spam

[Kobra[_3_]]

Is it possible that this is somehow the way terrorists communicate? The
spams are jibber jabber which leads me to believe it's code. Other than
that there is no purpose in it posting it.

[Martin Hotze]

Kobra schrieb:

> Is it possible that this is somehow the way terrorists communicate? The
> spams are jibber jabber which leads me to believe it's code. Other than
> that there is no purpose in it posting it.


yeah. 'THEY' are now using usenet for communication. Beware! THEY are
everywhere. They use your cracked computer for com^!"§%$&/%§"!°lost carrier

#m
--
I am not a terrorist <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>

[Mxsmanic]

Kobra writes:

> Is it possible that this is somehow the way terrorists communicate? The
> spams are jibber jabber which leads me to believe it's code. Other than
> that there is no purpose in it posting it.

Most people doing this sort of thing are stupid, angry young males. Only a
tiny fraction of such males become terrorists. Thus, while spammers are
invariably losers, they are not normally terrorists.

[Jay Beckman[_2_]]

On Aug 14, 5:28 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Kobra writes:
> > Is it possible that this is somehow the way terrorists communicate? The
> > spams are jibber jabber which leads me to believe it's code. Other than
> > that there is no purpose in it posting it.
>
> Most people doing this sort of thing are stupid, angry young males. Only a
> tiny fraction of such males become terrorists. Thus, while spammers are
> invariably losers, they are not normally terrorists.

Pot...Kettle...

[Robert M. Gary]

On Aug 14, 5:28 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Kobra writes:
> > Is it possible that this is somehow the way terrorists communicate? The
> > spams are jibber jabber which leads me to believe it's code. Other than
> > that there is no purpose in it posting it.
>
> Most people doing this sort of thing are stupid, angry young males. Only a
> tiny fraction of such males become terrorists. Thus, while spammers are
> invariably losers, they are not normally terrorists.

So are you saying we could get rid of terrorists if we lock up all the
spammers? Sounds good to me.

-Robert

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> So are you saying we could get rid of terrorists if we lock up all the
> spammers? Sounds good to me.

I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion.

[Gattman[_2_]]

"Kobra" > wrote in message
. ..
> Is it possible that this is somehow the way terrorists communicate? The
> spams are jibber jabber which leads me to believe it's code. Other than
> that there is no purpose in it posting it.

It's not necessary. They use free weblogs and bogus identities. You know
those e-mail where you're asked to log in to your Paypal or bank account
(phishing scams.) They use that information to make fake identities, and
use various webhosting services to pass pieces of information.

I have 150 pages of examples that an international anti-terrorist
organization sent me because they were exploiting one of my customers'
services. Spoke to the FBI about it two weeks ago. They're aware of it but
there's not really much they can do other than the things they don't tell us
about, and putting the people they identify on watch lists so they can't
come into the country (for example.)

This guy is probably some geek showing off to his geek friends.

-c

[Doug Semler]

"Gattman" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> This guy is probably some geek showing off to his geek friends.
>


Hell, I knew how to do this 13 or 14 years ago...it's nothing new, just a
new batch of kids...

--
Doug Semler
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
The answer is 42; DNRC o-
Gur Hfrarg unf orpbzr fb shyy bs penc gurfr qnlf, abbar rira
erpbtavmrf fvzcyr guvatf yvxr ebg13 nalzber. Fnq, vfa'g vg?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Kobra writes:
>
>> Is it possible that this is somehow the way terrorists communicate?
>> The spams are jibber jabber which leads me to believe it's code.
>> Other than that there is no purpose in it posting it.
>
> Most people doing this sort of thing are stupid, angry young males.
> Only a tiny fraction of such males become terrorists. Thus, while
> spammers are invariably losers, they are not normally terrorists.
>

And we reach a new height of idiocy.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Robert M. Gary writes:
>
>> So are you saying we could get rid of terrorists if we lock up all the
>> spammers? Sounds good to me.
>
> I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion.
>

You're not sure of anythgn

Bertie