On Tue, 5 Nov 1996 cypher@cyberstation.net wrote:
I recognize that the vast majority of list readers are sensible human beings trying to better the profession they love and serve the interests they represent. As such, readers of this thread do not need me, or a claque of snivelers, to determine the probity of the impartations being made. You are capable of determining that for yourselves.
You too, shut up and go away.
Preamble:
In law school, potential attorneys are drilled in the three prong postulate:
1. If you can argue the facts, argue the facts, the evidence.
2. If you cannot argue the facts, then argue the law, Shannon and Sneider.
3. If you cannot argue the facts, or the law, then attack the opposition, the people presenting the facts.
I don't remember this lecture. Perhaps I missed it somehow. I wasn't sure so I thought I'd ask someone else. Funny, I called a friend of mine who went to Harvard, asked him about this lecture. He seems to have missed it too. He was, however, interested to discuss false advertizing with me.
Copyright 1996 by Donald R. Wood. All rights reserved.
I assume you copyright the patterns in your feces too? It would follow, as they are equally valuable.
Where do we go from here? As you read this, many companies and individuals have purchased, are purchasing, copies for test and evaluation under the newly announced limited moneyback guarantee offer set out in our web site at:
netpriv.com
As you read this three people I've talked to are making official complaints to the FTC about this software, the advertizing and the tactics used. I'd be happy to introduce others who feel this product borders on fraud to my law school friend who now co-heads the Advertizing Practices section. Feel free to e-mail me. -- Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures Finger for Public Key Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern Vote Monarchist Switzerland