"Jamie Kahn Genet" <jamiekg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1g8evr3.cwopqplqj0waN%jamiekg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The Stare <wat1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > "Jamie Kahn Genet" <jamiekg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> > news:1g8ctia.1hlytih1m6cl5vN%jamiekg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > repeteA <RepeteA@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip stupid, obviously **** web site URLS pointlessly repeated over
and
> > > over]
> > >
> > > Welcome to the club for excessively stupid spammers. I realise I
used
> > > some big words there, so maybe ask your Momma for help. You're
probably
> > > a southern resident of your local trailer park, so you could also
try
> > > asking your wife/sister. If she can't read, well, then you're really
up
> > > **** creek, aren't ya?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Jamie Kahn Genet
> > > --
> > > If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
> >
> > And what, exactly, makes you think the spammer is going to read a
reply?
>
> Nothing. I was just letting off a little steam. By the way, your email
> program is not snipping my sig as it ought to.
>
> Regards,
> Jamie Kahn Genet
> --
> If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Did you re****t the spam? That would be part of the solution.
BTW: I don't think my program is suppose to snip sigs by itself and seem
to
remember not snipping it on purpose.
|
