🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4av9db$8n9@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
   awissman@ix.netcom.com(The Wissmans ) wrote:

>Gee....how did you figure that out that "janice" was a fake?  I've
>never heard of this scam before, but it makes me laugh more than
>engages my sympathy for whoever gets conned.

What makes ME laugh, asswipe, is your assumption that I got conned and I'm a 
naive, petulant consumer bent on revenge.

I happens that I know just a *tad* about telecommunications and I have, from 
time to time, assisted the law in cases of computer fraud and abuse.

If you want a real treat you might want to get a copy of "Phone Sex and Phone 
Fraud: The Straight Poop" from Joe Parsons <jmp@cybermall.com>  Some of these 
scams are so outrageous they'll make your eyes bug out.

>There is so much injustice going on in this world.   One has to choose
>which issue to champion.  
>Should one wage a campaign to end world hunger, clean up the
>environment, promote peaceful solutions to intercultural problems?
>
>No.....wait a minute!
>
>Use your time for a more worthy cause!  Write letters to everyone you
>can possibly think of to protect the sanctity of PHONE SEX!!!!   

If your ego didn't far exceed the bounds of your reading comprehension skills, 
you would have noticed that the "sanctity of phone sex" is not the issue, 
Einstein.  Here is the issue, and I'll type really slowly so you don't sprain a 
lip trying to keep up:  The issue is FRAUD and the perpetration of FRAUD over 
the internet, specifically in UseNet.

Or perhaps you'd enjoy seeing the 'net degenerate into a free-for-all Cyberia of 
con artists, commercial spammers, and junk mail advertising.  Would that be more 
to your liking?

But in any event I'd like to thank you for stopping by and sharing your 
well-reasoned and insightful response with all of us.