Page 2 of 2

Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2003 1:05 am
by m3mn0n
I know enough about the american government system to know he didn't propose this, didn't have anything to say in the debate about it, and personally I doubt he is very into this type of debate. But his abundance of ignorance, and the lack of veto give me all the more reason to tell every american friend I know to vote his ass out come 2004. ;)

Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2003 4:34 am
by twigletmac
Aren't Google bombs fun?
[google]miserable failure[/google]

Mac

[Note: I have posted the above link in the interest of humour not to make any political statement :P ]

Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2003 4:45 am
by Nay
We should have our own sites to bomb google with the keyword "gods" and link it to PHPDN 8).

-Nay

Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 4:37 am
by Pyrite
Is this article possibly fake? I swear I just read an article on slashdot about a new bill being signed and going into effect this month banning spam and allowing corporate companies to sue spammers?

Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 4:48 am
by twigletmac

Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 5:13 am
by JayBird
BBC Website wrote:Anti-spam activists would have preferred an opt-in scheme in which people who want spam are the only ones that get it.
Who would WANT spam?

Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 5:57 am
by Pyrite
Yea! so if bush is signing a bill by end of 2003 to stop spam, what the hell is the other article about bush allowing it? Doesn't make sense.