[email protected] wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 20:41:30 -0500, JMW
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>(I'm tempted to add that you typically dont
>>>insult each other in entertaining ways -
>>>http://www.rustyiron.net/seprat.htm being a rare exception.)
>>
>>Cohen came up with a good concept; I ran with it.
>
>Yeah. Good job. Who sez Republicans can't be creative!
Democrats, usually. But what the hell do they know!
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 21:57:11 -0500, JMW
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 21:00:13 -0500, JMW
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>> If you're serious, make sure your headers are
>>>visible (just type H in Forté Agent), and check the X-Trace header.
>>>It will be long, but if it ends in the following string ...
>>>
>>>fagklmibllijll
>>>
>>>... it's Davidson. Ignore his lies about posting through a proxy. He
>>>can't do that through his Free Agent, and he can't change the X-Trace
>>>header. He does occasionally post through a proxy in Google Groups,
>>>but then he has to use a real email address, and that's easy to
>>>killfile.
>>
>>
>>The X-trace header for [email protected]
>>(8 lines) 3/21/06 does not end with this string -
>>fagklmibllijll
>>
>>It ends with this string -
>>
>>cmjhhibopfakdb
>
>Thank you. I hadn't noticed the change. It appears to have begun on
>March 6th, and it's been consistent since then. I have updated my web
>page.
>
>In reality, I usually just look for "Forte Free Agent 3.2/32.830" and
>ignore it on that basis. He's a deadbeat, and I doubt he'll pay for a
>full version of Agent. By the same token, I don't intend to pay for
>an update of my Agent 1.91 until they add a utility for post-download
>filtering that trashes messages based on *any* header, including
>X-Trace strings. I sent in the suggestion and explained why it would
>be beneficial, but they haven't taken any action on it. I know they
>already have the underlying capability to do that because I can *find*
>individual posts on that same basis using the "Global Search" utility.
>Once they add that utility, I'll gladly pay the twenty bucks to
>upgrade.
I think such penny-pinching is due to the fact that you are on minimum
wage and can't afford it.
I know many lawyers, including several in my immediate family, and I
know of no-one who is still a lowly Assistant Public Prosecutor (the
equivalent of our Crown Prosecution Service Assistant Solicitor) at
age 50.
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 02:25:12 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>The X-trace header for [email protected]
>(8 lines) 3/21/06 does not end with this string -
>fagklmibllijll
>
>It ends with this string -
>
>cmjhhibopfakdb
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 08:33:48 +0000, JRH <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 21:57:11 -0500, JMW
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>In reality, I usually just look for "Forte Free Agent 3.2/32.830" and
>>ignore it on that basis. He's a deadbeat, and I doubt he'll pay for a
>>full version of Agent. By the same token, I don't intend to pay for
>>an update of my Agent 1.91 until they add a utility for post-download
>>filtering that trashes messages based on *any* header, including
>>X-Trace strings. I sent in the suggestion and explained why it would
>>be beneficial, but they haven't taken any action on it. I know they
>>already have the underlying capability to do that because I can *find*
>>individual posts on that same basis using the "Global Search" utility.
>>Once they add that utility, I'll gladly pay the twenty bucks to
>>upgrade.
>
>I think such penny-pinching is due to the fact that you are on minimum
>wage and can't afford it.
>
>I know many lawyers, including several in my immediate family, and I
>know of no-one who is still a lowly Assistant Public Prosecutor (the
>equivalent of our Crown Prosecution Service Assistant Solicitor) at
>age 50.
>
><snigger>
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 13:03:49 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 08:33:48 +0000, JRH <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 21:57:11 -0500, JMW
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>In reality, I usually just look for "Forte Free Agent 3.2/32.830" and
>>>ignore it on that basis. He's a deadbeat, and I doubt he'll pay for a
>>>full version of Agent. By the same token, I don't intend to pay for
>>>an update of my Agent 1.91 until they add a utility for post-download
>>>filtering that trashes messages based on *any* header, including
>>>X-Trace strings. I sent in the suggestion and explained why it would
>>>be beneficial, but they haven't taken any action on it. I know they
>>>already have the underlying capability to do that because I can *find*
>>>individual posts on that same basis using the "Global Search" utility.
>>>Once they add that utility, I'll gladly pay the twenty bucks to
>>>upgrade.
>>
>>I think such penny-pinching is due to the fact that you are on minimum
>>wage and can't afford it.
>>
>>I know many lawyers, including several in my immediate family, and I
>>know of no-one who is still a lowly Assistant Public Prosecutor (the
>>equivalent of our Crown Prosecution Service Assistant Solicitor) at
>>age 50.
>>
>><snigger>
>
>What's next? A pissing contest?
He'd lose that as well Old Man; the length of my todger gives me an
unfair advantage! ;o)
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 13:32:20 +0000, JRH <[email protected]> wrote:
>He'd lose that as well Old Man; the length of my todger gives me an
>unfair advantage! ;o)
