$40,000 dollars in your PayPal account #2 - comp.lang.java.programmer

AS SEEN ON OPRAH! $40K IN YOUR PAYPAL ACCOUNT! (this really does work) That's Right $40,000 dollars in your PayPal account and that's NO BULL! AND IT WAS PROVEN ON OPRAH, NATIONAL TV & IT'S COMPLETELY LEGAL! $10 Dollars!...That's all it cost! To get started copy this whole page and paste it in an e-mail to edit it. Simply follow the instructions below and in 2 to 3 weeks, you will have at least $40,000 dollars in your PayPal account. Most people respond to this program because of the low investment and high profit potential. There is no limit to the income you can generate from this because you can do it over and over. With a business PayPal account you can accept credit cards If you follow the instructions, you will reach thousands of people! Honesty, Faith, and Integrity make this system work. I think everyone has heard of "PayPal". Anyone with an e-mail address can join for FREE! so if you're not already a PayPal user, the first thing you need to do is sign up. Either click the paypal link below or open another window and copy the following link into the address bar, then hit enter and join PayPal. https://www.paypal.com/it/mrb/pal=ENG8UWMWE7SNN TEAM WORK MAKES THIS DREAM WORK! Send $10.00 dollars to the first person on the list. Then email that person saying "Thanks I've joined. Please add me to your list". Remove the 1st email address from the list and move each address up to the next position. Then, add your email address in the 5th position. This is a key factor to the success of this program, IMMEDIATE RETURN ON YOUR INVESTMENT! When just one person joins you get back your $10 investment! Everything after that is PURE PROFIT! This payment method rewards the first person for putting their time into marketing this opportunity and it ensures that the newest addition to the list will work just as hard! Teamwork at its Finest! Here is the list: 1. iancummings205@hotmail.com 2. taddeifulvio1977@yahoo.com 3. ciucamarian@hotmail.com 4. john01968@aol.com 5. annbrown1985@yahoo.com FOLLOW THESE DIRECTIONS (BELOW) FOR SENDING YOUR $10 BY PayPal TO THE PERSON AT THE TOP OF THE LIST OF FIVE EMAILS (1) Login to YOUR PayPal account and click on the 'Send Money' tab; (2) In the 'Recipient's Email' field, enter the FIRST email address from the top of the list of 5 emails. (3) In the 'Amount' field, enter 10 (this is your $10 payment). (4) In the 'Type' field, select "Service" (though it doesn't really matter what you put here,this is for paypals own records.) (5) VERY, VERY IMPORTANT: In the 'Note' field on the PayPal form, type "ADD ME TO YOUR LIST" (Be certain to add that notation, as this is what keeps the program legal). This procedure must be accurate because you are showing that you have just purchased a service from the person with the PayPal email address at the top of the list. (6) Finally, click on the Continue button to complete the payment. Next send out this letter until you get at least 20 "Thanks I've joined" emails. The fifth person is the monitor of this list! When your name is in the 1st slot, 8,000 to 15,000 people will send you 10 dollars! you get out of life what you put into it...and what goes around comes around. That describes this opportunity in a nutshell! DO NOT TRY TO PUT YOURSELF IN FIFTH PLACE WITHOUT PAYING, AS PAYPAL WILL AUTOMATICALLY NOTICE THIS AND DELETE YOUR ACCOUNT AND POSSIBLY PURSUE LEGAL ACTION , SINCE THIS IS A LEGITIMATE PROGRAM, AND THEY ARE PART OF IT! TESTIMONIALS: Mary Gatters, Columbus, SC: I only have one thing to say to you... OH MY GOD! I sent out 142 copies total before 20 replied, like the instructions said. Then I went on a short vacation. When I got back my account had over $32,000 dollars in it already and the money was still coming! I'm still floating on air (especially with my new car). I thought the 'guardian' system sounded cheesy, but now I realize it is the formula that makes this letter really work! THANKS! I know that you have seen this on Oprah, 20/20 or read about it in the Wall Street Journal. You have probably received junk mail and currently receive emails about this simple program, but just delete them. I know I have! But this time I decided to give it a try. With the internet you can speed this message around the world!, and it's only a $10.00 investment! Please give it an honest effort, you will not be disappointed and will be very glad you did when it starts to work. Remember, all you're going to be out of pocket is about the cost of a couple of coffees with the opportunity of banking thousands of dollars into your PayPal account! Wishing you Success & Prosperity! Go to any search engine (Yahoo, Google, etc.) and search phrases like "millionaire message board" or "money making message board" or "opportunity message boards. better yet get yourself a email blaster. that way you can reach millons!! that means much more profits for you!!!

Andrew Thompson <andrewthommo@gmail.com> wrote:> On Mar 26, 4:48 am, "free" <ciucamar...@hotmail.com> wrote:>> AS SEEN ..> ..spamming across many posts.> P*ss off.> Andrew T.I thought you only meant to answer on the non-obvious spams...

On Mar 26, 8:53 pm, Andreas Leitgeb <a...@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at>wrote:> Andrew Thompson <andrewtho...@gmail.com> wrote:> > On Mar 26, 4:48 am, "free" <ciucamar...@hotmail.com> wrote:> >> AS SEEN ..> > ..spamming across many posts.> > P*ss off.> > Andrew T.>> I thought you only meant to answer on the non-obvious spams...Umm.. no. I make a point of making at leastone post on 'a' thread of any poster that Ireport for abuse*.In this instance, since this moron was alsoreposting, I limited the reply to just one ofit's thread's.* My (vague) point in doing this is to justifyto whomever might care to read/act upon theabuse report, that the OP had also been accused,in public, of being a spammer, and well gee ifthey made no reply at all, that in itselfsupports (in some small way) my accusation..If, on the other hand, the accused *is* reading(as was the case recently) and decides to respond,then perhaps we can sort what is, and is not,acceptable on the groups, they can learn howto 'push their point' without further aggravatingthe situation, and I can get on with tech. posts.Andrew T.

Andrew Thompson wrote :> Umm.. no. I make a point of making at least> one post on 'a' thread of any poster that I> report for abuse*.And you do it quite well :-))I have a news reader (MesNews) which has a Group Statistics function. And the top 10 posters are:------------------------------------Group : comp.lang.java.programmerComputing time : 00:00:48Statistics : from 1991.02.05 to 2007.02.25***** Users with most messages ***** num| Name | Nb Msg | size | or. | %----|------------------------------|--------|-----------|-----|--------| 1 | Andrew Thompson | 1,639 | 3,379,954 | 54 | 7.22% | 2 | Lew | 1,255 | 3,175,382 | 8 | 5.53% | 3 | Daniel Pitts | 816 | 2,204,630 | 7 | 3.60% | 4 | Chris Uppal | 711 | 1,743,885 | 4 | 3.13% | 5 | Oliver Wong | 676 | 1,992,466 | 2 | 2.98% | 6 | Arne Vajh�j | 630 | 1,306,424 | 1 | 2.78% | 7 | John Ersatznom | 440 | 1,190,139 | 12 | 1.94% | 8 | Alex Hunsley | 419 | 909,061 | 5 | 1.85% | 9 | Patricia Shanahan | 383 | 965,316 | 6 | 1.69% | 10 | Twisted | 343 | 1,501,901 | 4 | 1.51% |------------------------------------Disclaimer: Nothing is implied by posting this statistic. It is for your personal amusement only.-- Wojtek :-)

On Mar 26, 11:50 pm, Wojtek <nowh...@a.com> wrote:> Andrew Thompson wrote :>> > Umm.. no. I make a point of making at least> > one post on 'a' thread of any poster that I> > report for abuse*.>> And you do it quite well :-))>> I have a news reader (MesNews) which has a Group Statistics function.> And the top 10 posters are:....> num| Name | Nb Msg | size | or. | %....> Disclaimer: Nothing is implied by posting this statistic. It is for> your personal amusement only.'We *are* amused' (said with 'royal' accent..)Statisics taken with 'huge grain of salt'*, butyou've got me curious now. What does the 'or.'column represent?* For those of you unfamiliar with the expression'take it with a grain of salt' it means basically'do not entirely believe it - but, yes I heard you'.Andrew T.

Andrew Thompson wrote :> On Mar 26, 11:50 pm, Wojtek <nowh...@a.com> wrote:>> Andrew Thompson wrote :>> >>> Umm.. no. I make a point of making at least>>> one post on 'a' thread of any poster that I>>> report for abuse*.>> >> And you do it quite well :-))>> >> I have a news reader (MesNews) which has a Group Statistics function.>> And the top 10 posters are:> ...>> num| Name | Nb Msg | size | or. | % ...>> Disclaimer: Nothing is implied by posting this statistic. It is for>> your personal amusement only.>> 'We *are* amused' (said with 'royal' accent..)>> Statisics taken with 'huge grain of salt'*, but> you've got me curious now. What does the 'or.'> column represent?I think it means the originator of a thread. There is a further statistics grouping which sorts according to thread originator and it uses the same abbrevation.The author is German and some of the translation is, well, interesting.-- Wojtek :-)

Wojtek wrote:> Andrew Thompson wrote :>> On Mar 26, 11:50 pm, Wojtek <nowh...@a.com> wrote:>>> Andrew Thompson wrote :>>>>>>> Umm.. no. I make a point of making at least>>>> one post on 'a' thread of any poster that I>>>> report for abuse*.>>>>>> And you do it quite well :-))>>>>>> I have a news reader (MesNews) which has a Group Statistics function.>>> And the top 10 posters are:>> ...>>> num| Name | Nb Msg | size | or. | % ...>>> Disclaimer: Nothing is implied by posting this statistic. It is for>>> your personal amusement only.>>>> 'We *are* amused' (said with 'royal' accent..)>>>> Statisics taken with 'huge grain of salt'*, but>> you've got me curious now. What does the 'or.'>> column represent?> > I think it means the originator of a thread. There is a further > statistics grouping which sorts according to thread originator and it > uses the same abbrevation.> > The author is German and some of the translation is, well, interesting.How did I get so high up the list when I've only been posting to clj.programmer since a few months ago?Me and my big mouth! :-)-- Lew

Andrew Thompson <andrewthommo@gmail.com> wrote:> On Mar 26, 8:53 pm, Andreas Leitgeb <a...@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:>> I thought you only meant to answer on the non-obvious spams...> > Umm.. no. I make a point of making at least> one post on 'a' thread of any poster that I> report for abuse*.I mean this is unnecessary for the real *obvious*spam (such as this thread's origin).I also think to remember that you once wrote yourselfyou'd concentrate on the less obvious spams (where aspammer e.g. pretends some java-context or "job-offerings"posted to all *.java.* groups he might have found)For f'up-ing on those, I, too, really thank you;For the obvious spam-threads it's (imho) betterto just report and otherwise ignore them.> If, on the other hand, the accused *is* reading> (as was the case recently) and decides to respond,Spammers like the current thread's one, never do that.And no abuse-report processor will expect any type ofattempted feedback to the spammer in those cases.