Instead of posting a question to a forum where, for all you know, the poster
could be Jeffery Dahmer, get a real attorney.


Curtis
http://www.prepaidlegal.com/info/mrowell

"Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote in message
news:nZYsb.109458$jW5.1294532@twister.tampabay.rr. com... Instead of posting a question to a forum where, for all you know, the
poster could be Jeffery Dahmer, get a real attorney.

I'm a real attorney.

Paul N. Tauger, Esq.
Cal. State Bar No. 160552

Do a google search and you'll find out my firm and areas of practice.

I answer questions in this forum. I don't try to sell anyone any services,
including my own. I also don't employ cappers. You know what a capper is,
don't you? That's a non-lawyer who "recruits" business for the lawyer for
whom he works. Capping is illegal in most jurisdictions.

The big difference between you and the _real_ lawyers who participate in
this thread is that you have nothing substantive to add, and are only
spamming for an insurance scheme that seems to depend on multi-level
marketing. I haven't seen one lawyer here, or in any of the other legal
newsgroups, trying to sell anything but, instead, simply contributing their
time to help others.

So, let's see . . . who should folks believe? The non-lawyer, multi-level
marketer who reads these ngs looking only for opportunities to spam, or the
licensed professionals (who, among other things, and unlike you, are bound
by an enforceable code of ethics) who participate here for no other reason
than to provide assistance when and as they can?

Curtis

<spam site deleted>

PTRAVEL wrote:
"Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote in message news:nZYsb.109458$jW5.1294532@twister.tampabay.rr. com... Instead of posting a question to a forum where, for all you know, the poster could be Jeffery Dahmer, get a real attorney. I'm a real attorney. Paul N. Tauger, Esq. Cal. State Bar No. 160552

David W. Wiese, Esq.
Cal. Bar No. 201728

I contribute to alt.bankruptcy (when Mr. Weiss is on vacation), as that is my
area of practice.
Do a google search and you'll find out my firm and areas of practice. I answer questions in this forum. I don't try to sell anyone any services, including my own. I also don't employ cappers. You know what a capper is, don't you? That's a non-lawyer who "recruits" business for the lawyer for whom he works. Capping is illegal in most jurisdictions.

Likewise, and I post anonymously, without any expectation that my posts may
generate new clients.
The big difference between you and the _real_ lawyers who participate in this thread is that you have nothing substantive to add, and are only spamming for an insurance scheme that seems to depend on multi-level marketing. I haven't seen one lawyer here, or in any of the other legal newsgroups, trying to sell anything but, instead, simply contributing their time to help others. So, let's see . . . who should folks believe? The non-lawyer, multi-level marketer who reads these ngs looking only for opportunities to spam, or the licensed professionals (who, among other things, and unlike you, are bound by an enforceable code of ethics) who participate here for no other reason than to provide assistance when and as they can?

Well said.

So what do you think of PPL competing with other referral services by employing
individuals who use false statements and fake return email addresses in their
advertisements?

I'm thinking exposure to B&P section 17200.

"Thoth" <Thoth@unlisted.net> wrote in message
news:3FB520AB.1EDA4BB7@unlisted.net...

<snip>
So what do you think of PPL competing with other referral services by
employing individuals who use false statements and fake return email addresses in
their advertisements? I'm thinking exposure to B&P section 17200.

Section 17200 is construed so broadly that someone could probably state a
tenable cause of action, possibly under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), as well.
Interestingly enough, though liability would probably accrue to PPL under
respondeat superior, the primary defendant would be the spammers who post
here. Now, where could we find a plaintiff with standing? Class action,
perhaps?

Thoth on 14 Nov 2003 suggested:
Of course, it's not possible for my son to be taken by DCF. My son was killed September 5, 2003, in a construction accident in New Jersey.
My deepest sympathies!

--Douglas

In us.legal, Thoth <Thoth@unlisted.net> wrote: I'm a real attorney. Paul N. Tauger, Esq. Cal. State Bar No. 160552
David W. Wiese, Esq. Cal. Bar No. 201728


David B. Westebbe, Esq.
MA BBO# 549229

I am a real attorney. Check the Maryland Court of Appeals Web
Site (http://www.courts.state.md.us/cpf/attylist.html) [Maryland
doesn't issue bar numbers.] My DC Bar number is 404420. I'm also
admitted to practice before the US District Courts of Maryland
and DC, the US Circuit Courts for the Fourth Circuit and the DC
Circuits, the US Tax Court, and the US Supreme Court.

My home page, discussing my areas of practice and offering FAQs
on a number of different topics, is at
http://www.erols.com/lawyer.

Brett
lawyer@erols.com
http://www.erols.com/lawyer

"Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote in message
news:nZYsb.109458$jW5.1294532@twister.tampabay.rr. com... Instead of posting a question to a forum where, for all you
know, the poster could be Jeffery Dahmer, get a real attorney. Curtis

> Of course, it's not possible for my son to be taken by DCF. My
son was killed September 5, 2003, in a construction accident in New
Jersey.

I'm so sorry.

--
Brett

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 04:36:35 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:
Instead of posting a question to a forum where, for all you know, the postercould be Jeffery Dahmer, get a real attorney.Curtishttp://www.prepaidlegal.com/info/mrowell

Or worse -- somebody trying to sell you something.

- Jon Beaver

I commend you. You are the first honest person I've run into to date in
this forum.

As such, my frustration doesn't apply to you. Only to those who post legal
advice behind a thinly veiled flim-flam "suggestions" and don't provide in
the same message a method of verifying exactly who the person is posting the
"Suggestion"

Better, this such cases to forget the anonymous posting and spend a bit of
money to be able to talk to a verifiable attorney with a known good record.

"Brett Weiss" <lawyer@erols.com> wrote in message
news:cPCdnVQYRdmuDCuiRVn-hQ@comcast.com... I am a real attorney. Check the Maryland Court of Appeals Web Site (http://www.courts.state.md.us/cpf/attylist.html) [Maryland doesn't issue bar numbers.] My DC Bar number is 404420. I'm also admitted to practice before the US District Courts of Maryland and DC, the US Circuit Courts for the Fourth Circuit and the DC Circuits, the US Tax Court, and the US Supreme Court. My home page, discussing my areas of practice and offering FAQs on a number of different topics, is at http://www.erols.com/lawyer. Brett lawyer@erols.com http://www.erols.com/lawyer "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote in message news:nZYsb.109458$jW5.1294532@twister.tampabay.rr. com... Instead of posting a question to a forum where, for all you know, the poster could be Jeffery Dahmer, get a real attorney. Curtis

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
news:bp36tg$1jqsks$1@ID-101118.news.uni-berlin.de... "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote in message news:nZYsb.109458$jW5.1294532@twister.tampabay.rr. com... Instead of posting a question to a forum where, for all you know, the poster could be Jeffery Dahmer, get a real attorney. I'm a real attorney. Paul N. Tauger, Esq. Cal. State Bar No. 160552 Do a google search and you'll find out my firm and areas of practice. I answer questions in this forum. I don't try to sell anyone any
services, including my own. I also don't employ cappers. You know what a capper
is, don't you? That's a non-lawyer who "recruits" business for the lawyer for whom he works. Capping is illegal in most jurisdictions. The big difference between you and the _real_ lawyers who participate in this thread is that you have nothing substantive to add, and are only spamming for an insurance scheme that seems to depend on multi-level marketing. I haven't seen one lawyer here, or in any of the other legal newsgroups, trying to sell anything but, instead, simply contributing
their time to help others. So, let's see . . . who should folks believe? The non-lawyer, multi-level marketer who reads these ngs looking only for opportunities to spam, or
the licensed professionals (who, among other things, and unlike you, are bound by an enforceable code of ethics) who participate here for no other reason than to provide assistance when and as they can? Curtis <spam site deleted>


For your information, I am not a 'capper' as you so eloquently put it. I do
not work for an attorney.

It is interesting what people will lable as a scam when it potentially takes
money from their own pockets. For your re-education, a scam is an illegal
operation who's sole intent is to defaud the public, selling a service and
then not providing the advertized service or providing a much reduced level
of said service. None of my, nor PPL's activities can be categorized as
such.

Spam, by legal definition is automated email generation, sent, unsolicited,
to private email addresses and newsgroups. While my emails are admitedly,
unsolicited, they most certainly are not machine generated, nor do I send
them to a multitude of news groups at once.

I would think that persons with such impressive credentials as yourself
would know the difference.

Until a legal definition is presented and passed and regulated regarding
what is and is not spam. I will continue my activities in this and other
news groups. Period.

BTW, I'm sure you all know who F. Lee Bailey is, right??? Well, he has
whole heartedly endorsed PrePaid Legal. Not only has he endorsed it, he has
recorded a message on behalf of PPL encouraging people who listen to
purchase a legal plan.

Curtis wrote:

Spam, by legal definition is automated email generation, sent, unsolicited, to private email addresses and newsgroups.

Spam, where legally defined, is bulk unsolicited commercial E-mail, or
sometimes just unsolicited commercial E-mail. "Automation" has
nothing to do with it.

I'll level others to decide whether to refute your claim that PPL is
not a scam.

Curtis on 17 Nov 2003 suggested:
Spam, by legal definition is automated email generation, sent, unsolicited, to private email addresses and newsgroups.

Interesting that with all your access to lawyers and legal
authorities you can't seem to get a simple legal definition correct.
The vast majority of courts who have decided the issue agree that
"Spam" is unsolicited commercial bulk e-mail akin to "junk mail" sent
through the postal mail. There is also a trend emerging that would
define spam as "unsolicited bulk e-mail" without regards to it being
commercial.

But be sure to also see a great many States, including
California's statutory definition of "spam" which is simply "unsolicited
commercial e-mail advertisements", without regards to bulk. With these
new statutory provisions, what you are doing is most definitely spam.
While my emails are admitedly, unsolicited, they most certainly are not machine generated, nor do I send them to a multitude of news groups at once.
There is no requirement that they be machine generated. And in
most states now, there is no requirement that you send them to a
multitude of destinations.
I would think that persons with such impressive credentials as yourself would know the difference.
I would think that someone who claims to have access to so many
prestigious lawyers and firms, and unlimited phone consultations, would
know, or at least be able to learn, the actual law.
Until a legal definition is presented and passed and regulated regarding what is and is not spam. I will continue my activities in this and other news groups. Period.

Please see the statutory definitions and prohibitions of your
activites in the following state codes:

Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Nevada
New Mexico
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

I didn't provide direct cites, because you should be able to get
that information using your unlimited free telephone consultations.

--Douglas

"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FB92BFA.E7FD8738@sprintmail.com... Curtis wrote: Spam, by legal definition is automated email generation, sent,
unsolicited, to private email addresses and newsgroups. Spam, where legally defined, is bulk unsolicited commercial E-mail, or sometimes just unsolicited commercial E-mail. "Automation" has nothing to do with it. I'll level others to decide whether to refute your claim that PPL is not a scam.

You said it, "Bulk". As such, no one single posting I have made constitutes
spam because at no time have I blasted any commercial email to more than one
group at a time. ALL emails are done singularly and by hand.

"Douglas S. Ladden" <nospamreply@nowayjose.org> wrote in message
news:Xns94368D8C53079Legal1Ladden2Law3@216.148.227 .77... Curtis on 17 Nov 2003 suggested: Spam, by legal definition is automated email generation, sent, unsolicited, to private email addresses and newsgroups. Interesting that with all your access to lawyers and legal authorities you can't seem to get a simple legal definition correct. The vast majority of courts who have decided the issue agree that "Spam" is unsolicited commercial bulk e-mail akin to "junk mail" sent through the postal mail. There is also a trend emerging that would define spam as "unsolicited bulk e-mail" without regards to it being commercial. But be sure to also see a great many States, including California's statutory definition of "spam" which is simply "unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisements", without regards to bulk. With these new statutory provisions, what you are doing is most definitely spam. While my emails are admitedly, unsolicited, they most certainly are not machine generated, nor do I send them to a multitude of news groups at once. There is no requirement that they be machine generated. And in most states now, there is no requirement that you send them to a multitude of destinations. I would think that persons with such impressive credentials as yourself would know the difference. I would think that someone who claims to have access to so many prestigious lawyers and firms, and unlimited phone consultations, would know, or at least be able to learn, the actual law. Until a legal definition is presented and passed and regulated regarding what is and is not spam. I will continue my activities in this and other news groups. Period. Please see the statutory definitions and prohibitions of your activites in the following state codes: Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Idaho
<snip boring content>

Gee, I don't see the State of Florida listed here and I could care less what
the highly liberal and very dubious definitions are for California.

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:32:52 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:
It is interesting what people will lable as a scam when it potentially takesmoney from their own pockets. For your re-education, a scam is an illegaloperation who's sole intent is to defaud the public, selling a service andthen not providing the advertized service or providing a much reduced levelof said service. None of my, nor PPL's activities can be categorized assuch.

It's not a scam to sell snake oil. The scam is in telling people that
it will cure something. "Unlimited telephone consultations" don't
cure anything.

- Jon Beaver

"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in message
news:ocjdrvkjnro19kgn48ea50mmjusqjhoadh@4ax.com... On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 04:36:35 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:Instead of posting a question to a forum where, for all you know, the
postercould be Jeffery Dahmer, get a real attorney.Curtishttp://www.prepaidlegal.com/info/mrowell Or worse -- somebody trying to sell you something. - Jon Beaver

If you don't like people trying to sell you things, then you had better go
find a cave, move into it and collapse the entrance, because you are
surrounded by merchants. You can't drive with out it, you can't watch TV
with out it, you can't listen to the radio with out it, you can't even go
see a movie in a theater anymore with out it.

The simple solution is when you come across an advertisement you don't have
interest in, ignore it. BTW, just because YOU may not wish to buy what
someone, anyone is selling, doesn't make the product or the merchant a bad
thing. If you feel that way, then you would have to start boycotting every
single merchant who posts an ad on TV, Radio, Newspaper, billboard, etc. I
am doing no different. If you don't like my ads, fine. I don't care in the
slightest. I won't stop and I'm not going away, regardless of how nasty all
of you become. I'm also not going to stoop to your level any longer. Rant
and Rave all you wish... it is your own energy you are wasting.

Curtis wrote:
"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in message news:3FB92BFA.E7FD8738@sprintmail.com... Curtis wrote: Spam, by legal definition is automated email generation, sent, unsolicited, to private email addresses and newsgroups. Spam, where legally defined, is bulk unsolicited commercial E-mail, or sometimes just unsolicited commercial E-mail. "Automation" has nothing to do with it. I'll level others to decide whether to refute your claim that PPL is not a scam. You said it, "Bulk". As such, no one single posting I have made constitutes spam because at no time have I blasted any commercial email to more than one group at a time. ALL emails are done singularly and by hand.

[SIGH]. It doesn't matter whether it's done by hand or by
an automated system. Multiple posting of the same commercial
information is still spam.

"Bulk" means "many items", not necessarily automated. As an example, if
one had a keystroke macro which would E-mail to all (distinct) posters in
this newsgroup, it would still be spam, even if one click was required for
each E-mail.

Curtis wrote:
Gee, I don't see the State of Florida listed here and I could care less what the highly liberal and very dubious definitions are for California.

Your posts reach out to California residents. All it would take is for two
former PPL marks to certify your misleading advertisements induced them to sign
up for PPL and you'd be a defendant.

You probably have nothing to worry about. Your posts salt the earth, here.

In article <XGeub.29682$w66.692521@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
Curtis <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:"Douglas S. Ladden" <nospamreply@nowayjose.org> wrote in messagenews:Xns94368D8C53079Legal1Ladden2Law3@216. 148.227.77... Curtis on 17 Nov 2003 suggested: Spam, by legal definition is automated email generation, sent, unsolicited, to private email addresses and newsgroups.
But be sure to also see a great many States, including California's statutory definition of "spam" which is simply "unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisements", without regards to bulk. With these new statutory provisions, what you are doing is most definitely spam.
Please see the statutory definitions and prohibitions of your activites in the following state codes: Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Idaho<snip boring content>Gee, I don't see the State of Florida listed here

Ah yes, the state that rivals Nigeria in the proportion of criminal
spam generated therein.

Seth

In article <UK6ub.192790$RP2.133009@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
Curtis <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:
Spam, by legal definition

Whose definition? The one (never passed) quoted by spammers to the
extent that its appearance in a message is an almost certain sign that
the message is spam?
is automated email generation,

Who requires automation?
sent, unsolicited,to private email addresses and newsgroups. While my emails are admitedly,unsolicited, they most certainly are not machine generated,

No? You whistle into a phone line?
nor do I sendthem to a multitude of news groups at once.

"At once" is not part of the requirement. The Usenet definition
specifies a 45-day window.
I would think that persons with such impressive credentials as yourselfwould know the difference.

If you claim to know anything about spam, you should know what my
credentials in the area of its definition are.
Until a legal definition is presented and passed and regulated regardingwhat is and is not spam. I will continue my activities in this and othernews groups. Period.

You mean, so long as RoadRunner permits you to. Perhaps _they're_ the
ones you should ask about the definition of "spam".
BTW, I'm sure you all know who F. Lee Bailey is, right??? Well, he haswhole heartedly endorsed PrePaid Legal. Not only has he endorsed it, he hasrecorded a message on behalf of PPL encouraging people who listen topurchase a legal plan.
^^^^^^^^^^^^

But not PPL's? Didn't they pay him enough?

Seth

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 01:40:04 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:
"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in messagenews:ocjdrvkjnro19kgn48ea50mmjusqjhoadh@4ax .com... On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 04:36:35 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:Instead of posting a question to a forum where, for all you know, thepostercould be Jeffery Dahmer, get a real attorney.Curtishttp://www.prepaidlegal.com/info/mrowell Or worse -- somebody trying to sell you something. - Jon BeaverIf you don't like people trying to sell you things, then you had better gofind a cave, move into it and collapse the entrance, because you aresurrounded by merchants. You can't drive with out it, you can't watch TVwith out it, you can't listen to the radio with out it, you can't even gosee a movie in a theater anymore with out it.The simple solution is when you come across an advertisement you don't haveinterest in, ignore it. BTW, just because YOU may not wish to buy whatsomeone, anyone is selling, doesn't make the product or the merchant a badthing. If you feel that way, then you would have to start boycotting everysingle merchant who posts an ad on TV, Radio, Newspaper, billboard, etc. Iam doing no different. If you don't like my ads, fine. I don't care in theslightest. I won't stop and I'm not going away, regardless of how nasty allof you become. I'm also not going to stoop to your level any longer. Rantand Rave all you wish... it is your own energy you are wasting.

So, you don't like being ridiculed for being a petty peddler on
usenet? Isn't that just tough ****?

But don't get me going on PPL. I know a whole lot more about it than
you do. You'd look like a damn fool trying to answer some
embarrassing questions about what you are selling.

- Jon Beaver

Curtis wrote, in part:
. . . it is your own <place finger here> energy you are wasting.

Oh, the irony! It's nearly palpable.

Jon Beaver wrote:
<snip> But don't get me going on PPL. I know a whole lot more about it than you do. You'd look like a damn fool trying to answer some embarrassing questions about what you are selling.

IIRC, you've rolled up your sleves on PPL trolls in the past. I'd bet you do
know more about it than Cap'n Curtis.

"Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:

BTW, I'm sure you all know who F. Lee Bailey is, right???


Yeah, he's the attorney that was disbarred in Florida in November 2001
for, amongst other things, claims that he lied, cheated,
misappropriated funds and commingled them with his own money, all in
violation of statutes governing the conduct of lawyers.
Well, he has hole heartedly endorsed PrePaid Legal. Not only has he endorsed it, he hasrecorded a message on behalf of PPL encouraging people who listen topurchase a legal plan.

What a wonderful endorsement.

In article <ULeub.29686$w66.692991@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
Curtis <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:
The simple solution is when you come across an advertisement you don't haveinterest in, ignore it.

Right, "Just hit delete", the hallmark of a spammer.

How much more evidence is required?

Seth

"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FB97EAD.F4AA0DBA@sprintmail.com... Curtis wrote: "Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in message news:3FB92BFA.E7FD8738@sprintmail.com... Curtis wrote: > Spam, by legal definition is automated email generation, sent, unsolicited, > to private email addresses and newsgroups. Spam, where legally defined, is bulk unsolicited commercial E-mail, or sometimes just unsolicited commercial E-mail. "Automation" has nothing to do with it. I'll level others to decide whether to refute your claim that PPL is not a scam. You said it, "Bulk". As such, no one single posting I have made
constitutes spam because at no time have I blasted any commercial email to more than
one group at a time. ALL emails are done singularly and by hand. [SIGH]. It doesn't matter whether it's done by hand or by an automated system. Multiple posting of the same commercial information is still spam. "Bulk" means "many items", not necessarily automated. As an example, if one had a keystroke macro which would E-mail to all (distinct) posters in this newsgroup, it would still be spam, even if one click was required for each E-mail.

[HEAVY SIGH] Again, I do not practice any type of bulk emailing. Period.
I reply to each message individually. If my posts are finding their way to
other forums, that is the fault of the newsgroup carrier, group moderator or
some other mechanation behind the scenes.

"Thoth" <Thoth@unlisted.net> wrote in message
news:3FB97FA1.9C120445@unlisted.net... Curtis wrote: Gee, I don't see the State of Florida listed here and I could care less
what the highly liberal and very dubious definitions are for California. Your posts reach out to California residents. All it would take is for
two former PPL marks to certify your misleading advertisements induced them to
sign up for PPL and you'd be a defendant. You probably have nothing to worry about. Your posts salt the earth,
here.

Your right, I don't have anything to worry about. First and formost because
everything I have stated about what PPL does/provides is fact. You might
not agree with the fact, but that does not make it false. Any argument
about SEC filings I have made were backed up with third-party information.
If some one wishes to take me to civil court for that, let them. I'm not
concerned by it. As time goes by, I become less and less concerned.

"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bpc344$gjc$1@panix5.panix.com... In article <XGeub.29682$w66.692521@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, Curtis <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:"Douglas S. Ladden" <nospamreply@nowayjose.org> wrote in messagenews:Xns94368D8C53079Legal1Ladden2Law3@216. 148.227.77... Curtis on 17 Nov 2003 suggested: > Spam, by legal definition is automated email generation, sent, > unsolicited, to private email addresses and newsgroups. But be sure to also see a great many States, including California's statutory definition of "spam" which is simply
"unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisements", without regards to bulk. With these new statutory provisions, what you are doing is most definitely spam. Please see the statutory definitions and prohibitions of your activites in the following state codes: Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Idaho<snip boring content>Gee, I don't see the State of Florida listed here Ah yes, the state that rivals Nigeria in the proportion of criminal spam generated therein. Seth

Perhaps so, perhaps so... I wouldn't know about that since I am not, by any
LEGAL definition of the term , spam, guilty of spamming. Fortunately for
me, what you WISH to be the legal difinition of spam doesn't appear to jive
with the actual law.

Curtis wrote:
[HEAVY SIGH] Again, I do not practice any type of bulk emailing. Period. I reply to each message individually.

Really? Since October 27, 2003, I count at least six commercial advertisement
threads you have started without solicitation.

1. Subject: Small Business Owners! Attention! Unpaid Judgements? Uncollected
Debts? Why not have an attorney write your letters?

2. What is the validity of posts requesting legal advice in this and related
forums??

3. Subject: If you NEED to talk to an attorney, but can't afford it, this
message may hold your answer... This IS a commercial ad, if this bothers you,
don't look at it.

4. Subject: Don't be taken in by the charlatans passing themselves as
attorneys..

5. Subject: Don't be fooled by ambulance chasers posting "Legal Suggestions"
in this forum

6. Subject: Why post legal quesitons, expecting replys from anonymous posters
who's credentials are unverifiable if not questionable?

"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bpc3ce$h18$1@panix5.panix.com... In article <UK6ub.192790$RP2.133009@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, Curtis <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:Spam, by legal definition Whose definition? The one (never passed) quoted by spammers to the extent that its appearance in a message is an almost certain sign that the message is spam? is automated email generation, Who requires automation? sent, unsolicited,to private email addresses and newsgroups. While my emails are
admitedly,unsolicited, they most certainly are not machine generated, No? You whistle into a phone line?

Were you always a jackass or did you go to school to learn that particular
skill?
nor do I sendthem to a multitude of news groups at once. "At once" is not part of the requirement. The Usenet definition specifies a 45-day window.

Then you are guilt of spam as well... But, Usenet doesn't set or enforce
laws. They only make policy. Policy can be and often is challenged.
I would think that persons with such impressive credentials as yourselfwould know the difference. If you claim to know anything about spam, you should know what my credentials in the area of its definition are.Until a legal definition is presented and passed and regulated regardingwhat is and is not spam. I will continue my activities in this and othernews groups. Period. You mean, so long as RoadRunner permits you to. Perhaps _they're_ the ones you should ask about the definition of "spam".

Again, ISPs do not make law, only policy. Policy is only worth about as
much as the paper and ink they are written on until a law is passed to treat
that policy uniformly. By the way, I copied this from RR's spam policy
statement:

"The Road Runner anti-spam policy addresses incoming spam only "

So, as messages in a newsgroup do not fall into 'incoming' you are out of
luck there.
BTW, I'm sure you all know who F. Lee Bailey is, right??? Well, he haswhole heartedly endorsed PrePaid Legal. Not only has he endorsed it, he
hasrecorded a message on behalf of PPL encouraging people who listen topurchase a legal plan. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ But not PPL's? Didn't they pay him enough? Seth

Okay, yes, I was paraphrasing his exact comments... If you think he would
actually take time to talk to you, why don't you ask him yourself. As for
his endorsement, he did endorse PPL directly and specifically. I would
attach it here but it is over 12 meg

"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in message
news:heejrvkvk3nk9dlrdibhe7nipkis0entog@4ax.com... On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 01:40:04 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in messagenews:ocjdrvkjnro19kgn48ea50mmjusqjhoadh@4ax .com... On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 04:36:35 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote: >Instead of posting a question to a forum where, for all you know, theposter >could be Jeffery Dahmer, get a real attorney. > > >Curtis >http://www.prepaidlegal.com/info/mrowell > Or worse -- somebody trying to sell you something. - Jon BeaverIf you don't like people trying to sell you things, then you had better
gofind a cave, move into it and collapse the entrance, because you aresurrounded by merchants. You can't drive with out it, you can't watch TVwith out it, you can't listen to the radio with out it, you can't even gosee a movie in a theater anymore with out it.The simple solution is when you come across an advertisement you don't
haveinterest in, ignore it. BTW, just because YOU may not wish to buy whatsomeone, anyone is selling, doesn't make the product or the merchant a
badthing. If you feel that way, then you would have to start boycotting
everysingle merchant who posts an ad on TV, Radio, Newspaper, billboard, etc.
Iam doing no different. If you don't like my ads, fine. I don't care in
theslightest. I won't stop and I'm not going away, regardless of how nasty
allof you become. I'm also not going to stoop to your level any longer.
Rantand Rave all you wish... it is your own energy you are wasting. So, you don't like being ridiculed for being a petty peddler on usenet? Isn't that just tough ****?

No, seeing grown men make imbeciles of themselves by making unsupported,
unsubstanciated claims about something they no nothing about irritates me.
But don't get me going on PPL. I know a whole lot more about it than you do. You'd look like a damn fool trying to answer some embarrassing questions about what you are selling.

Fire when ready... My answers are only a phone call away.

"Thoth" <Thoth@unlisted.net> wrote in message
news:3FB9C7BE.70ACFEC7@unlisted.net... Jon Beaver wrote: <snip> But don't get me going on PPL. I know a whole lot more about it than you do. You'd look like a damn fool trying to answer some embarrassing questions about what you are selling. IIRC, you've rolled up your sleves on PPL trolls in the past. I'd bet you
do know more about it than Cap'n Curtis.

I don't claim to know everything about it. I do know where to go for
answers. You think you have the dirt, let it rip. If I think your question
has merit, I'll answer it or get it answered.

If you are just being an ***, I'll happily ignore your question and let you
try to answer it yourself.

"Thoth" <Thoth@unlisted.net> wrote in message
news:3FB9C439.E2604822@unlisted.net... Curtis wrote, in part: . . . it is your own <place finger here> energy you are wasting. Oh, the irony! It's nearly palpable.

Hey, I happen to enjoy shoving dimwitted individuals noses into their own
excrement. Hope you enjoy the smell...

"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bpdotq$d6s$1@panix5.panix.com... In article <ULeub.29686$w66.692991@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, Curtis <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:The simple solution is when you come across an advertisement you don't
haveinterest in, ignore it. Right, "Just hit delete", the hallmark of a spammer. How much more evidence is required? Seth

I presume, then, that we will hear no more of you, seeing as how you just
discovered the delete key, even if you don't know the legal definition of
spam.

Curtis wrote:
"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message news:bpc3ce$h18$1@panix5.panix.com...
You mean, so long as RoadRunner permits you to. Perhaps _they're_ the ones you should ask about the definition of "spam". Again, ISPs do not make law, only policy.

Your ISP's policy is binding on you (in regard your posts through
that ISP), as a contract.

Policy is only worth about as much as the paper and ink they are written on until a law is passed to treat that policy uniformly. By the way, I copied this from RR's spam policy statement: "The Road Runner anti-spam policy addresses incoming spam only "

You picked the wrong spam policy.

"Thoth" <Thoth@unlisted.net> wrote in message
news:3FBA73F0.243E0D9E@unlisted.net... Curtis wrote: [HEAVY SIGH] Again, I do not practice any type of bulk emailing.
Period. I reply to each message individually. Really? Since October 27, 2003, I count at least six commercial
advertisement threads you have started without solicitation. 1. Subject: Small Business Owners! Attention! Unpaid Judgements?
Uncollected Debts? Why not have an attorney write your letters? 2. What is the validity of posts requesting legal advice in this and
related forums?? 3. Subject: If you NEED to talk to an attorney, but can't afford it,
this message may hold your answer... This IS a commercial ad, if this bothers
you, don't look at it. 4. Subject: Don't be taken in by the charlatans passing themselves as attorneys.. 5. Subject: Don't be fooled by ambulance chasers posting "Legal
Suggestions" in this forum 6. Subject: Why post legal quesitons, expecting replys from anonymous
posters who's credentials are unverifiable if not questionable?

Items 4 - 6 are hardly commercial in nature. 1 - 3 certainly are... so
what... Still isn't spam by any legal diffinition.

"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FBA785E.EC9A677E@sprintmail.com... Curtis wrote: "Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message news:bpc3ce$h18$1@panix5.panix.com... You mean, so long as RoadRunner permits you to. Perhaps _they're_ the ones you should ask about the definition of "spam". Again, ISPs do not make law, only policy. Your ISP's policy is binding on you (in regard your posts through that ISP), as a contract. Policy is only worth about as much as the paper and ink they are written on until a law is passed to
treat that policy uniformly. By the way, I copied this from RR's spam policy statement: "The Road Runner anti-spam policy addresses incoming spam only " You picked the wrong spam policy.

Then do your worst... if you think you can...

Curtis wrote:
"Thoth" <Thoth@unlisted.net> wrote in message news:3FBA73F0.243E0D9E@unlisted.net... Curtis wrote: [HEAVY SIGH] Again, I do not practice any type of bulk emailing. Period. I reply to each message individually. Really? Since October 27, 2003, I count at least six commercial advertisement threads you have started without solicitation. 1. Subject: Small Business Owners! Attention! Unpaid Judgements? Uncollected Debts? Why not have an attorney write your letters? 2. What is the validity of posts requesting legal advice in this and related forums?? 3. Subject: If you NEED to talk to an attorney, but can't afford it, this message may hold your answer... This IS a commercial ad, if this bothers you, don't look at it. 4. Subject: Don't be taken in by the charlatans passing themselves as attorneys.. 5. Subject: Don't be fooled by ambulance chasers posting "Legal Suggestions" in this forum 6. Subject: Why post legal quesitons, expecting replys from anonymous posters who's credentials are unverifiable if not questionable? Items 4 - 6 are hardly commercial in nature. 1 - 3 certainly are... so what... Still isn't spam by any legal diffinition.

Form over function. Your purpose here is to induce people to join PPL.

So what? You violate the charter of the newsgroup. I know you don't care
about the rules. Neither has the hundred other cap'n spammers that have
preceded you.

Curtis wrote:
"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in message news:3FBA785E.EC9A677E@sprintmail.com... Curtis wrote: "Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message news:bpc3ce$h18$1@panix5.panix.com... > You mean, so long as RoadRunner permits you to. Perhaps _they're_ the > ones you should ask about the definition of "spam". Again, ISPs do not make law, only policy. Your ISP's policy is binding on you (in regard your posts through that ISP), as a contract. Policy is only worth about as much as the paper and ink they are written on until a law is passed to treat that policy uniformly. By the way, I copied this from RR's spam policy statement: "The Road Runner anti-spam policy addresses incoming spam only " You picked the wrong spam policy. Then do your worst... if you think you can...

I think he means read your Terms of Service. I've done it for you:

In using the ISP Service, you may not use an IP address or client ID not
assigned to you, forge any TCP/IP packet header or any part of the header
information in an e-mail or newsgroup posting or probe, scan or test the
vulnerability of any system or network by the use of sniffers, SNMP tools or any
other method.

The ISP Service may not be used to engage in or foster any consumer fraud such
as illegal gambling, “Make Money Fast” schemes, chain letters, Pyramid, or other
investment schemes, or to make or encourage people to accept fraudulent offers
by e-mail, USENET or other means, of products, items or services, originating
from your account, or through a third party which implicates your account or to
post or transmit off-topic or commercial messages on bulletin boards.

http://help.twcable.com/html/twc_misp_aup.html

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:45:57 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:
"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in messagenews:heejrvkvk3nk9dlrdibhe7nipkis0entog@4ax .com... On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 01:40:04 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in messagenews:ocjdrvkjnro19kgn48ea50mmjusqjhoadh@4ax .com...> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 04:36:35 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:>> >Instead of posting a question to a forum where, for all you know, theposter> >could be Jeffery Dahmer, get a real attorney.> >> >> >Curtis> >http://www.prepaidlegal.com/info/mrowell> >>> Or worse -- somebody trying to sell you something.>> - Jon Beaver>If you don't like people trying to sell you things, then you had bettergofind a cave, move into it and collapse the entrance, because you aresurrounded by merchants. You can't drive with out it, you can't watch TVwith out it, you can't listen to the radio with out it, you can't even gosee a movie in a theater anymore with out it.The simple solution is when you come across an advertisement you don'thaveinterest in, ignore it. BTW, just because YOU may not wish to buy whatsomeone, anyone is selling, doesn't make the product or the merchant abadthing. If you feel that way, then you would have to start boycottingeverysingle merchant who posts an ad on TV, Radio, Newspaper, billboard, etc.Iam doing no different. If you don't like my ads, fine. I don't care intheslightest. I won't stop and I'm not going away, regardless of how nastyallof you become. I'm also not going to stoop to your level any longer.Rantand Rave all you wish... it is your own energy you are wasting. So, you don't like being ridiculed for being a petty peddler on usenet? Isn't that just tough ****?No, seeing grown men make imbeciles of themselves by making unsupported,unsubstanciated claims about something they no nothing about irritates me. But don't get me going on PPL. I know a whole lot more about it than you do. You'd look like a damn fool trying to answer some embarrassing questions about what you are selling.Fire when ready... My answers are only a phone call away.

Question Number One: Can I find out what the exact terms of your plan
are without identifying myself?

- Jon Beaver

"Thoth" <Thoth@unlisted.net> wrote in message
news:3FBA83F9.9927327A@unlisted.net... Curtis wrote: "Thoth" <Thoth@unlisted.net> wrote in message news:3FBA73F0.243E0D9E@unlisted.net... Curtis wrote: > [HEAVY SIGH] Again, I do not practice any type of bulk emailing. Period. > I reply to each message individually. Really? Since October 27, 2003, I count at least six commercial advertisement threads you have started without solicitation. 1. Subject: Small Business Owners! Attention! Unpaid Judgements? Uncollected Debts? Why not have an attorney write your letters? 2. What is the validity of posts requesting legal advice in this and related forums?? 3. Subject: If you NEED to talk to an attorney, but can't afford it, this message may hold your answer... This IS a commercial ad, if this
bothers you, don't look at it. 4. Subject: Don't be taken in by the charlatans passing themselves
as attorneys.. 5. Subject: Don't be fooled by ambulance chasers posting "Legal Suggestions" in this forum 6. Subject: Why post legal quesitons, expecting replys from
anonymous posters who's credentials are unverifiable if not questionable? Items 4 - 6 are hardly commercial in nature. 1 - 3 certainly are... so what... Still isn't spam by any legal diffinition. Form over function. Your purpose here is to induce people to join PPL. So what? You violate the charter of the newsgroup. I know you don't care about the rules. Neither has the hundred other cap'n spammers that have preceded you.


You are ALMOST right. My purpose here is to educate people that the former
idea that you can't get legal advice that is worth a plugged nickel with out
taking out a second mortgage is history. I'm here to remove the sting from
the bit that attorney's have been taking from the general population for
decades... inflating billable hours to make more money... handling a case
through the court system rather than advising a client there are faster,
much less expensive methods to resolve their issue, which, incidently don't
require spending hundreds, even thousands of dollars on an attorney.

It happens that the answer to this quite obvious need is a prepaid legal
plan(if it isn't obvious to you now, it soon will be, like it or not) The
best one on the market (yes, you can argue this all you wish, but it doesn't
change the facts) is Prepaid Legal Services, Inc. hands down...

"Thoth" <Thoth@unlisted.net> wrote in message
news:3FBA86AA.AF2D7CC3@unlisted.net... Curtis wrote: "Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in message news:3FBA785E.EC9A677E@sprintmail.com... Curtis wrote: > "Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message > news:bpc3ce$h18$1@panix5.panix.com... > > > You mean, so long as RoadRunner permits you to. Perhaps _they're_
the > > ones you should ask about the definition of "spam". > > Again, ISPs do not make law, only policy. Your ISP's policy is binding on you (in regard your posts through that ISP), as a contract. > Policy is only worth about as > much as the paper and ink they are written on until a law is passed
to treat > that policy uniformly. By the way, I copied this from RR's spam
policy > statement: > > "The Road Runner anti-spam policy addresses incoming spam only " You picked the wrong spam policy. Then do your worst... if you think you can... I think he means read your Terms of Service. I've done it for you: In using the ISP Service, you may not use an IP address or client ID not assigned to you, forge any TCP/IP packet header or any part of the header information in an e-mail or newsgroup posting or probe, scan or test the vulnerability of any system or network by the use of sniffers, SNMP tools
or any other method.

Okay, perhaps I'm guilty of the above mentioned by virtual of the fact that
I post an obviously bogus emain address in my return mail field. I have
good reason for doing that when posting in public forums, or weren't you
aware that REAL spammers mine news groups for email addresses and domains to
send what is LEGALLY defined as spam to all and sundry with out
consideration for content or recipient.
The ISP Service may not be used to engage in or foster any consumer fraud
such as illegal gambling, "Make Money Fast" schemes, chain letters, Pyramid, or
other investment schemes, or to make or encourage people to accept fraudulent
offers by e-mail, USENET or other means, of products, items or services,
originating from your account, or through a third party which implicates your account
or to post or transmit off-topic or commercial messages on bulletin boards. http://help.twcable.com/html/twc_misp_aup.html

For all but the "or commercial messages" part, I do not qualify in the
slightest. If they make an issue of the commercial messages, I will
challenge it. Until they do... You're stuck with me because I'm one
stubborn, hardheaded SOB.

"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in message
news:k53lrvkpi85v5uofkjctbc9jn3ae0ejodv@4ax.com... On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:45:57 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in messagenews:heejrvkvk3nk9dlrdibhe7nipkis0entog@4ax .com... On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 01:40:04 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote: > >"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in message >news:ocjdrvkjnro19kgn48ea50mmjusqjhoadh@4ax.com... >> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 04:36:35 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote: >> >> >Instead of posting a question to a forum where, for all you know,
the >poster >> >could be Jeffery Dahmer, get a real attorney. >> > >> > >> >Curtis >> >http://www.prepaidlegal.com/info/mrowell >> > >> >> Or worse -- somebody trying to sell you something. >> >> - Jon Beaver >> > >If you don't like people trying to sell you things, then you had
bettergo >find a cave, move into it and collapse the entrance, because you are >surrounded by merchants. You can't drive with out it, you can't watch
TV >with out it, you can't listen to the radio with out it, you can't even
go >see a movie in a theater anymore with out it. > >The simple solution is when you come across an advertisement you don'thave >interest in, ignore it. BTW, just because YOU may not wish to buy
what >someone, anyone is selling, doesn't make the product or the merchant abad >thing. If you feel that way, then you would have to start boycottingevery >single merchant who posts an ad on TV, Radio, Newspaper, billboard,
etc.I >am doing no different. If you don't like my ads, fine. I don't care
inthe >slightest. I won't stop and I'm not going away, regardless of how
nastyall >of you become. I'm also not going to stoop to your level any longer.Rant >and Rave all you wish... it is your own energy you are wasting. So, you don't like being ridiculed for being a petty peddler on usenet? Isn't that just tough ****?No, seeing grown men make imbeciles of themselves by making unsupported,unsubstanciated claims about something they no nothing about irritates
me. But don't get me going on PPL. I know a whole lot more about it than you do. You'd look like a damn fool trying to answer some embarrassing questions about what you are selling.Fire when ready... My answers are only a phone call away. Question Number One: Can I find out what the exact terms of your plan are without identifying myself? - Jon Beaver

Call 1-800-654-7757

Curtis wrote:
For all but the "or commercial messages" part, I do not qualify in the slightest. If they make an issue of the commercial messages, I will challenge it. Until they do... You're stuck with me because I'm one stubborn, hardheaded SOB.

I, for one, don't feel stuck with You. You are like Agent Smith in the movie
The Matrix. When you go, someone that looks just like you will appear. I'm
confident he or she will get the same treatment, and be just as unsuccessful in
harvesting marks from these groups.

> BTW, I'm sure you all know who F. Lee Bailey is, right???
Well, he has whole heartedly endorsed PrePaid Legal. Not only has he
endorsed it, he has recorded a message on behalf of PPL encouraging people who
listen to purchase a legal plan.

F. Lee Bailey was disbarred by the State of Florida 2 years ago
for misconduct related to his handling of stock worth nearly $6
million owned by a former client. He also spent 6 months in jail
on contempt of court charges related to this matter.

Not exactly the spokesperson *I'd* choose to tout legal services.

--
Brett

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 22:50:44 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:
"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in messagenews:k53lrvkpi85v5uofkjctbc9jn3ae0ejodv@4ax .com... On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:45:57 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in messagenews:heejrvkvk3nk9dlrdibhe7nipkis0entog@4ax .com...> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 01:40:04 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:>> >> >"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in message> >news:ocjdrvkjnro19kgn48ea50mmjusqjhoadh@4ax.com...> >> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 04:36:35 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:> >>> >> >Instead of posting a question to a forum where, for all you know,the> >poster> >> >could be Jeffery Dahmer, get a real attorney.> >> >> >> >> >> >Curtis> >> >http://www.prepaidlegal.com/info/mrowell> >> >> >>> >> Or worse -- somebody trying to sell you something.> >>> >> - Jon Beaver> >>> >> >If you don't like people trying to sell you things, then you hadbettergo> >find a cave, move into it and collapse the entrance, because you are> >surrounded by merchants. You can't drive with out it, you can't watchTV> >with out it, you can't listen to the radio with out it, you can't evengo> >see a movie in a theater anymore with out it.> >> >The simple solution is when you come across an advertisement you don'thave> >interest in, ignore it. BTW, just because YOU may not wish to buywhat> >someone, anyone is selling, doesn't make the product or the merchant abad> >thing. If you feel that way, then you would have to start boycottingevery> >single merchant who posts an ad on TV, Radio, Newspaper, billboard,etc.I> >am doing no different. If you don't like my ads, fine. I don't careinthe> >slightest. I won't stop and I'm not going away, regardless of hownastyall> >of you become. I'm also not going to stoop to your level any longer.Rant> >and Rave all you wish... it is your own energy you are wasting.>> So, you don't like being ridiculed for being a petty peddler on> usenet? Isn't that just tough ****?No, seeing grown men make imbeciles of themselves by making unsupported,unsubstanciated claims about something they no nothing about irritatesme.> But don't get me going on PPL. I know a whole lot more about it than> you do. You'd look like a damn fool trying to answer some> embarrassing questions about what you are selling.Fire when ready... My answers are only a phone call away. Question Number One: Can I find out what the exact terms of your plan are without identifying myself? - Jon BeaverCall 1-800-654-7757

Question Number One: Can I find out what the exact terms of your plan
are without identifying myself?

I'm not asking what the terms of your plan are. That's Question
Number Two. I'm asking if I can find out what they are without being
subjected to a continuum of sales pitches designed to undermine my
determination to verify what I'm buying in advance. I say the answer
is no. Prove me wrong. It's really quite simple to answer both
questions. Just post a copy of the plan or point us to where we can
all read it online.

- Jon Beaver

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 22:42:54 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:
"Thoth" <Thoth@unlisted.net> wrote in messagenews:3FBA83F9.9927327A@unlisted.net... Curtis wrote: "Thoth" <Thoth@unlisted.net> wrote in message news:3FBA73F0.243E0D9E@unlisted.net... > Curtis wrote: > > > [HEAVY SIGH] Again, I do not practice any type of bulk emailing. Period. > > I reply to each message individually. > > Really? Since October 27, 2003, I count at least six commercial advertisement > threads you have started without solicitation. > > 1. Subject: Small Business Owners! Attention! Unpaid Judgements? Uncollected > Debts? Why not have an attorney write your letters? > > 2. What is the validity of posts requesting legal advice in this and related > forums?? > > 3. Subject: If you NEED to talk to an attorney, but can't afford it, this > message may hold your answer... This IS a commercial ad, if thisbothers you, > don't look at it. > > 4. Subject: Don't be taken in by the charlatans passing themselvesas > attorneys.. > > 5. Subject: Don't be fooled by ambulance chasers posting "Legal Suggestions" > in this forum > > 6. Subject: Why post legal quesitons, expecting replys fromanonymous posters > who's credentials are unverifiable if not questionable? > > Items 4 - 6 are hardly commercial in nature. 1 - 3 certainly are... so what... Still isn't spam by any legal diffinition. Form over function. Your purpose here is to induce people to join PPL. So what? You violate the charter of the newsgroup. I know you don't care about the rules. Neither has the hundred other cap'n spammers that have preceded you.You are ALMOST right. My purpose here is to educate people that the formeridea that you can't get legal advice that is worth a plugged nickel with outtaking out a second mortgage is history. I'm here to remove the sting fromthe bit that attorney's have been taking from the general population fordecades... inflating billable hours to make more money... handling a casethrough the court system rather than advising a client there are faster,much less expensive methods to resolve their issue, which, incidently don'trequire spending hundreds, even thousands of dollars on an attorney.It happens that the answer to this quite obvious need is a prepaid legalplan(if it isn't obvious to you now, it soon will be, like it or not) Thebest one on the market (yes, you can argue this all you wish, but it doesn'tchange the facts) is Prepaid Legal Services, Inc. hands down...

Trouble! Trouble! Trouble! Oh, my! Right here in River City! And
that starts with T and that rhymes with P and that stands for pool,
er, LAWYERS!!!!!!

- Jon Beaver

"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in message
news:7fmlrv8dak4k25i39gmhiaa01cnhbhrlf2@4ax.com... On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 22:42:54 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:"Thoth" <Thoth@unlisted.net> wrote in messagenews:3FBA83F9.9927327A@unlisted.net... Curtis wrote: > "Thoth" <Thoth@unlisted.net> wrote in message > news:3FBA73F0.243E0D9E@unlisted.net... > > Curtis wrote: > > > > > [HEAVY SIGH] Again, I do not practice any type of bulk emailing. > Period. > > > I reply to each message individually. > > > > Really? Since October 27, 2003, I count at least six commercial > advertisement > > threads you have started without solicitation. > > > > 1. Subject: Small Business Owners! Attention! Unpaid Judgements? > Uncollected > > Debts? Why not have an attorney write your letters? > > > > 2. What is the validity of posts requesting legal advice in this
and > related > > forums?? > > > > 3. Subject: If you NEED to talk to an attorney, but can't afford
it, > this > > message may hold your answer... This IS a commercial ad, if thisbothers > you, > > don't look at it. > > > > 4. Subject: Don't be taken in by the charlatans passing
themselvesas > > attorneys.. > > > > 5. Subject: Don't be fooled by ambulance chasers posting "Legal > Suggestions" > > in this forum > > > > 6. Subject: Why post legal quesitons, expecting replys fromanonymous > posters > > who's credentials are unverifiable if not questionable? > > > > > > Items 4 - 6 are hardly commercial in nature. 1 - 3 certainly are...
so > what... Still isn't spam by any legal diffinition. Form over function. Your purpose here is to induce people to join PPL. So what? You violate the charter of the newsgroup. I know you don't
care about the rules. Neither has the hundred other cap'n spammers that
have preceded you.You are ALMOST right. My purpose here is to educate people that the
formeridea that you can't get legal advice that is worth a plugged nickel with
outtaking out a second mortgage is history. I'm here to remove the sting
fromthe bit that attorney's have been taking from the general population fordecades... inflating billable hours to make more money... handling a
casethrough the court system rather than advising a client there are faster,much less expensive methods to resolve their issue, which, incidently
don'trequire spending hundreds, even thousands of dollars on an attorney.It happens that the answer to this quite obvious need is a prepaid legalplan(if it isn't obvious to you now, it soon will be, like it or not)
Thebest one on the market (yes, you can argue this all you wish, but it
doesn'tchange the facts) is Prepaid Legal Services, Inc. hands down... Trouble! Trouble! Trouble! Oh, my! Right here in River City! And that starts with T and that rhymes with P and that stands for pool, er, LAWYERS!!!!!! - Jon Beaver

Mr. Beaver, you have hit the proverbial nail on the head. Any system where
an individual or group of individuals have the advantage of knowledge and
experience over an above what the client base can have with out a method of
checks and balances IS trouble. And just so you don't think I am picking
only on the attorney community, I also feel this is a problem with the
medical community.

You see, I could go to you with a problem. The problem might have one very
simple solution, costing relatively little. It might also be resolvable by
dragging the issue through the court system, running up billable hours.
Unfortunately, it would seem the judges don't wish to ruin a good thing
(because they may not always be on the bench) by blowing the whistle on the
representing attorney in front of the client. Not to mention, that judge
may need that attorney's support some day to get re-elected to his post.

I am quite sure the majority of attorneys are honest, however, I am not
willing to take the chance that I or anyone else will get one that isn't and
will rack up billable hours so he/she can make the next 10 or so payments on
his/her 'S class' and make the mortgage on their $750,000.00 home.

Now, if you can provide absolute, uncontrovertable proof that running up
billable hours does not happen, I will pen a very contrite appology letter.
I am quite sure, however, I won't be writing that letter any time soon.

My argument is for a pre-paid legal plan, whether it is mine or one of the
"also rans" is simply this. Most of the plans have a method of monitoring
the activities and performance of the attorneys in question, ensuring the
client is going to get the best treatment and the most expedient solution to
his or her problem.

You (collectively and individually) can argue your enmity about the way the
plan(s) are market, MLM, direct sales, or whatever. Your like or dislike of
the sales system, fortunately, will make no difference what so ever toward
the success or failure of said system.

"Thoth" <Thoth@unlisted.net> wrote in message
news:3FBAA69C.80DD2167@unlisted.net... Curtis wrote: For all but the "or commercial messages" part, I do not qualify in the slightest. If they make an issue of the commercial messages, I will challenge it. Until they do... You're stuck with me because I'm one stubborn, hardheaded SOB. I, for one, don't feel stuck with You. You are like Agent Smith in the
movie The Matrix. When you go, someone that looks just like you will appear.
I'm confident he or she will get the same treatment, and be just as
unsuccessful in harvesting marks from these groups.

Ah, but I am actually more like the oracle, ever present, unavoidable and in
the end, all will see the writing on the wall or be overwhelmed.

"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in message
news:6rklrvo6qaok55jrchks8l44po3uvh0ajg@4ax.com... On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 22:50:44 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in messagenews:k53lrvkpi85v5uofkjctbc9jn3ae0ejodv@4ax .com... On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:45:57 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote: > >"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in message >news:heejrvkvk3nk9dlrdibhe7nipkis0entog@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 01:40:04 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote: >> >> > >> >"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in message >> >news:ocjdrvkjnro19kgn48ea50mmjusqjhoadh@4ax.com... >> >> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 04:36:35 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote: >> >> >> >> >Instead of posting a question to a forum where, for all you
know,the >> >poster >> >> >could be Jeffery Dahmer, get a real attorney. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >Curtis >> >> >http://www.prepaidlegal.com/info/mrowell >> >> > >> >> >> >> Or worse -- somebody trying to sell you something. >> >> >> >> - Jon Beaver >> >> >> > >> >If you don't like people trying to sell you things, then you hadbetter >go >> >find a cave, move into it and collapse the entrance, because you
are >> >surrounded by merchants. You can't drive with out it, you can't
watchTV >> >with out it, you can't listen to the radio with out it, you can't
evengo >> >see a movie in a theater anymore with out it. >> > >> >The simple solution is when you come across an advertisement you
don't >have >> >interest in, ignore it. BTW, just because YOU may not wish to buywhat >> >someone, anyone is selling, doesn't make the product or the
merchant a >bad >> >thing. If you feel that way, then you would have to start
boycotting >every >> >single merchant who posts an ad on TV, Radio, Newspaper, billboard,etc. >I >> >am doing no different. If you don't like my ads, fine. I don't
carein >the >> >slightest. I won't stop and I'm not going away, regardless of hownasty >all >> >of you become. I'm also not going to stoop to your level any
longer. >Rant >> >and Rave all you wish... it is your own energy you are wasting. >> >> So, you don't like being ridiculed for being a petty peddler on >> usenet? Isn't that just tough ****? > >No, seeing grown men make imbeciles of themselves by making
unsupported, >unsubstanciated claims about something they no nothing about irritatesme. > >> But don't get me going on PPL. I know a whole lot more about it
than >> you do. You'd look like a damn fool trying to answer some >> embarrassing questions about what you are selling. > >Fire when ready... My answers are only a phone call away. Question Number One: Can I find out what the exact terms of your plan are without identifying myself? - Jon BeaverCall 1-800-654-7757 Question Number One: Can I find out what the exact terms of your plan are without identifying myself? I'm not asking what the terms of your plan are. That's Question Number Two. I'm asking if I can find out what they are without being subjected to a continuum of sales pitches designed to undermine my determination to verify what I'm buying in advance. I say the answer is no. Prove me wrong. It's really quite simple to answer both questions. Just post a copy of the plan or point us to where we can all read it online. - Jon Beaver

http://wserver0.prepaidlegal.com/Multisite/JSP/corp/corpregsel.jsp

Then pick your state of residence... Then select the plan (from the popup
window) you are interested in. Extended Family Plan, Small Business Plan,
etc.

Curtis wrote:
Ah, but I am actually more like the oracle, ever present, unavoidable and in the end, all will see the writing on the wall or be overwhelmed.

I haven't seen the last movie (heard the ending really stank). <g>

Curtis wrote:
"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in message news:6rklrvo6qaok55jrchks8l44po3uvh0ajg@4ax.com... On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 22:50:44 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in messagenews:k53lrvkpi85v5uofkjctbc9jn3ae0ejodv@4ax .com...> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:45:57 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:>> >> >"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in message> >news:heejrvkvk3nk9dlrdibhe7nipkis0entog@4ax.com...> >> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 01:40:04 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:> >>> >> >> >> >"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in message> >> >news:ocjdrvkjnro19kgn48ea50mmjusqjhoadh@4ax.com...> >> >> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 04:36:35 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:> >> >>> >> >> >Instead of posting a question to a forum where, for all you know,the> >> >poster> >> >> >could be Jeffery Dahmer, get a real attorney.> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Curtis> >> >> >http://www.prepaidlegal.com/info/mrowell> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> Or worse -- somebody trying to sell you something.> >> >>> >> >> - Jon Beaver> >> >>> >> >> >> >If you don't like people trying to sell you things, then you hadbetter> >go> >> >find a cave, move into it and collapse the entrance, because you are> >> >surrounded by merchants. You can't drive with out it, you can't watchTV> >> >with out it, you can't listen to the radio with out it, you can't evengo> >> >see a movie in a theater anymore with out it.> >> >> >> >The simple solution is when you come across an advertisement you don't> >have> >> >interest in, ignore it. BTW, just because YOU may not wish to buywhat> >> >someone, anyone is selling, doesn't make the product or the merchant a> >bad> >> >thing. If you feel that way, then you would have to start boycotting> >every> >> >single merchant who posts an ad on TV, Radio, Newspaper, billboard,etc.> >I> >> >am doing no different. If you don't like my ads, fine. I don't carein> >the> >> >slightest. I won't stop and I'm not going away, regardless of hownasty> >all> >> >of you become. I'm also not going to stoop to your level any longer.> >Rant> >> >and Rave all you wish... it is your own energy you are wasting.> >>> >> So, you don't like being ridiculed for being a petty peddler on> >> usenet? Isn't that just tough ****?> >> >No, seeing grown men make imbeciles of themselves by making unsupported,> >unsubstanciated claims about something they no nothing about irritatesme.> >> >> But don't get me going on PPL. I know a whole lot more about it than> >> you do. You'd look like a damn fool trying to answer some> >> embarrassing questions about what you are selling.> >> >Fire when ready... My answers are only a phone call away.>> Question Number One: Can I find out what the exact terms of your plan> are without identifying myself?>> - Jon Beaver>Call 1-800-654-7757 Question Number One: Can I find out what the exact terms of your plan are without identifying myself? I'm not asking what the terms of your plan are. That's Question Number Two. I'm asking if I can find out what they are without being subjected to a continuum of sales pitches designed to undermine my determination to verify what I'm buying in advance. I say the answer is no. Prove me wrong. It's really quite simple to answer both questions. Just post a copy of the plan or point us to where we can all read it online. - Jon Beaver http://wserver0.prepaidlegal.com/Multisite/JSP/corp/corpregsel.jsp Then pick your state of residence... Then select the plan (from the popup window) you are interested in. Extended Family Plan, Small Business Plan, etc.

We've already gone over this, once. That link won't tell you what you get.
Click on a state, go to "limitations" and the first disclaimer is: "Due to
regulatory requirements, benefits and rates vary in certain states and
provinces. The information contained on this material is for illustrative
purposes only and is not a contract. It is intended to provide a general
overview of plan coverage; only a plan contract can give actual terms, coverage,
amounts, conditions and exclusions."

How do we get a "plan contract?"

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 14:43:33 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:
"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in messagenews:6rklrvo6qaok55jrchks8l44po3uvh0ajg@4ax .com... On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 22:50:44 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in messagenews:k53lrvkpi85v5uofkjctbc9jn3ae0ejodv@4ax .com...> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:45:57 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:>> >> >"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in message> >news:heejrvkvk3nk9dlrdibhe7nipkis0entog@4ax.com...> >> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 01:40:04 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:> >>> >> >> >> >"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in message> >> >news:ocjdrvkjnro19kgn48ea50mmjusqjhoadh@4ax.com...> >> >> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 04:36:35 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:> >> >>> >> >> >Instead of posting a question to a forum where, for all youknow,the> >> >poster> >> >> >could be Jeffery Dahmer, get a real attorney.> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Curtis> >> >> >http://www.prepaidlegal.com/info/mrowell> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> Or worse -- somebody trying to sell you something.> >> >>> >> >> - Jon Beaver> >> >>> >> >> >> >If you don't like people trying to sell you things, then you hadbetter> >go> >> >find a cave, move into it and collapse the entrance, because youare> >> >surrounded by merchants. You can't drive with out it, you can'twatchTV> >> >with out it, you can't listen to the radio with out it, you can'tevengo> >> >see a movie in a theater anymore with out it.> >> >> >> >The simple solution is when you come across an advertisement youdon't> >have> >> >interest in, ignore it. BTW, just because YOU may not wish to buywhat> >> >someone, anyone is selling, doesn't make the product or themerchant a> >bad> >> >thing. If you feel that way, then you would have to startboycotting> >every> >> >single merchant who posts an ad on TV, Radio, Newspaper, billboard,etc.> >I> >> >am doing no different. If you don't like my ads, fine. I don'tcarein> >the> >> >slightest. I won't stop and I'm not going away, regardless of hownasty> >all> >> >of you become. I'm also not going to stoop to your level anylonger.> >Rant> >> >and Rave all you wish... it is your own energy you are wasting.> >>> >> So, you don't like being ridiculed for being a petty peddler on> >> usenet? Isn't that just tough ****?> >> >No, seeing grown men make imbeciles of themselves by makingunsupported,> >unsubstanciated claims about something they no nothing about irritatesme.> >> >> But don't get me going on PPL. I know a whole lot more about itthan> >> you do. You'd look like a damn fool trying to answer some> >> embarrassing questions about what you are selling.> >> >Fire when ready... My answers are only a phone call away.>> Question Number One: Can I find out what the exact terms of your plan> are without identifying myself?>> - Jon Beaver>Call 1-800-654-7757 Question Number One: Can I find out what the exact terms of your plan are without identifying myself? I'm not asking what the terms of your plan are. That's Question Number Two. I'm asking if I can find out what they are without being subjected to a continuum of sales pitches designed to undermine my determination to verify what I'm buying in advance. I say the answer is no. Prove me wrong. It's really quite simple to answer both questions. Just post a copy of the plan or point us to where we can all read it online. - Jon Beaverhttp://wserver0.prepaidlegal.com/Multisite/JSP/corp/corpregsel.jspThen pick your state of residence... Then select the plan (from the popupwindow) you are interested in. Extended Family Plan, Small Business Plan,etc.

"Due to regulatory requirements, benefits and rates vary in certain
states and provinces. The information contained on this material is
for illustrative purposes only and is not a contract. It is intended
to provide a general overview of plan coverage; only a plan contract
can give actual terms, coverage, amounts, conditions and exclusions."

Am I right that the answer to Question Number One is NO?

- Jon Beaver

Curtis wrote:

Ah, but I am actually more like the oracle, ever present, unavoidable and in the end, all will see the writing on the wall or be overwhelmed.

Matthew 7:15

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing,
but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

In article <kVuub.236$86.2212@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
Curtis <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:
Items 4 - 6 are hardly commercial in nature. 1 - 3 certainly are... sowhat... Still isn't spam by any legal diffinition.

The Usenet definition of spam is multiple postings that are
substantively identical. The message of all those postings is the
same, and there are several of them, so they are spam.

Seth

In article <Ssuub.30369$w66.799849@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
Curtis <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in messagenews:bpc344$gjc$1@panix5.panix.com... In article <XGeub.29682$w66.692521@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, Curtis <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:
Gee, I don't see the State of Florida listed here Ah yes, the state that rivals Nigeria in the proportion of criminal spam generated therein.Perhaps so, perhaps so... I wouldn't know about that since I am not, by anyLEGAL definition of the term , spam, guilty of spamming.

Where do you find any LEGAL[sic] definition of the term "spam"? I
haven't seen one.
Fortunately forme, what you WISH to be the legal difinition of spam doesn't appear to jivewith the actual law.

Unfortunately for you, what I claim to be the Usenet definition of
spam _is_ the actual Usenet definition, AND RoadRunner's AUP doesn't
specify some nonexistent "legal" definition of spam.

Seth

In article <pkLub.11096$KI4.9173@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
Curtis <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:
http://wserver0.prepaidlegal.com/Multisite/JSP/corp/corpregsel.jspThen pick your state of residence... Then select the plan (from the popupwindow) you are interested in. Extended Family Plan, Small Business Plan,etc.

Oh, what a wonderful plan. If you get sued, you get 75 hours of
lawyer time, up to 17.5 of which can be in advance of the trial.

Anybody else want to comment on how effective 17.5 hours of
preparation is for a _real_ trial? In my experience, it might suffice
for one expert witness's preparation.

Seth

In article <IJuub.121$86.100@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
Curtis <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in messagenews:bpdotq$d6s$1@panix5.panix.com... In article <ULeub.29686$w66.692991@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, Curtis <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:The simple solution is when you come across an advertisement you don'thaveinterest in, ignore it. Right, "Just hit delete", the hallmark of a spammer. How much more evidence is required?I presume, then, that we will hear no more of you, seeing as how you justdiscovered the delete key, even if you don't know the legal definition ofspam.

Oh yes, your "legal definition of spam", another hallmark of a
spammer.

Just what do you claim that definition _is_?

Seth

On 19 Nov 2003 17:35:09 -0500, sethb@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
In article <pkLub.11096$KI4.9173@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,Curtis <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:http://wserver0.prepaidlegal.com/Multisite/JSP/corp/corpregsel.jspThen pick your state of residence... Then select the plan (from the popupwindow) you are interested in. Extended Family Plan, Small Business Plan,etc.Oh, what a wonderful plan. If you get sued, you get 75 hours oflawyer time, up to 17.5 of which can be in advance of the trial.

Oh, it's worse than that!

"The criminal action must be one which arises out of the direct
performance of the covered person's employment activities."

"Divorce, separation, annulment, child custody or other
divorce-related matters, bankruptcy, charges of DUI/DWI, drug-related
matters (whether prescribed or not), hit and run, leaving the scene of
an accident and civil or criminal charges occurring as a result of
operating a commercial vehicles with more than two axles are not
covered under this benefit, but are covered by the preferred member
discount. Additional exclusions under this benefit: Being named in a
civil lawsuit or having criminal charged filed against you because you
are listed as an owner, management or associate of the business and
you had no direct involvement with the act or matter that gave rise to
the lawsuit or criminal charge. Those charges are covered with your
preferred member discount. If the lawsuit was filed because of
something that occurred prior to your membership or because of
conditions that were reasonably anticipated or foreseeable prior to
your enrollment, then the lawsuit is excluded from your Trial Defense
benefit.This exclusion applies even if the lawsuit is filed after you
become a member. These lawsuits are covered with your preferred member
discount. Class actions, interventions or amicus curiae filings in
which the covered member is a party (or potential party) are excluded.
Also, this coverage does not include garnishment, attachment or any
other appeal. Your Provider Law Firm has the right to determine
whether or not your claim or defense to a matter will prevail in court
or is frivolous or without merit. This includes deciding whether or
not to appeal any judgment or decision. Your Provider Law Firm also
has the right to present your claim or defense according to their
independent professional judgment."

You really have to pick your way through these exclusions. And, of
course, PRETRIAL time is what really counts. The whole thing is just
silly -- tailored to take advantage of people's ignorance of what a
lawyer is really for.

- Jon Beaver

"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bpgqem$nik$1@panix5.panix.com... In article <kVuub.236$86.2212@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, Curtis <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:Items 4 - 6 are hardly commercial in nature. 1 - 3 certainly are... sowhat... Still isn't spam by any legal diffinition. The Usenet definition of spam is multiple postings that are substantively identical. The message of all those postings is the same, and there are several of them, so they are spam. Seth

By your definition. But again, who are you???

Nobody, that's who...

"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bpgqlh$nt9$1@panix5.panix.com... In article <Ssuub.30369$w66.799849@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, Curtis <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in messagenews:bpc344$gjc$1@panix5.panix.com... In article <XGeub.29682$w66.692521@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, Curtis <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote: >Gee, I don't see the State of Florida listed here Ah yes, the state that rivals Nigeria in the proportion of criminal spam generated therein.Perhaps so, perhaps so... I wouldn't know about that since I am not, by
anyLEGAL definition of the term , spam, guilty of spamming. Where do you find any LEGAL[sic] definition of the term "spam"? I haven't seen one. Fortunately forme, what you WISH to be the legal difinition of spam doesn't appear to
jivewith the actual law. Unfortunately for you, what I claim to be the Usenet definition of spam _is_ the actual Usenet definition, AND RoadRunner's AUP doesn't specify some nonexistent "legal" definition of spam. Seth

My point exactly, there ISN'T any legal definition of SPAM and perhaps I
should have said, "doesn't jive with any existing law". So, unless RR
wishes to act on this, tuff luck for you. Even if they do, all they can do
is stop me from using RR to access newsgroups, they can't do anything about
any posts I make from other resources, now can they.

So you see, you are, as the saying goes, tilting at a windmill. I'm not
going anywhere...

"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FBBAA8B.66A3AA17@sprintmail.com... Curtis wrote: Ah, but I am actually more like the oracle, ever present, unavoidable
and in the end, all will see the writing on the wall or be overwhelmed. Matthew 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

Nice try bucko... but then, I'm not telling you anything about God or the
Bible or Jesus Christ, now am I so your quote, while accurate in THAT
context, hardly applies here, even if you wish it were so.

As I have stated before, you may wish PrePaid Legal would go away so you
wouldn't have to worry about loosing your lively hood, but you are very much
out of luck on that account. Or do you think, perhaps, that you "have faith
the size of a mustard seed" and can move mountains (more accurately an
entire mountain range).

"Thoth" <Thoth@unlisted.net> wrote in message
news:3FBB93BD.D15E624F@unlisted.net... Curtis wrote: "Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in message news:6rklrvo6qaok55jrchks8l44po3uvh0ajg@4ax.com... On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 22:50:44 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote: > >"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in message >news:k53lrvkpi85v5uofkjctbc9jn3ae0ejodv@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:45:57 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote: >> >> > >> >"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in message >> >news:heejrvkvk3nk9dlrdibhe7nipkis0entog@4ax.com... >> >> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 01:40:04 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM>
wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in message >> >> >news:ocjdrvkjnro19kgn48ea50mmjusqjhoadh@4ax.com... >> >> >> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 04:36:35 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM>
wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >Instead of posting a question to a forum where, for all you know, >the >> >> >poster >> >> >> >could be Jeffery Dahmer, get a real attorney. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Curtis >> >> >> >http://www.prepaidlegal.com/info/mrowell >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Or worse -- somebody trying to sell you something. >> >> >> >> >> >> - Jon Beaver >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >If you don't like people trying to sell you things, then you
had >better >> >go >> >> >find a cave, move into it and collapse the entrance, because
you are >> >> >surrounded by merchants. You can't drive with out it, you
can't watch >TV >> >> >with out it, you can't listen to the radio with out it, you
can't even >go >> >> >see a movie in a theater anymore with out it. >> >> > >> >> >The simple solution is when you come across an advertisement
you don't >> >have >> >> >interest in, ignore it. BTW, just because YOU may not wish to
buy >what >> >> >someone, anyone is selling, doesn't make the product or the merchant a >> >bad >> >> >thing. If you feel that way, then you would have to start boycotting >> >every >> >> >single merchant who posts an ad on TV, Radio, Newspaper,
billboard, >etc. >> >I >> >> >am doing no different. If you don't like my ads, fine. I
don't care >in >> >the >> >> >slightest. I won't stop and I'm not going away, regardless of
how >nasty >> >all >> >> >of you become. I'm also not going to stoop to your level any longer. >> >Rant >> >> >and Rave all you wish... it is your own energy you are
wasting. >> >> >> >> So, you don't like being ridiculed for being a petty peddler on >> >> usenet? Isn't that just tough ****? >> > >> >No, seeing grown men make imbeciles of themselves by making unsupported, >> >unsubstanciated claims about something they no nothing about
irritates >me. >> > >> >> But don't get me going on PPL. I know a whole lot more about it than >> >> you do. You'd look like a damn fool trying to answer some >> >> embarrassing questions about what you are selling. >> > >> >Fire when ready... My answers are only a phone call away. >> >> Question Number One: Can I find out what the exact terms of your
plan >> are without identifying myself? >> >> - Jon Beaver >> > >Call 1-800-654-7757 Question Number One: Can I find out what the exact terms of your plan are without identifying myself? I'm not asking what the terms of your plan are. That's Question Number Two. I'm asking if I can find out what they are without being subjected to a continuum of sales pitches designed to undermine my determination to verify what I'm buying in advance. I say the answer is no. Prove me wrong. It's really quite simple to answer both questions. Just post a copy of the plan or point us to where we can all read it online. - Jon Beaver http://wserver0.prepaidlegal.com/Multisite/JSP/corp/corpregsel.jsp Then pick your state of residence... Then select the plan (from the
popup window) you are interested in. Extended Family Plan, Small Business
Plan, etc. We've already gone over this, once. That link won't tell you what you
get. Click on a state, go to "limitations" and the first disclaimer is: "Due to regulatory requirements, benefits and rates vary in certain states and provinces. The information contained on this material is for illustrative purposes only and is not a contract. It is intended to provide a general overview of plan coverage; only a plan contract can give actual terms,
coverage, amounts, conditions and exclusions." How do we get a "plan contract?"

As I already told you, call the 800 number I provided above and ask for one.

"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in message
news:h8anrv872c0834dubr7llurgsn4frgnmsk@4ax.com... On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 14:43:33 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in messagenews:6rklrvo6qaok55jrchks8l44po3uvh0ajg@4ax .com... On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 22:50:44 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote: > >"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in message >news:k53lrvkpi85v5uofkjctbc9jn3ae0ejodv@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:45:57 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote: >> >> > >> >"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in message >> >news:heejrvkvk3nk9dlrdibhe7nipkis0entog@4ax.com... >> >> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 01:40:04 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in message >> >> >news:ocjdrvkjnro19kgn48ea50mmjusqjhoadh@4ax.com... >> >> >> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 04:36:35 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM>
wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >Instead of posting a question to a forum where, for all youknow, >the >> >> >poster >> >> >> >could be Jeffery Dahmer, get a real attorney. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Curtis >> >> >> >http://www.prepaidlegal.com/info/mrowell >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Or worse -- somebody trying to sell you something. >> >> >> >> >> >> - Jon Beaver >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >If you don't like people trying to sell you things, then you had >better >> >go >> >> >find a cave, move into it and collapse the entrance, because youare >> >> >surrounded by merchants. You can't drive with out it, you can'twatch >TV >> >> >with out it, you can't listen to the radio with out it, you
can'teven >go >> >> >see a movie in a theater anymore with out it. >> >> > >> >> >The simple solution is when you come across an advertisement youdon't >> >have >> >> >interest in, ignore it. BTW, just because YOU may not wish to
buy >what >> >> >someone, anyone is selling, doesn't make the product or themerchant a >> >bad >> >> >thing. If you feel that way, then you would have to startboycotting >> >every >> >> >single merchant who posts an ad on TV, Radio, Newspaper,
billboard, >etc. >> >I >> >> >am doing no different. If you don't like my ads, fine. I don'tcare >in >> >the >> >> >slightest. I won't stop and I'm not going away, regardless of
how >nasty >> >all >> >> >of you become. I'm also not going to stoop to your level anylonger. >> >Rant >> >> >and Rave all you wish... it is your own energy you are wasting. >> >> >> >> So, you don't like being ridiculed for being a petty peddler on >> >> usenet? Isn't that just tough ****? >> > >> >No, seeing grown men make imbeciles of themselves by makingunsupported, >> >unsubstanciated claims about something they no nothing about
irritates >me. >> > >> >> But don't get me going on PPL. I know a whole lot more about itthan >> >> you do. You'd look like a damn fool trying to answer some >> >> embarrassing questions about what you are selling. >> > >> >Fire when ready... My answers are only a phone call away. >> >> Question Number One: Can I find out what the exact terms of your
plan >> are without identifying myself? >> >> - Jon Beaver >> > >Call 1-800-654-7757 Question Number One: Can I find out what the exact terms of your plan are without identifying myself? I'm not asking what the terms of your plan are. That's Question Number Two. I'm asking if I can find out what they are without being subjected to a continuum of sales pitches designed to undermine my determination to verify what I'm buying in advance. I say the answer is no. Prove me wrong. It's really quite simple to answer both questions. Just post a copy of the plan or point us to where we can all read it online. - Jon Beaverhttp://wserver0.prepaidlegal.com/Multisite/JSP/corp/corpregsel.jspThen pick your state of residence... Then select the plan (from the
popupwindow) you are interested in. Extended Family Plan, Small Business
Plan,etc. "Due to regulatory requirements, benefits and rates vary in certain states and provinces. The information contained on this material is for illustrative purposes only and is not a contract. It is intended to provide a general overview of plan coverage; only a plan contract can give actual terms, coverage, amounts, conditions and exclusions." Am I right that the answer to Question Number One is NO? - Jon Beaver

No, you are not right. Go back to the original answer I gave you... Call
the 800 number.

"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in message
news:9nforv8ekv3p9lgcs4093j47a11o0lid73@4ax.com... On 19 Nov 2003 17:35:09 -0500, sethb@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:In article <pkLub.11096$KI4.9173@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,Curtis <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:http://wserver0.prepaidlegal.com/Multisite/JSP/corp/corpregsel.jspThen pick your state of residence... Then select the plan (from the
popupwindow) you are interested in. Extended Family Plan, Small Business
Plan,etc.Oh, what a wonderful plan. If you get sued, you get 75 hours oflawyer time, up to 17.5 of which can be in advance of the trial. Oh, it's worse than that! "The criminal action must be one which arises out of the direct performance of the covered person's employment activities." "Divorce, separation, annulment, child custody or other divorce-related matters, bankruptcy, charges of DUI/DWI, drug-related matters (whether prescribed or not), hit and run, leaving the scene of an accident and civil or criminal charges occurring as a result of operating a commercial vehicles with more than two axles are not covered under this benefit, but are covered by the preferred member discount. Additional exclusions under this benefit: Being named in a civil lawsuit or having criminal charged filed against you because you are listed as an owner, management or associate of the business and you had no direct involvement with the act or matter that gave rise to the lawsuit or criminal charge. Those charges are covered with your preferred member discount. If the lawsuit was filed because of something that occurred prior to your membership or because of conditions that were reasonably anticipated or foreseeable prior to your enrollment, then the lawsuit is excluded from your Trial Defense benefit.This exclusion applies even if the lawsuit is filed after you become a member. These lawsuits are covered with your preferred member discount. Class actions, interventions or amicus curiae filings in which the covered member is a party (or potential party) are excluded. Also, this coverage does not include garnishment, attachment or any other appeal. Your Provider Law Firm has the right to determine whether or not your claim or defense to a matter will prevail in court or is frivolous or without merit. This includes deciding whether or not to appeal any judgment or decision. Your Provider Law Firm also has the right to present your claim or defense according to their independent professional judgment." You really have to pick your way through these exclusions. And, of course, PRETRIAL time is what really counts. The whole thing is just silly -- tailored to take advantage of people's ignorance of what a lawyer is really for. - Jon Beaver

So I understand that what you are saying is that YOU are either incapable of
doing anything constructive in that amount of time or, far worse, you would
rack up billable hours in pretrial time to line your pockets with every
nickle you can squeeze from your unsuspecting client...

I see now what kind of attorney(s) you must be... Schisters all and sundry

"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bpgr94$otk$1@panix5.panix.com... In article <IJuub.121$86.100@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, Curtis <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in messagenews:bpdotq$d6s$1@panix5.panix.com... In article <ULeub.29686$w66.692991@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, Curtis <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote: >The simple solution is when you come across an advertisement you don'thave >interest in, ignore it. Right, "Just hit delete", the hallmark of a spammer. How much more evidence is required?I presume, then, that we will hear no more of you, seeing as how you justdiscovered the delete key, even if you don't know the legal definition ofspam. Oh yes, your "legal definition of spam", another hallmark of a spammer. Just what do you claim that definition _is_? Seth

There isn't a legal definition of spam, but as I understand it, and have
already stated several times (are all attorneys as dense as you are or do
you just work harder at it than most?);

Commercial or pornographic email sent to an individual's or individuals'
mail boxes which is unsolicited. Email sent to multiple end points
(newsgroups or personal email) at THE SAME TIME that is personal, commercial
or pornographic in nature.

That is what my opinion ( I do not claim anything) is about spam. Until an
authority comes along who can create a definition and can enforce said
definition, I will hold to my definition. By the way, toothless lions who
post in this forum do not qualify as said authority.

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:55:29 GMT, "Curtis & Marya Rowell"
<cnm4urights@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in messagenews:h8anrv872c0834dubr7llurgsn4frgnmsk@4ax .com... On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 14:43:33 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in messagenews:6rklrvo6qaok55jrchks8l44po3uvh0ajg@4ax .com...> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 22:50:44 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:>> >> >"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in message> >news:k53lrvkpi85v5uofkjctbc9jn3ae0ejodv@4ax.com...> >> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:45:57 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:> >>> >> >> >> >"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in message> >> >news:heejrvkvk3nk9dlrdibhe7nipkis0entog@4ax.com...> >> >> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 01:40:04 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in message> >> >> >news:ocjdrvkjnro19kgn48ea50mmjusqjhoadh@4ax.com...> >> >> >> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 04:36:35 GMT, "Curtis" <NOYB@NOYB.COM>wrote:> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >Instead of posting a question to a forum where, for all youknow,> >the> >> >> >poster> >> >> >> >could be Jeffery Dahmer, get a real attorney.> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Curtis> >> >> >> >http://www.prepaidlegal.com/info/mrowell> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Or worse -- somebody trying to sell you something.> >> >> >>> >> >> >> - Jon Beaver> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >If you don't like people trying to sell you things, then you had> >better> >> >go> >> >> >find a cave, move into it and collapse the entrance, because youare> >> >> >surrounded by merchants. You can't drive with out it, you can'twatch> >TV> >> >> >with out it, you can't listen to the radio with out it, youcan'teven> >go> >> >> >see a movie in a theater anymore with out it.> >> >> >> >> >> >The simple solution is when you come across an advertisement youdon't> >> >have> >> >> >interest in, ignore it. BTW, just because YOU may not wish tobuy> >what> >> >> >someone, anyone is selling, doesn't make the product or themerchant a> >> >bad> >> >> >thing. If you feel that way, then you would have to startboycotting> >> >every> >> >> >single merchant who posts an ad on TV, Radio, Newspaper,billboard,> >etc.> >> >I> >> >> >am doing no different. If you don't like my ads, fine. I don'tcare> >in> >> >the> >> >> >slightest. I won't stop and I'm not going away, regardless ofhow> >nasty> >> >all> >> >> >of you become. I'm also not going to stoop to your level anylonger.> >> >Rant> >> >> >and Rave all you wish... it is your own energy you are wasting.> >> >>> >> >> So, you don't like being ridiculed for being a petty peddler on> >> >> usenet? Isn't that just tough ****?> >> >> >> >No, seeing grown men make imbeciles of themselves by makingunsupported,> >> >unsubstanciated claims about something they no nothing aboutirritates> >me.> >> >> >> >> But don't get me going on PPL. I know a whole lot more about itthan> >> >> you do. You'd look like a damn fool trying to answer some> >> >> embarrassing questions about what you are selling.> >> >> >> >Fire when ready... My answers are only a phone call away.> >>> >> Question Number One: Can I find out what the exact terms of yourplan> >> are without identifying myself?> >>> >> - Jon Beaver> >>> >> >Call 1-800-654-7757>> Question Number One: Can I find out what the exact terms of your plan> are without identifying myself?>> I'm not asking what the terms of your plan are. That's Question> Number Two. I'm asking if I can find out what they are without being> subjected to a continuum of sales pitches designed to undermine my> determination to verify what I'm buying in advance. I say the answer> is no. Prove me wrong. It's really quite simple to answer both> questions. Just post a copy of the plan or point us to where we can> all read it online.>> - Jon Beaver>http://wserver0.prepaidlegal.com/Multisite/JSP/corp/corpregsel.jspThen pick your state of residence... Then select the plan (from thepopupwindow) you are interested in. Extended Family Plan, Small BusinessPlan,etc. "Due to regulatory requirements, benefits and rates vary in certain states and provinces. The information contained on this material is for illustrative purposes only and is not a contract. It is intended to provide a general overview of plan coverage; only a plan contract can give actual terms, coverage, amounts, conditions and exclusions." Am I right that the answer to Question Number One is NO? - Jon BeaverNo, you are not right. Go back to the original answer I gave you... Callthe 800 number.

So you think sending someone on a wild goose chase is answering a
question? Why would you think I haven't done that already?
Obviously, you haven't. You lied. Twice. Do you understand that?
After a maze of "voicemail hell," I was specifically told that there
was no way to obtain a copy of the actual language of the plan without
"becoming a member" and giving out certain personal information," but
that I could find information "about the plan" or "the basis of the
plan" on the internet. Then the person I was talking to actually
began ridiculing me for thinking I could get that information without
identifying myself. Then she began a sales pitch.

Now, take my point. It's a small one. Am I right that the answer to
Question Number One is NO? Say yes and we can move on. Say no and,
ad far as I'm concerned, you've got some explaining to do.

- Jon Beaver

Curtis & Marya Rowell wrote:
"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message news:bpgqem$nik$1@panix5.panix.com... In article <kVuub.236$86.2212@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, Curtis <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:Items 4 - 6 are hardly commercial in nature. 1 - 3 certainly are... sowhat... Still isn't spam by any legal diffinition. The Usenet definition of spam is multiple postings that are substantiv