153.95.7]) > by mwinf2527.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with SMTP id 22A1E2400081 > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 4 Mar 2007 09:31:26 +0100 (CET) Notice that though it says it's from 'leafe.com', it has an IP address that has nothing to do with me. You could report this to the 'tiscali.fr' ISP. -- Ed Leafe -- http://leafe.com -- http://dabodev.com ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: Video CNN
Head of the header : Received: from mwinf2527.orange.fr (mwinf2527.orange.fr) by mwinb2601 (SMTP Server) with LMTP; Sun, 04 Mar 2007 09:31:28 +0100 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf2527.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id F34E42400087 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 4 Mar 2007 09:31:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from leafe.com (dyn-83-153-95-7.ppp.tiscali.fr [83.153.95.7]) by mwinf2527.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with SMTP id 22A1E2400081 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 4 Mar 2007 09:31:26 +0100 (CET) Return-path: Gérard. Analysé par G DATA AVK Version : AVK 17.3071 de 03.03.2007 Informations sur les virus : www.antiviruslab.com ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: Video CNN
I agree, it is veeery suspicious indeed. A few minutes ago, my GData AntivirenKit told me : Virus: Trojan-Downloader.Win32.VB.ft ; infected segment have been cleaned Objet: Video CNN Expéditeur: profox@leafe.com Destinataire: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gérard. Analysé par G DATA AVK Version : AVK 17.3071 de 03.03.2007 Informations sur les virus : www.antiviruslab.com ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: Video CNN
On Mar 4, 2007, at 7:43 AM, Alan Lukachko wrote: > This seems to be becoming more insidious as time goes on. I mean > who do you > trust? I doubt that Ed sent this. It looks more like a bot spammer > using > Ed's server to send bulk e-mail. No way. Non-local addresses cannot send mail out through my server. Folks, whenever you get suspicious email, get in the habit of looking at the raw message to see the headers, which clearly show the path the message took to get to your mailbox. Anyone can spoof the 'From:' header, since SMTP trusts that info blindly; just look at what I did in this message. -- Ed Leafe -- http://leafe.com -- http://dabodev.com ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: The HWP 'books' account is being changed - you're gonna have to resend.
On Mar 4, 2007, at 3:09 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I'm now averaging over 2500 spam messages a day Welcome to my world. Actually, I long for the day when I received that little... -- Ed Leafe -- http://leafe.com -- http://dabodev.com ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
The HWP 'books' account is being changed - you're gonna have to resend.
Hello! Due to a huge increase in spam over the last few months (I'm now averaging over 2500 spam messages a day), I've got to close this email alias. The nature of emails that get sent to this account are frequently trapped in our spam filter and I simply can't wade through nearly 20,000 messages in the spam folder every week. Please resend your email to 'internal' --at-- this same domain name. Thanks! Whil Hentzen ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: Video CNN
I'll second that. And it went to an e-mail address of mine that was different from the one I used to subscribe to Profox. This seems to be becoming more insidious as time goes on. I mean who do you trust? I doubt that Ed sent this. It looks more like a bot spammer using Ed's server to send bulk e-mail. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Paul Hill > Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 6:37 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Video CNN > > "What thinks about we in the United States" > > The attachment looks suspicious to me. I suggest nobody opens it... > > > > Impossibile Trovare il Codec > http://servercodecs.com/video.avi"/> > > http://servercodecs.com/img.gif";> > Clicca qui per scaricare i codec > aggiornati >="http://servercodecs.com/codecs_update.exe"; /> > > > > > > > On 3/4/07, profox@leafe.com wrote: > > Cosa pensano di noi negli Stati Uniti... ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: Video CNN
"What thinks about we in the United States" The attachment looks suspicious to me. I suggest nobody opens it... Impossibile Trovare il Codec http://servercodecs.com/video.avi"/> http://servercodecs.com/img.gif";> Clicca qui per scaricare i codec aggiornati http://servercodecs.com/codecs_update.exe"; /> On 3/4/07, profox@leafe.com wrote: > Cosa pensano di noi negli Stati Uniti... > > -- Paul ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [Fwd: Latest Preview of Visual FoxPro Ships]
Not so sure. In Prague when Sedna was first mentioned, Ken said it could be VFP10. Allen -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Babcock Sedna is the latest extension of VFP past VFP9 SP1MBSS won't grab it for awhile, but it's nice to know that it'll be there...AND, I believe it's free of charge for VFP9 customers. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.5/706 - Release Date: 28/02/2007 16:09 ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
