Ultra-Sharpen is on sale!

[John Doe]

I don't know if any of your are interested but Ultra-Sharpen is on sale now
for $10. That is $5 less than the normal price. The sale ends on the 23rd. I
just picked up another copy for my laptop and thought I would pass this on.

[url]http://www.ultrasharpen.com[/url]

John

[David H. Lipman]

Exactly !

Dave



"Gisle Hannemyr" <gisle+njus@ifi.uio.no> wrote in message
news:q54qimj87o.fsf@viisi.ifi.uio.no...
|
| Sure!
|
| Folks: don't buy from spammers.
| --
| - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - [url]http://folk.uio.no/gisle/[/url] ]
| ================================================== ======================
| When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to?

[RichA]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:17:49 GMT, "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com>
wrote:

>I don't know if any of your are interested but Ultra-Sharpen is on sale now
>for $10. That is $5 less than the normal price. The sale ends on the 23rd. I
>just picked up another copy for my laptop and thought I would pass this on.
>
>[url]http://www.ultrasharpen.com[/url]
>
>John
>
>
>

Aren't you supposed to end this spam with "cheers?"
Like all spammers seem to do?
-Rich

[Roland Karlsson]

RichA <none@none.com> wrote in news:ci46s0tugmv4k3t3ln6qvr5936j3ghfvol@
4ax.com:

> Aren't you supposed to end this spam with "cheers?"
> Like all spammers seem to do?

Ouch! This must mean that this spammer is a fake spammer!


/Roland

[Alan Browne]

RichA wrote:

>
> Aren't you supposed to end this spam with "cheers?"
> Like all spammers seem to do?

Still on that one? I'm still chuckling.

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: [url]http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm[/url]
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: [url]http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm[/url]
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: [url]http://www.pbase.com/shootin[/url]
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

[John Doe]

How am I a spammer? I simply bought the product saw that it was on sale,
like it enough to let everyone know that it was on sale. I have nothing to
do with the sale of the product. I don't work for them and I don't make any
money off of it. So what the fuck is the problem?

John

[Tom Scales]

You have nothing to do with the product.

Yeah, right
"John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jWGwd.12790$_3.142437@typhoon.sonic.net...

> How am I a spammer? I simply bought the product saw that it was on sale,
> like it enough to let everyone know that it was on sale. I have nothing to
> do with the sale of the product. I don't work for them and I don't make
> any money off of it. So what the fuck is the problem?
>
> John
>
>

[Larry]

Is there a news group that you did NOT post this crap to??

"John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:N3mwd.12549$_3.138114@typhoon.sonic.net...

> I don't know if any of your are interested but Ultra-Sharpen is on sale

now

> for $10. That is $5 less than the normal price. The sale ends on the 23rd.

I

> just picked up another copy for my laptop and thought I would pass this

on.

>
> [url]http://www.ultrasharpen.com[/url]
>
> John
>
>
>
>

[John Doe]

Other than being a customer, no. I don't often find many products that I
love US is one of them. So when they had a sale I posted.

John


"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:xKKdnQEWHNNT317cRVn-2A@comcast.com...

> You have nothing to do with the product.
>
> Yeah, right
> "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:jWGwd.12790$_3.142437@typhoon.sonic.net...

>> How am I a spammer? I simply bought the product saw that it was on sale,
>> like it enough to let everyone know that it was on sale. I have nothing
>> to do with the sale of the product. I don't work for them and I don't
>> make any money off of it. So what the fuck is the problem?
>>
>> John
>>
>>

>
>

[John Doe]

I posted it to 4 newsgroups out 30,000+ and posted to each one separately.
Hardly the moves of a spammer.

John


"Larry" <me@myhome.xyz> wrote in message
news:ejKwd.5752$jn.835@lakeread06...

> Is there a news group that you did NOT post this crap to??
>
> "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:N3mwd.12549$_3.138114@typhoon.sonic.net...

>> I don't know if any of your are interested but Ultra-Sharpen is on sale

> now

>> for $10. That is $5 less than the normal price. The sale ends on the
>> 23rd.

> I

>> just picked up another copy for my laptop and thought I would pass this

> on.

>>
>> [url]http://www.ultrasharpen.com[/url]
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>>

>
>

[David H. Lipman]

Actually, yes, it is. Now you know, PLEASE don't do it again.

Dave



"John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:liLwd.12980$_3.142994@typhoon.sonic.net...
| I posted it to 4 newsgroups out 30,000+ and posted to each one separately.
| Hardly the moves of a spammer.
|
| John

[RichA]

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:00:01 GMT, "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com>
wrote:

>I posted it to 4 newsgroups out 30,000+ and posted to each one separately.
>Hardly the moves of a spammer.
>
>John

Targeted spam. One reason Google reduced the
number you can post to from 10 to 5, which IMO, is
still too many. I remember the pancake lens that
was sold about 15 years back, Pentax or Minolta,
I'm not sure which, but it SUCKED compared to a
decent 50mm full size lens, in terms of resolution
and contrast. It's sole purpose was to be slim
and it was inexpensive relative to standard 50mm
f1.4 lenses.
-Rich

[John Doe]

That is your opinion. I give as much weight to that as finding a telephone
pole and playing sit and spin.

John


"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:XELwd.124$_62.28@trnddc01...

> Actually, yes, it is. Now you know, PLEASE don't do it again.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:liLwd.12980$_3.142994@typhoon.sonic.net...
> | I posted it to 4 newsgroups out 30,000+ and posted to each one
> separately.
> | Hardly the moves of a spammer.
> |
> | John
>
>

[John Doe]

Good for Google, as for the rest of it did you forget some meds?

John


"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:ot57s0tfq6cns3kcv9nsduu793t020m0de@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:00:01 GMT, "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>

>>I posted it to 4 newsgroups out 30,000+ and posted to each one separately.
>>Hardly the moves of a spammer.
>>
>>John

>
> Targeted spam. One reason Google reduced the
> number you can post to from 10 to 5, which IMO, is
> still too many. I remember the pancake lens that
> was sold about 15 years back, Pentax or Minolta,
> I'm not sure which, but it SUCKED compared to a
> decent 50mm full size lens, in terms of resolution
> and contrast. It's sole purpose was to be slim
> and it was inexpensive relative to standard 50mm
> f1.4 lenses.
> -Rich

[David J Taylor]

RichA wrote:

> I remember the pancake lens that
> was sold about 15 years back, Pentax or Minolta,
> I'm not sure which, but it SUCKED compared to a
> decent 50mm full size lens, in terms of resolution
> and contrast. It's sole purpose was to be slim
> and it was inexpensive relative to standard 50mm
> f1.4 lenses.

You know that's been re-launched?

[David H. Lipman]

That's why you performed the spam in the first place !

I have NEVER confronted a spammer who didn't think what they did wasn't spam. Those that
are confrontable are in denial. Those that can't be confronted know they spam, do it
anyway, and that's why they can't be confronted.

Dave



"John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:YlQwd.13049$_3.144739@typhoon.sonic.net...
| That is your opinion. I give as much weight to that as finding a telephone
| pole and playing sit and spin.
|
| John

[Larry]

SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM

"John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:QmQwd.13050$_3.144926@typhoon.sonic.net...

> Good for Google, as for the rest of it did you forget some meds?
>
> John
>
>
> "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> news:ot57s0tfq6cns3kcv9nsduu793t020m0de@4ax.com...

> > On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:00:01 GMT, "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com>
> > wrote:
> >

> >>I posted it to 4 newsgroups out 30,000+ and posted to each one

separately.

> >>Hardly the moves of a spammer.
> >>
> >>John

> >
> > Targeted spam. One reason Google reduced the
> > number you can post to from 10 to 5, which IMO, is
> > still too many. I remember the pancake lens that
> > was sold about 15 years back, Pentax or Minolta,
> > I'm not sure which, but it SUCKED compared to a
> > decent 50mm full size lens, in terms of resolution
> > and contrast. It's sole purpose was to be slim
> > and it was inexpensive relative to standard 50mm
> > f1.4 lenses.
> > -Rich

>
>

[Roland Karlsson]

"John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in
news:liLwd.12980$_3.142994@typhoon.sonic.net:

> I posted it to 4 newsgroups out 30,000+ and posted to each one
> separately. Hardly the moves of a spammer.
>

Telling in 4 newsgroup that something is on sale is SPAM.
One might be a mistake, two or more is SPAM.
It is quite obvious that your intention not was to SPAM,
and that talks well of you. But the result was SPAM.

It would be even better if you just admitted that you
made a mistake. Now it starts to get just embarrising
for you when you try to defend a lost cause.


/Roland

[RichA]

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 06:46:08 GMT, "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com>
wrote:

>Good for Google, as for the rest of it did you forget some meds?

Well, lets see what this lens performs like, and see how accurate
your ad copy was.
-Rich

>
>John
>
>
>"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>news:ot57s0tfq6cns3kcv9nsduu793t020m0de@4ax.com.. .

>> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:00:01 GMT, "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>

>>>I posted it to 4 newsgroups out 30,000+ and posted to each one separately.
>>>Hardly the moves of a spammer.
>>>
>>>John

>>
>> Targeted spam. One reason Google reduced the
>> number you can post to from 10 to 5, which IMO, is
>> still too many. I remember the pancake lens that
>> was sold about 15 years back, Pentax or Minolta,
>> I'm not sure which, but it SUCKED compared to a
>> decent 50mm full size lens, in terms of resolution
>> and contrast. It's sole purpose was to be slim
>> and it was inexpensive relative to standard 50mm
>> f1.4 lenses.
>> -Rich

>

[Alan Browne]

RichA wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:00:01 GMT, "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>

>>I posted it to 4 newsgroups out 30,000+ and posted to each one separately.
>>Hardly the moves of a spammer.
>>
>>John

>
>
> Targeted spam. One reason Google reduced the
> number you can post to from 10 to 5, which IMO, is
> still too many. I remember the pancake lens that
> was sold about 15 years back, Pentax or Minolta,
> I'm not sure which, but it SUCKED compared to a
> decent 50mm full size lens, in terms of resolution
> and contrast. It's sole purpose was to be slim
> and it was inexpensive relative to standard 50mm
> f1.4 lenses.
> -Rich

The pancake lenses were meant to be discrete street shooting lenses. Scenes
where absolute sharpness/contrast were not as important as the ipmact of the
scene. Shoot with fast, grainy, contrasty, pushed 400 B&W and who cares how
sharp the damned lens is?

Did I say "Cheers?"

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: [url]http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm[/url]
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: [url]http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm[/url]
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: [url]http://www.pbase.com/shootin[/url]
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.