Microsoft Study???

[PA Bear [MS MVP]]

Are you also in the market for a bridge?

 

[HeyBub]

In

But it's alright for *you* to once again expose that innocent
bystander? Hypocrite ...

Hypocrisy gets a bad rap. After all, 90% of gynecologists are men.

 

[Toni]

...
:

You used a valid domain "yahoo.com", so any local address associated with
that domain, even if you just "made it up", is almost ceratin to generate
spam for someone totally unaware that you posted their email address in
Usenet.

It bounces.

 

[Toni]

"PA Bear [MS MVP]"wrote...

Are you also in the market for a bridge?

I already sold one.

Wanna buy the Statue of Liberty?

 

[Greg Russell]

In

It bounces.

Today, you mean. Tomorrow someday, when someone actually claims that
routable address, then it won't, and they'll receive the spam you set them
up for, not to mention any increased smtp rejection load by Yahoo!'s servers
until then.

Use an invalid, unroutable address or else your own, if indeed you feel
compelled to supply one.

 

[Toni]

Understood.

 

[Twayne]

In

...

It bounces.

Today maybe. Can you guarantee that name will never be used?

 

[Twayne]

In

In

But it's alright for *you* to once again expose that innocent
bystander? Hypocrite ...

OOPS! That was dumb, I agree. I meant to munge that beyond recognition but
got interrupted.
You little piss-ant! Hey if you can engage in name calling so can I. Do
onto others ... .

 

[Shenan Stanley]

<snipped>

<unrelated to rest of conversation, feel free to browse it all>
http://groups.google.com/group/micr...p.general/browse_frm/thread/52fd5e44735a9a76/
</unrelated to rest of conversation, feel free to browse it all>

If <address originally posted by OP> isn't YOUR address, it IS
someone's address, so chances are excellent you have just
exposed an innocent bystander to the world to get spam. That's
a very rude and abhorrant practice and you need to consider
stopping it immediately. If toni24 should come across your
admission, I can only guess what they'll do for you re spam or
reputation.
Please grow up and get an address that's intended for such use. Do
NOT make up names. You can always use (e-mail address removed) or one of
the thousands of others maintained for just this specific use.

But it's alright for *you* to once again expose that innocent
bystander? Hypocrite ...

OOPS! That was dumb, I agree. I meant to munge that beyond
recognition but got interrupted.

You little piss-ant! Hey if you can engage in name calling so can
I. Do onto others ... .

I cannot say, without question, that "Greg Russell" did any name calling.

Defined exactly what had happened, okay. You even admitted to it happening
and your involvement.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite
( 2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or
feelings )

However - yours comment is - without a doubt - name calling for no other
purpose than abuse.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/piss-ant
( sometimes vulgar : one that is insignificant -used as a generalized term
of abuse )

Now - more than likely, Greg Russell meant it as an abusive comment; doesn't
mean it had to be taken in that manner and returned in kind (nor was there
any guarantee it was being 'returned in kind'.)

 

[Greg Russell]

In

....
Now - more than likely, Greg Russell meant it as an abusive comment;
doesn't mean it had to be taken in that manner and returned in kind
(nor was there any guarantee it was being 'returned in kind'.)

Actually, it was intended as a simple statement of fact, as "Twayne" has
honestly ackowledged.

If it helps reduce the total volume of spam in any way whatsoever, then it's
served it's purpose.

 

[MowGreen]

Hmmmm ... perhaps the CIA is spamming Toni ? <w>

MowGreen
================
* -343-* FDNY
Never Forgotten
================

banthecheck.com
"Security updates should *never* have *non-security content* prechecked

In

I received an email today, allegedly from Microsoft, for a study. It
begins:

=start=============
From: [surveysitemail(dot)com email address]

Registrant:
Comscore, Inc
11950 Democracy Dr.
Suite 600
Reston, VA 20190
US
Domain Name: SURVEYSITEMAIL.COM

Participate Now!

An exclamation mark urging action is a sure sign of spam.

To participate, click the following URL: [securestudies(dot)com URL]

Registrant:
TMRG, INC.
11950 Democracy Dr.
Suite 600
Reston, VA 20190
US
Domain Name: SECURESTUDIES.COM

this form: [mailingsvcs(dot)com URL]

Registrant:
TMRG, INC.
11950 Democracy Dr.
Suite 600
Reston, VA 20190
US
Domain Name: MAILINGSVCS.COM

But is this legit?

3 different domains, 5th-grade grammar and even lesser spelling ... sounds
like they've almost got you on the hook, and now you're asking anyone from a
group of strangers here whether it's "legit"? If someone said "OK" would you
actually submit the form?

It seems almost criminally stupid to assume that
Microsoft couldn't conduct their own survey or manage their own
mailing list, right?

Riiiiiiiight ... maybe there's hope for you after all.

 

[Shenan Stanley]

<snipped>

<unrelated to rest of conversation, feel free to browse it all>
http://groups.google.com/group/micr...p.general/browse_frm/thread/52fd5e44735a9a76/
</unrelated to rest of conversation, feel free to browse it all>

If <address originally posted by OP> isn't YOUR address, it IS
someone's address, so chances are excellent you have just
exposed an innocent bystander to the world to get spam. That's
a very rude and abhorrant practice and you need to consider
stopping it immediately. If toni24 should come across your
admission, I can only guess what they'll do for you re spam or
reputation.
Please grow up and get an address that's intended for such use. Do
NOT make up names. You can always use (e-mail address removed) or one of
the thousands of others maintained for just this specific use.

But it's alright for *you* to once again expose that innocent
bystander? Hypocrite ...

OOPS! That was dumb, I agree. I meant to munge that beyond
recognition but got interrupted.

You little piss-ant! Hey if you can engage in name calling so can
I. Do onto others ... .

I cannot say, without question, that "Greg Russell" did any name
calling.

Defined exactly what had happened, okay. You even admitted to it
happening and your involvement.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite
( 2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated
beliefs or feelings )

However - yours comment is - without a doubt - name calling for no
other purpose than abuse.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/piss-ant
( sometimes vulgar : one that is insignificant -used as a
generalized term of abuse )

Now - more than likely, Greg Russell meant it as an abusive
comment; doesn't mean it had to be taken in that manner and
returned in kind (nor was there any guarantee it was being
'returned in kind'.)

Actually, it was intended as a simple statement of fact, as
"Twayne" has honestly ackowledged.

If it helps reduce the total volume of spam in any way whatsoever,
then it's served it's purpose.

Latter half: Without a doubt, but beyond the scope of my response.

Former half: "Do unto others" by Twayne was not needed/far from equal
especially as you now better defined your choice of words; although the
wording of your "statement of fact" could have been rearranged as such,
"Looks hypocritical..."; which would have seemed less "point and accuse" and
more "statement of fact/interpretation" for most people.

 

[Greg Russell]

Former half: "Do unto others" by Twayne was not needed/far from equal
especially as you now better defined your choice of words; although the
wording of your "statement of fact" could have been rearranged as such,
"Looks hypocritical..."; which would have seemed less "point and accuse" and
more "statement of fact/interpretation" for most people.

Oh geez ... here we go with that politically-correct crap ...

 

[Shenan Stanley]

<snipped>

<unrelated to rest of conversation, feel free to browse it all>
http://groups.google.com/group/micr...p.general/browse_frm/thread/52fd5e44735a9a76/
</unrelated to rest of conversation, feel free to browse it all>

If <address originally posted by OP> isn't YOUR address, it IS
someone's address, so chances are excellent you have just
exposed an innocent bystander to the world to get spam. That's
a very rude and abhorrant practice and you need to consider
stopping it immediately. If toni24 should come across your
admission, I can only guess what they'll do for you re spam or
reputation.
Please grow up and get an address that's intended for such use. Do
NOT make up names. You can always use (e-mail address removed) or one of
the thousands of others maintained for just this specific use.

But it's alright for *you* to once again expose that innocent
bystander? Hypocrite ...

OOPS! That was dumb, I agree. I meant to munge that beyond
recognition but got interrupted.

You little piss-ant! Hey if you can engage in name calling so can
I. Do onto others ... .

I cannot say, without question, that "Greg Russell" did any name
calling.

Defined exactly what had happened, okay. You even admitted to it
happening and your involvement.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite
( 2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated
beliefs or feelings )

However - yours comment is - without a doubt - name calling for no
other purpose than abuse.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/piss-ant
( sometimes vulgar : one that is insignificant -used as a
generalized term of abuse )

Now - more than likely, Greg Russell meant it as an abusive
comment; doesn't mean it had to be taken in that manner and
returned in kind (nor was there any guarantee it was being
'returned in kind'.)

Actually, it was intended as a simple statement of fact, as
"Twayne" has honestly ackowledged.

If it helps reduce the total volume of spam in any way whatsoever,
then it's served it's purpose.

Latter half: Without a doubt, but beyond the scope of my response.

Former half: "Do unto others" by Twayne was not needed/far from
equal especially as you now better defined your choice of words;
although the wording of your "statement of fact" could have been
rearranged as such, "Looks hypocritical..."; which would have
seemed less "point and accuse" and more "statement of
fact/interpretation" for most people.

Oh geez ... here we go with that politically-correct crap ...

No - nothing to do with politcal correctness...

The statement was hypocritical and thus the the person making it was a
hypocrite. One could choose to go either way when pointing this out.

One could choose the, "Point out the person making the contradicting
statement(s)" route.
One could choose the, "Point out the contradicting statement(s)" route.

Merely pointing out the differences between the two possible paths. It
*could* have been rearranged, not *should*. Comprehension is the important
part of reading. ;-)

 

[Saucy]

Please stick to the newsgroup's topic. This driveling banter is unbecoming
of an MS-MVP.

D

lol

 

[Greg Russell]

In

One could choose to go either way when pointing this out.

One could choose <this ...>
One could choose <taht ...>

You sound like the typical undergraduate who's taking a psychology class and
thinks they understand how everyone "could be" ... if they only tried.

 

[Shenan Stanley]

<snipped>

<unrelated to rest of conversation, feel free to browse it all>
http://groups.google.com/group/micr...p.general/browse_frm/thread/52fd5e44735a9a76/
</unrelated to rest of conversation, feel free to browse it all>

If <address originally posted by OP> isn't YOUR address, it IS
someone's address, so chances are excellent you have just
exposed an innocent bystander to the world to get spam. That's
a very rude and abhorrant practice and you need to consider
stopping it immediately. If toni24 should come across your
admission, I can only guess what they'll do for you re spam or
reputation.
Please grow up and get an address that's intended for such use. Do
NOT make up names. You can always use (e-mail address removed) or one of
the thousands of others maintained for just this specific use.

But it's alright for *you* to once again expose that innocent
bystander? Hypocrite ...

OOPS! That was dumb, I agree. I meant to munge that beyond
recognition but got interrupted.

You little piss-ant! Hey if you can engage in name calling so can
I. Do onto others ... .

I cannot say, without question, that "Greg Russell" did any name
calling.

Defined exactly what had happened, okay. You even admitted to it
happening and your involvement.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite
( 2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated
beliefs or feelings )

However - yours comment is - without a doubt - name calling for no
other purpose than abuse.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/piss-ant
( sometimes vulgar : one that is insignificant -used as a
generalized term of abuse )

Now - more than likely, Greg Russell meant it as an abusive
comment; doesn't mean it had to be taken in that manner and
returned in kind (nor was there any guarantee it was being
'returned in kind'.)

Actually, it was intended as a simple statement of fact, as
"Twayne" has honestly ackowledged.

If it helps reduce the total volume of spam in any way whatsoever,
then it's served it's purpose.

Latter half: Without a doubt, but beyond the scope of my response.

Former half: "Do unto others" by Twayne was not needed/far from
equal especially as you now better defined your choice of words;
although the wording of your "statement of fact" could have been
rearranged as such, "Looks hypocritical..."; which would have
seemed less "point and accuse" and more "statement of
fact/interpretation" for most people.

Oh geez ... here we go with that politically-correct crap ...

No - nothing to do with politcal correctness...

The statement was hypocritical and thus the the person making it
was a hypocrite. One could choose to go either way when pointing
this out.

One could choose the, "Point out the person making the contradicting
statement(s)" route.
One could choose the, "Point out the contradicting statement(s)"
route.

Merely pointing out the differences between the two possible paths.
It *could* have been rearranged, not *should*. Comprehension is
the important part of reading. ;-)

You sound like the typical undergraduate who's taking a psychology
class and thinks they understand how everyone "could be" ... if
they only tried.

No.

I am just pointing out the difference in the the way one could have
referenced the hypocritical statement.

You chose to reference the person making the statement, not the statement
itself. It could have been done referencing the statement, not the person.
It's not a hard concept. I could care less which way everyone chooses, I am
just pointing out two ways that could have been chosen.

If you have difficulty understanding that or feel a need to read something
into it - that's *your* problem.

People will do what people have always done.

 

[Greg Russell]

In
I'm calling you a mindless, sexless ****ing jerk.