On Tuesday 24 August 2004 03:08, Lyvim Xaphir wrote:
> --- JoeHill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 02:33:58 +0200
> >
> > Kaj Haulrich disseminated the following:
> > > Bofore doing any further USA-bashing, I'd like you to consider :
> >
> > I did not intend any 'bashing', as I s
--- JoeHill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 02:33:58 +0200
> Kaj Haulrich disseminated the following:
>
> > Bofore doing any further USA-bashing, I'd like you to consider :
>
> I did not intend any 'bashing', as I said, I only meant to point out
> that this
> phenomena is prese
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 19:30:59 -0500
Hoyt Bailey disseminated the following:
> > > Yes because it is for protection of us.
> >
> > Isn't there a saying about someone sacrificing freedom for safety
> > gets neither?
> >
> > And how would you explain the DMCA?
> I wouldnt. What does this have to do w
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 02:33:58 +0200
Kaj Haulrich disseminated the following:
> Bofore doing any further USA-bashing, I'd like you to consider :
I did not intend any 'bashing', as I said, I only meant to point out that this
phenomena is present and growing (at varying degrees) in most of the Wester
On Monday 23 August 2004 02:52, Thereidos wrote:
> W li?cie z pon, 23-08-2004, godz. 02:33, Kaj Haulrich pisze:
> > Joe, I don't think you've ever lived in a totalitarian state.
> > Thereidos and I have. Thereidos in the "puppet-on-a-string" soviet
> > state of Poland and I in the social-democratic
W liście z pon, 23-08-2004, godz. 02:33, Kaj Haulrich pisze:
> Joe, I don't think you've ever lived in a totalitarian state.
> Thereidos and I have. Thereidos in the "puppet-on-a-string" soviet
> state of Poland and I in the social-democratic-liberal-conservative
> state of Denmark.
Actually
On Sunday 22 August 2004 04:53 pm, JoeHill wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 18:41:15 -0500
>
> Hoyt Bailey disseminated the following:
> > Yes because it is for protection of us.
>
> Isn't there a saying about someone sacrificing freedom for safety gets
> neither?
>
> And how would you explain the DMCA
On Sun, 2004-08-22 at 19:53, JoeHill wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 18:41:15 -0500
> Hoyt Bailey disseminated the following:
>
> > Yes because it is for protection of us.
>
> Isn't there a saying about someone sacrificing freedom for safety gets neither?
>
Ben Franklin
> And how would you explain
On Monday 23 August 2004 01:27, JoeHill wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 16:40:43 -0500
>
> Hoyt Bailey disseminated the following:
> > You are under a sociallistic government what do you expect.
>
> ...and the USA "Patriot Act" (LOL!) is any different?
Joe, I don't know anything about this "Patriot A
On Sunday 22 August 2004 18:53, JoeHill wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 18:41:15 -0500
>
> Hoyt Bailey disseminated the following:
> > Yes because it is for protection of us.
>
> Isn't there a saying about someone sacrificing freedom for safety
> gets neither?
>
> And how would you explain the DMCA?
I
On Sunday 22 August 2004 18:50, JoeHill wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 19:27:26 -0400
>
> JoeHill disseminated the following:
> > > You are under a sociallistic government what do you expect.
> >
> > ...and the USA "Patriot Act" (LOL!) is any different?
>
> And before this erupts into a flamewar, my
On Sunday 22 August 2004 07:53 pm, JoeHill wrote:
> Isn't there a saying about someone sacrificing freedom for safety gets
> neither?
>
> And how would you explain the DMCA?
The Golden Rule: Them who has the gold, makes the rules. ;-}
--
Bryan Phinney
___
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 18:41:15 -0500
Hoyt Bailey disseminated the following:
> Yes because it is for protection of us.
Isn't there a saying about someone sacrificing freedom for safety gets neither?
And how would you explain the DMCA?
--
JoeHill RLU #282046 / www.freeyourmachine.org
19:51:50 up
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 19:27:26 -0400
JoeHill disseminated the following:
> > You are under a sociallistic government what do you expect.
>
> ...and the USA "Patriot Act" (LOL!) is any different?
And before this erupts into a flamewar, my only point is that the increasing
infringement on our person
On Sunday 22 August 2004 18:27, JoeHill wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 16:40:43 -0500
>
> Hoyt Bailey disseminated the following:
> > You are under a sociallistic government what do you expect.
>
> ...and the USA "Patriot Act" (LOL!) is any different?
Yes because it is for protection of us. However
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 16:40:43 -0500
Hoyt Bailey disseminated the following:
> You are under a sociallistic government what do you expect.
...and the USA "Patriot Act" (LOL!) is any different?
--
JoeHill RLU #282046 / www.freeyourmachine.org
19:26:30 up 18 days, 19:10, 9 users, load average: 1.2
On Sunday 22 August 2004 16:55, Kaj Haulrich wrote:
> On Sunday 22 August 2004 23:40, Hoyt Bailey wrote:
>
>
> > You are under a sociallistic government what do you expect.
>
>
>
> Actually they call themselves "libaral/conservative" for the time
> being. What a laugh. That doesn't hide their "in
On Sunday 22 August 2004 23:40, Hoyt Bailey wrote:
You are under a sociallistic government what do you expect.
Actually they call themselves "libaral/conservative" for the time
being. What a laugh. That doesn't hide their "inner socialist".
Just one example : recently the Danish minister for
On Sunday 22 August 2004 16:17, Kaj Haulrich wrote:
> On Sunday 22 August 2004 22:13, Thereidos wrote:
> > W li?cie z nie, 22-08-2004, godz. 20:35, Kaj Haulrich pisze:
> > > On Sunday 22 August 2004 16:51, Thereidos wrote:
> > > > W li?cie z nie, 22-08-2004, godz. 16:06, JoeHill pisze:
> > > > > On
On Sunday 22 August 2004 22:13, Thereidos wrote:
> W liÅcie z nie, 22-08-2004, godz. 20:35, Kaj Haulrich pisze:
> > On Sunday 22 August 2004 16:51, Thereidos wrote:
> > > W liÅcie z nie, 22-08-2004, godz. 16:06, JoeHill pisze:
> > > > On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:02:07 +0100
> > > >
> > > > JRH dissemina
W liście z nie, 22-08-2004, godz. 20:35, Kaj Haulrich pisze:
> On Sunday 22 August 2004 16:51, Thereidos wrote:
> > W liście z nie, 22-08-2004, godz. 16:06, JoeHill pisze:
> > > On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:02:07 +0100
> > >
> > > JRH disseminated the following:
> > > > Basically I was told it was no us
On Sunday 22 August 2004 16:51, Thereidos wrote:
> W liÅcie z nie, 22-08-2004, godz. 16:06, JoeHill pisze:
> > On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:02:07 +0100
> >
> > JRH disseminated the following:
> > > Basically I was told it was no use, as the IP info was in
> > > fact spoofed
> > >
> > > How true this
On Sunday 22 August 2004 09:51 am, Thereidos wrote:
> W liÅcie z nie, 22-08-2004, godz. 16:06, JoeHill pisze:
> > On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:02:07 +0100
> >
> > JRH disseminated the following:
> > > Basically I was told it was no use, as the IP info was in fact
> > > spoofed
> > >
> > > How true th
On Sunday 22 August 2004 02:35 am, frankieh wrote:
> SnapafunFrank wrote:
> > OK. I have been getting this crap for ages now and am tied of simply
> > deleting it. Add to that, Jan has started to show an interest with this
> > linux box and the last thing I need to introduce her to is her own
> > '
Hello JRH,
Thursday, August 19, 2004, 11:31:08 AM, JRH wrote:
J> AND IT'S SOMEBODY WHO IS/HAS BEEN ON THIS LIST, AS THIS LIST IS THE
J> ONLY PLACE THIS EMAIL ADDRESS HAS BEEN!! UPDATE YOUR ANTIVIRUS AND
J> BLOODY RUN A SCAN!!! :-)
Perhaps you could mention an IP address?
--
rikona
On Thursday 19 August 2004 02:31 pm, JRH wrote:
> Or the most likely answer, is that somebody out there is infected with
> Netsky, who runs windows. Netsky is clever, and mails itself out as a
> delivery failure message, with either your supposed original email (which
> you will have never sent!)
On Saturday 21 Aug 2004 2:47 pm, Terence Golightly wrote:
> List,
>
> Recently, (I don't remeber the date I first saw them) I started
> receiving emails from mailer daemons and anti-spam and firewall
> software. I tink someone has hijacked my email addres. I don't know
> where to turn. I "looked"
On Sat, 2004-08-21 at 23:47, Terence Golightly wrote:
> List,
>
> Recently, (I don't remeber the date I first saw them) I started
> receiving emails from mailer daemons and anti-spam and firewall
> software. I tink someone has hijacked my email addres. I don't know
> where to turn. I "looked" th
Most likely, someone else who has your email address in their
addressbook on a windows box, has a virus. Best action is to
do your best to laugh and otherwise ignore it.
LtCdData wrote:
sounds like someone has a virus ??
On Saturday 21 Aug 2004 H:47, Terence Golightly wrote:
--
--
Bob Read //
On Saturday 21 August 2004 09:47 am, Terence Golightly wrote:
> Recently, (I don't remeber the date I first saw them) I started
> receiving emails from mailer daemons and anti-spam and firewall
> software. I tink someone has hijacked my email addres. I don't know
> where to turn. I "looked" thro
30 matches
Mail list logo
