Well, I'd be squeamish about that, sir.
Not being computer-savvy, I myself don't know for sure, but I suspect that would be an invasion of privacy.
Or it might not be; I really do not know.
The Andyites gloat and boast about getting these things, but we play by the rules, aboveboard and out front. And if we're not sure something is aboveboard and legal, we don't do it.
The Andyites, especially dirty ben, claim to have "a lot" on computer-ignorant me, but I haven't seen none of it accurate, or even close.
The Andyites, especially dirty ben, claim to know "everything" about me, but so far it looks as if they can't tell me from Clare Booth Luce.
1. Scam artists want to work under the radar. If Stephenson made his solicitation for money on 200 message boards, how would this "scam artist" have expected to escape the intense scrutiny that goes with widespread blogosphere publicity?
1. Scam artists want to work under the radar. If Stephenson made his solicitation for money on 200 message boards, how would this "scam artist" have expected to escape the intense scrutiny that goes with widespread blogosphere publicity?
2. See No. 1, except add to it widespread radio network coverage.
3. See No. 1, except add to it widespread e-mail forwarding.
Right from the top, it is clear this "truthseeker" is out of his element. How, oh how? could this escape the scrutiny of the super-smart "progressive" community?
Perhaps by Lock, Ban, Delete and an intimidation scheme against anyone who questions.
It's sad how childish the "progressive" community is. If just one evil FReeper raises a question, they circle the wagons around one of "their own" and refuse to listen to anything else.
SD