Simon Byrnand writes:
> At 17:18 2/07/03 -0700, Justin Mason wrote:
>
> >Daniel Quinlan writes:
> > > I haven't read/heard the BBC Beverlander story. Any problems there are
> > > probably mostly ignorance.
> >
> >no problems -- it's a great investigation, following 1 spam to its
> >(probable) so
At 17:18 2/07/03 -0700, Justin Mason wrote:
Daniel Quinlan writes:
> I haven't read/heard the BBC Beverlander story. Any problems there are
> probably mostly ignorance.
no problems -- it's a great investigation, following 1 spam to its
(probable) source. and what a twisty, turny way it takes to
Daniel Quinlan writes:
> I haven't read/heard the BBC Beverlander story. Any problems there are
> probably mostly ignorance.
no problems -- it's a great investigation, following 1 spam to its
(probable) source. and what a twisty, turny way it takes to get
there!
--j.
Tony Earnshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [1] For those who don't know, the BBC is the "British Broadcasting
> Corporation." An independently funded broadcaster, though nevertheless
> belonging to the British Autocracy. Known as a champion of truth, the
> BBC is currently fighting to prove su
Anybody hear the BBC[1] 4 broadcast about the above s*it on Wednesday
July 1 18:00 CEST ?
He's Dutch. (I'm not, but normally love them for their honesty and lack
of chagrin. Moreover, I live and work amongst them, speak their lingo
with exams, every day experience and all.)
Beverlander was sla
