Re: "If you do not respond (to our scammy ploy), Google will mark your business as closed."

Porn of Unusual Size...?

On Sep 15, 2017 9:24 PM, "Joseph S. Barrera III" <[email protected]> wrote:

"I know porn. I have lots of porn. I have the best porn, the very best. No
one knows porn better than me. It's the best porn, the very finest porn,
and I have lots of it. And reputable. It's so reputable, it's the most
reputable porn. People, lots of people, tell me that I have the most
reputable porn. The most porn, and the most reputable. So reputable, you
should see it, it's so fine, it's the finest."

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Stephen D. Williams <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 9/15/17 1:51 PM, Gregory Alan Bolcer wrote:
>
>> Have you been surfing pr0n?  Send me all your browser version and plugin
>> stats.  I'll tell you if there's a 0day privacy scam.
>>
> If I were, it would be only the finest, most reputable variety. Sketchy
> sites should only be visited in a VM or container, preferably on a virtual
> desktop service.  I really wish I had subuser for MacOS.  But I could use
> it on Linux as needed, even on my precious server:
>
> http://subuser.org/
>
>>
>> sharing code isn’t safe. Every time we try out some stranger’s script we
>> put ourselves at risk. Despite the occasional claim that linux is a
secure
>> operating system, haphazardly sharing programs is NOT secure.
>>
>> Furthermore, the fragmentation of the linux desktop means that packaging
>> work is needlessly repeated. Programs that build and run on Fedora must
be
>> repackaged for Ubuntu. This takes time away from creating great free open
>> source software.
>>
>> Subuser with Docker attacks both problems simultaneously. Docker provides
>> an isolated and consistent environment for your programs to run in.
Subuser
>> gives your desktop programs access to the resources they need in order to
>> function normally.
>>
>>
> http://subuser.org/news/0.3.html
> Xpra X11 bridge
>
>
>> Most likely he just has too many people to scam because I checked the
>> "too savvy to rip off" list on the dark web and you definitely aren't on
it.
>>
> Heh.  There are many, many Stephen Williams'.  You would think that one of
> us would get on it.
>
> Since I've been using the same email address since 1992, I can
> unfortunately posit this:
> It's not a spam list unless my address is on it.
>
>
>> Greg
>>
>
> sdw
>
>
>> On 9/15/2017 1:22 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>>
>>> A company has never been so lucky that they hung up on me.  I get these
>>> scammy calls all the time, even though my numbers are registered as
>>> no-spam.  This ploy goes way too far making that statement.  The guy
>>> answered, asked my name, and then hung up after a few seconds.  Am I on
a
>>> 'too savvy to rip off' list?  If I would have got the company name and
>>> address, I could have made an accurate report or had some fun at the
>>> courthouse.
>>>
>>> Pity the poor fools who fall for these things.
>>>
>>> This was the CallerID, but as is often the case, I very much doubt it
>>> was from this person:
>>>
>>> 650-851-3995 Redwood City
>>>
>>> http://www.whitepages.com/phone/1-650-851-3995
>>>
>>>
>>> I have a combination of 703 and 650 numbers.  I get the same robo calls
>>> on both sets of numbers, always apparently from the same exchange.  They
>>> just spoof a similar number to fake people into answering.  Sprint's
>>> anti-spam mechanism is pretty good, alerting me accurately most of the
>>> time.  We should charge any company that makes more than a certain
number
>>> of outgoing calls some fee per call.
>>>
>>>
>>> sdw
>>>
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>
_______________________________________________
FoRK mailing list
http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
_______________________________________________
FoRK mailing list
http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork