Posted Monday 5th November 2007 00:04 GMT
Shouldn't that be:
spam scam sting slings scammer in slammer.
or perhaps:
spam scam sting secures slammer for scammer.
Just a suggestion. I'll get me coat.
Posted Monday 5th November 2007 00:04 GMT
...or something along those lines.
Posted Monday 5th November 2007 00:04 GMT
Why so short? And why has the author chosen to write it like it's a lot.
It isn't, and it isn't anywhere enough for anybody caught committing such a serious and all-pervasive nuisance to everybody.
Therefore, the piece should have been written along the lines of "was awarded a miserly sentence of just ..."
Posted Monday 5th November 2007 08:17 GMT
The spammer, the spammer
.. is on fire
The spammer, the spammer
.. is on fire
We don't need no water
.. let the motherf* burn
Burn motherf*
.. burn
Posted Monday 5th November 2007 08:19 GMT
If they had only heeded the missives from the brother of the recently deceased oil minister in Nigeria.
Posted Monday 5th November 2007 16:54 GMT
Long sentences for petty crimes are a way to scare the populous. The free full length film below elaborates on the present police state in the USA and the vision and philosophy of its creators
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6495462761605341661
Posted Tuesday 6th November 2007 19:01 GMT
Those of us who run Internet mail servers would prefer that spammers were sent not to jail, but to the slaughterhouse, where their heads would be pounded flat with wooden mallets.
When these motherf*ckers spend all day stealing from millions of other people (and bragging about it on a regular basis), jail is too good for them. Unfortunately, bleeding hearts like you have convinced the Government to offer them mercy.
Sign up, sign up for The Register's weekly IT security newsletter - click here
Back to the article
