On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 07:54 -0700, Bill Landry wrote: > Clunk Werclick wrote: > > On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 08:05 -0600, LuKreme wrote: > >> On 14-Sep-2009, at 05:24, --[ UxBoD ]-- wrote: > >>> If the OP cannot refrain from that sort of foul language when > >>> presented with counter arguments then please ban. The list would be > >>> far happier IMHO. > >> Based on his reply to Matus I put him on my 'soft' kill list. > >> > >> (soft because all it does is mark his messages as read when they are > >> received, so I still have them… but chances are I never see them). > >> > >> I did have to lookup his "real" address > >> clunk.wercl...@wibblywobblyteapot.co.uk > >> so I could mark both his throw-away gmail address and his 'real' > >> address. I found it in my postfix spool. > >> > >> Still, based on his ignorance and his volatile behavior *I* certainly > >> don't have any interest in his getting helped, and I don't have to > >> read his xenophobic abuse ever again. > > Man, I'm going to lose *so* much sleep about that. From what I have > > read, the majority of you are a bunch of gay arse lovers up eachother. > > And fuckwits too boot. > > > > I hope you die ejaculating up each others arse holes. > > So how far does someone have to go before getting banned from the list? > Is this not far enough yet? > > Bill Clearly not - but then, using Spamassassin as a filter ensures just about everything gets through CUNTFACE.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------- C Werclick .Lot Technical incompetent Loyal Order Of The Teapot. This e-mail and its attachments is intended only to be used as an e-mail and an attachment. Any use of it for other purposes other than as an e-mail and an attachment will not be covered by any warranty that may or may not form part of this e-mail and attachment.
