Microsoft Study???

  • Thread starter Thread starter Toni
  • Start date Start date
Greg Russell wrote:

> In news:OHIGsPoqKHA.3464@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,

> Twayne typed:

>

>>> No, I haven't :)

>>

>> If Toni24@yyyyy.con 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.

>

> 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.
 
"Greg Russell" wrote...

:

>

> 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.
 
"PA Bear [MS MVP]"wrote...

> Are you also in the market for a bridge?

>



I already sold one.



Wanna buy the Statue of Liberty?
 
In news:Oh8R9HtqKHA.3792@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,

Toni typed:



>> 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.



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.
 
In news:Oh8R9HtqKHA.3792@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,

Toni typed:

> "Greg Russell" wrote...

>>

>>

>> 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.



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



--

--

Life is the only real counselor; wisdom unfiltered

through personal experience does not become a

part of the moral tissue.
 
In news:7tgg13F14aU1@mid.individual.net,

Greg Russell typed:

> In news:OHIGsPoqKHA.3464@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,

> Twayne typed:

>

>>> No, I haven't :)

>>

>> If Toni24@yyyyy.con 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.

>

> 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 ... .

--

Life is the only real counselor; wisdom unfiltered

through personal experience does not become a

part of the moral tissue.
 
http://groups.google.com/group/micr...p.general/browse_frm/thread/52fd5e44735a9a76/







Twayne wrote:

> If 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 invalid@invalid.inv or one of

> the thousands of others maintained for just this specific use.



Greg Russell wrote:

> But it's alright for *you* to once again expose that innocent

> bystander? Hypocrite ...



Twayne wrote:

> 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'.)



--

Shenan Stanley

MS-MVP

--

How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
 
In news:uE5F%23K0qKHA.4236@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,

Shenan Stanley typed:



> Twayne wrote:

>> OOPS! That was dumb, I agree. I meant to munge that beyond

>> recognition but got interrupted.

....

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



MowGreen

================

* -343-* FDNY

Never Forgotten

================



banthecheck.com

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







Greg Russell wrote:

> In news:e9ehipnqKHA.5116@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl,

> Toni typed:

>

>> 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.

>

>
 
http://groups.google.com/group/micr...p.general/browse_frm/thread/52fd5e44735a9a76/







Twayne wrote:

> If 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 invalid@invalid.inv or one of

> the thousands of others maintained for just this specific use.



Greg Russell wrote:

> But it's alright for *you* to once again expose that innocent

> bystander? Hypocrite ...



Twayne wrote:

> 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 wrote:

> 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 wrote:

> 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.



--

Shenan Stanley

MS-MVP

--

How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
 
"Shenan Stanley" wrote in message

news:OR2Rub3qKHA.5736@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...



> 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 ...
 
http://groups.google.com/group/micr...p.general/browse_frm/thread/52fd5e44735a9a76/







Twayne wrote:

> If 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 invalid@invalid.inv or one of

> the thousands of others maintained for just this specific use.



Greg Russell wrote:

> But it's alright for *you* to once again expose that innocent

> bystander? Hypocrite ...



Twayne wrote:

> 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 wrote:

> 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 wrote:

> 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.



Shenan Stanley wrote:

> 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 wrote:

> 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. ;-)



--

Shenan Stanley

MS-MVP

--

How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
 
Please stick to the newsgroup's topic. This driveling banter is unbecoming

of an MS-MVP.



:oD



lol







"Shenan Stanley" wrote in message

news:eV2xb3#qKHA.5936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>

>

>

> http://groups.google.com/group/micr...p.general/browse_frm/thread/52fd5e44735a9a76/

>

>

>

> Twayne wrote:

>> If 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 invalid@invalid.inv or one of

>> the thousands of others maintained for just this specific use.

>

> Greg Russell wrote:

>> But it's alright for *you* to once again expose that innocent

>> bystander? Hypocrite ...

>

> Twayne wrote:

>> 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 wrote:

>> 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 wrote:

>> 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.

>

> Shenan Stanley wrote:

>> 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 wrote:

>> 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. ;-)

>

> --

> Shenan Stanley

> MS-MVP

> --

> How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

>
 
In news:eV2xb3%23qKHA.5936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl,

Shenan Stanley typed:



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

>

> One could choose

> One could choose



You sound like the typical undergraduate who's taking a psychology class and

thinks they understand how everyone "could be" ... if they only tried.
 
http://groups.google.com/group/micr...p.general/browse_frm/thread/52fd5e44735a9a76/







Twayne wrote:

> If 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 invalid@invalid.inv or one of

> the thousands of others maintained for just this specific use.



Greg Russell wrote:

> But it's alright for *you* to once again expose that innocent

> bystander? Hypocrite ...



Twayne wrote:

> 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 wrote:

> 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 wrote:

> 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.



Shenan Stanley wrote:

> 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 wrote:

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



Shenan Stanley wrote:

> 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. ;-)



Greg Russell wrote:

> 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.



--

Shenan Stanley

MS-MVP

--

How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top