In article >,
Sqwertz > wrote:

> Would there be any interest in having a Facebook group for food photos
> that encompasses people from RFC, ABF, AFB, ACC-C (dead?), and other
> food related groups on Usenet?

What Barb said.

> There is one aspect I don't like about this idea (well, there is a
> few, but they are minor) is that Facebook resizes pictures to be
> fairly small. My standard posting photo size is 1280x960 so you can
> see all the creamy goodness in detail, while Facebook likes to 800x600
> or so. Does anybody know how to defeat that?

Just let it be. That's enough detail for most people. Post a URL to a
place with higher resolution. Sometimes people (not from rfc, of
course) post fifty crappy pictures all at once, only two of which I have
any interest in. It takes forever to load them all (especially when my
son is playing WoW), and then I wish I hadn't.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 2011-01-17, Dan Abel > wrote:

> Just let it be. That's enough detail for most people.

Apparently not enough detail for the creators of Facebook, who are now
going to allow apps makers ....read marketing ppl..... even MORE
access to your privacy, if there is such a thing on Facebook.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/17/tech...ebook_privacy/

It's Creeping Meatballism all over again. Wait till they reverse it
so it's up to you to opt out, if you have a "clue", another commodity
seemingly in short supply on Facebook.

nb

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> On 2011-01-17, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> > Just let it be. That's enough detail for most people.
>
> Apparently not enough detail for the creators of Facebook, who are now
> going to allow apps makers ....read marketing ppl..... even MORE
> access to your privacy, if there is such a thing on Facebook.
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/17/tech...ebook_privacy/
>
> It's Creeping Meatballism all over again. Wait till they reverse it
> so it's up to you to opt out, if you have a "clue", another commodity
> seemingly in short supply on Facebook.

Although I like using FB, I'm not happy with some things. Back when
they got the bright idea of making you only list things on your profile
that they could link to a web page, I just deleted almost everything
that I had there. The only interest I have left is:

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?...of-interests-w
hich-I-used-to-list-here-but-Facebook-deleted-them-and-I-cant-put-them-ba
ck-because-Facebook-will-make-me-link-to-some-bogus-community-page-that-h
as-nothing-to-do-with-me

I refuse to use any "apps" on FB.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2011-01-17, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
>> Just let it be. That's enough detail for most people.
>
> Apparently not enough detail for the creators of Facebook, who are now
> going to allow apps makers ....read marketing ppl..... even MORE
> access to your privacy, if there is such a thing on Facebook.
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/17/tech...ebook_privacy/
>
> It's Creeping Meatballism all over again. Wait till they reverse it
> so it's up to you to opt out, if you have a "clue", another commodity
> seemingly in short supply on Facebook.
>

People freely and willingly put more information about themselves on
Facebook than an identity thief could ever dream of but they refuse to send
in an anonymous mailer about how many people live in their house, to the US
Census Bureau. Just because it was built by a kid who wears sandals and
T-shirts does not mean your data is not being used in a million ways to make
money by those who do not have your interests at heart.

I am not even on Facebook yet they get me. Recently I did a Google search
on the prices of 1980s vintage French wines since I was curious about
something an online poster claimed. Sure enough, I am now receiving in my
snail mail, fliers and price lists from specialty online wine shops. To my
HOME address and all from ONE Google search.

That's how Google became a 60 billion dollar company. Facebook is not far
behind.

Paul

On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 09:05:57 -0800, Paul M. Cook wrote:

> There is no privacy whatsoever on the Internet. Google caught some real
> heat last year when it was revealed that they were partners with the Chinese
> government and were supplying the tracking information to crack down on
> political dissenters.
>
> Paul

um, what? i would like a cite, please. google's relationship with china
has always been rocky:

<http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=yhs-avg&type=yahoo_avg_hs2-tb-web_us&p=Google%20partners%20with%20the%20Chinese% 20government>

<http://tinyurl.com/6gqcbaf>

your contention sounds like bullshit to me.

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 02:42:57 -0800, "Paul M. Cook" >
wrote:

> Andy Rooney once showed how you can profile a person by just looking at
> their car in a parking lot. It was pretty eye opening.

Do you have a link to that? I tried to find it, but my search terms
didn't do it.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 09:29:05 -0500, "BigBadBubbas"
> wrote:

> Why did you put your HOME address in that Google search? You had to have
> provided it somewhere.
>

If you own your own home, it's all public record.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

In article >,
"Paul M. Cook" > wrote:


> That is one way Google makes such vast sums of money. What they sell is not
> only highly targeted but it is extremely relevant. If you buy a list from
> Google, you know you have a highly targeted and very likely audience.
>
> There is no privacy whatsoever on the Internet. Google caught some real
> heat last year when it was revealed that they were partners with the Chinese
> government and were supplying the tracking information to crack down on
> political dissenters.

I was dumbfounded when I read this article last year:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../BUR91GBGK0.DT
L


In these times of pay cuts and layoffs, Google is paying:

"Chief Financial Officer Patrick Pichette.

Pichette and Nikesh Arora, head of global sales, will each be paid $20
million in equity awards"

"It's also raising performance bonuses for executives to 250 percent of
base salary from 150 percent"

And those are just the bonuses!

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 2011-01-18, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> I was dumbfounded when I read this article last year:

You wanna be dumbfounded? Howzabout hurt-somebody mad!

You should see the pay, bonuses, severance pkgs, given to the CEOs of
the companies that imploded/failed during any one of the crisis we've
witnessed in the last 15 yrs. We're talking, in some cases, hundreds
of millions!.... EACH!!! (person, not crisis)

On 2nd thought, don't look. It'll make you cry.

nb

On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 11:38:40 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:

> I was dumbfounded when I read this article last year:
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../BUR91GBGK0.DT
> L
>
>
> In these times of pay cuts and layoffs, Google is paying:

Unlike other companies, Google is doing well.
>
> "Chief Financial Officer Patrick Pichette.
>
> Pichette and Nikesh Arora, head of global sales, will each be paid $20
> million in equity awards"

Hello! SALES? They are the money earning side of Google.
>
> "It's also raising performance bonuses for executives to 250 percent of
> base salary from 150 percent"
>
> And those are just the bonuses!

It also says

"Google is raising compensation as it faces more competition for
talent from rival Internet companies."

Google had to raise salaries and bonuses to keep their employees from
going elsewhere and making a lot more money right out of the starting
gate. Their choice was to retain or train.... and they decided to
retain.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 09:05:57 -0800, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
>> There is no privacy whatsoever on the Internet. Google caught some real
>> heat last year when it was revealed that they were partners with the
>> Chinese
>> government and were supplying the tracking information to crack down on
>> political dissenters.
>>
>> Paul
>
> um, what? i would like a cite, please. google's relationship with china
> has always been rocky:
>
> <http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=yhs-avg&type=yahoo_avg_hs2-tb-web_us&p=Google%20partners%20with%20the%20Chinese% 20government>
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/6gqcbaf>
>
> your contention sounds like bullshit to me.

When one lives, eats, breathes and sleeps in BS everything looks like BS.
It was on the news, hell even Fox carried it. Google supplied detailed
informatgion the the government about who was conducting searches using
"banned" words. Google denied the relationship and then fessed up under
pressure.

Paul

On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 20:07:33 -0000, Janet > wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 02:42:57 -0800, "Paul M. Cook" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Andy Rooney once showed how you can profile a person by just looking at
> > > their car in a parking lot. It was pretty eye opening.
> >
> > Do you have a link to that? I tried to find it, but my search terms
> > didn't do it.
>
> Do you mean this?
>
> http://www.citypaper.ee/paper/articles/4281/
>
It's not Andy Rooney, but I bet it's close enough. Thanks!

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On 18 Jan 2011 19:48:33 GMT, notbob wrote:

> On 2011-01-18, Dan Abel > wrote:
>>
>> I was dumbfounded when I read this article last year:
>
> You wanna be dumbfounded? Howzabout hurt-somebody mad!
>
> You should see the pay, bonuses, severance pkgs, given to the CEOs of
> the companies that imploded/failed during any one of the crisis we've
> witnessed in the last 15 yrs. We're talking, in some cases, hundreds
> of millions!.... EACH!!! (person, not crisis)
>
> On 2nd thought, don't look. It'll make you cry.
>
> nb

what does imploded/failed have to do with google?

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 11:38:40 -0800, Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >,
> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>
>> That is one way Google makes such vast sums of money. What they sell is not
>> only highly targeted but it is extremely relevant. If you buy a list from
>> Google, you know you have a highly targeted and very likely audience.
>>
>> There is no privacy whatsoever on the Internet. Google caught some real
>> heat last year when it was revealed that they were partners with the Chinese
>> government and were supplying the tracking information to crack down on
>> political dissenters.
>
> I was dumbfounded when I read this article last year:
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../BUR91GBGK0.DT
> L
>
> In these times of pay cuts and layoffs, Google is paying:
>
> "Chief Financial Officer Patrick Pichette.
>
> Pichette and Nikesh Arora, head of global sales, will each be paid $20
> million in equity awards"
>
> "It's also raising performance bonuses for executives to 250 percent of
> base salary from 150 percent"
>
> And those are just the bonuses!

google's making tons of money. why should not the executies be rewarded
for that?

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 12:37:03 -0800, Paul M. Cook wrote:

> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 09:05:57 -0800, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>
>>> There is no privacy whatsoever on the Internet. Google caught some real
>>> heat last year when it was revealed that they were partners with the
>>> Chinese
>>> government and were supplying the tracking information to crack down on
>>> political dissenters.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>
>> um, what? i would like a cite, please. google's relationship with china
>> has always been rocky:
>>
>> <http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=yhs-avg&type=yahoo_avg_hs2-tb-web_us&p=Google%20partners%20with%20the%20Chinese% 20government>
>>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/6gqcbaf>
>>
>> your contention sounds like bullshit to me.
>
> When one lives, eats, breathes and sleeps in BS everything looks like BS.
> It was on the news, hell even Fox carried it. Google supplied detailed
> informatgion the the government about who was conducting searches using
> "banned" words. Google denied the relationship and then fessed up under
> pressure.
>
> Paul

then it should be easy to provide a cite, eh?

i googled [google chinese dissents] and turned up a few cites. here are
paragraphs from the first three:

A Chinese scholar who - challenged the communist government by setting up a
democratic opposition party - has vowed to sue US internet company Google
for excising his name from its local search results.

*

When content filtering targets a race of people for purely political
reasons, and an American company provides the technology to enable that
filtering, then it's time to shame the enablers. To date, Google has been
criticized solely for providing China with the means to censor the
Internet. But a tragic consequence of Google's collaboration -- and one
that has been entirely overlooked -- is its contribution to the cultural
genocide of the Tibetan people.

*

Google moved quickly to announce that it would stop censoring its Chinese
*service after realising dissidents were at risk from attempts to use the
company's technology for political *surveillance, according to a source
with direct *knowledge of the internet giant's most senior management.

...sorry, that doesn't sound like google was 'supplying the tracking
information to crack down on political dissenters.

and if it was a story on fox news it was most likely that - a story like a
fairy tale.

your pal,
blake

Michael "Dog3" wrote:

> I invested in Google eons ago when they first took over Dejanews. I am
> most decidedly enjoying the dividends I get from Google every quarter. I
> have also invested in FB. Google estimates it will be hiring 150,000
> people in 2011. And they are rated as one of the top employers in the
> U.S. FB is still undergoing growing pains but I suspect they will be very
> close to Google, if not larger, in size this year.

How did you invest in Facebook?

Do you get any fun stuff from Google as a stockholder?

Goomba wrote:
> Michael "Dog3" wrote:
>
>> I invested in Google eons ago when they first took over Dejanews. I am
>> most decidedly enjoying the dividends I get from Google every
>> quarter. I have also invested in FB. Google estimates it will be
>> hiring 150,000 people in 2011. And they are rated as one of the top
>> employers in the U.S. FB is still undergoing growing pains but I
>> suspect they will be very close to Google, if not larger, in size this
>> year.
>
> How did you invest in Facebook?
>
> Do you get any fun stuff from Google as a stockholder?

oops... hit send too soon. I bet Google's stockholder meetings are a
blast.

"Michael \"Dog3\"" > wrote:

-snip-
>I invested in Google eons ago when they first took over Dejanews.

Neat trick. Google took over Deja News in 2001- They went public 3
years later.

>I am
>most decidedly enjoying the dividends I get from Google every quarter.

Really? Which Google stock do you own?

> I have also invested in FB.

How did you manage to do that? An IPO for Facebook is probably years
down the road.

Jim

On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:47:57 GMT, "Michael \"Dog3\""
> wrote:

> Goomba > : in
> rec.food.cooking
>
> >
> > Do you get any fun stuff from Google as a stockholder?
>
> Not really Goomba. What do you mean by fun? I get about the same amount
> of stuff from them that I do other investments.

Maybe she's talking about merchandise that has "Google" written on it.
http://www.googlestore.com/default.aspx

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

"Michael "Dog3"" > wrote in message
...
> sf > : in
> rec.food.cooking
>
>>
>> Google had to raise salaries and bonuses to keep their employees from
>> going elsewhere and making a lot more money right out of the starting
>> gate. Their choice was to retain or train.... and they decided to
>> retain.
>
> I invested in Google eons ago when they first took over Dejanews. I am
> most decidedly enjoying the dividends I get from Google every quarter. I
> have also invested in FB. Google estimates it will be hiring 150,000
> people in 2011. And they are rated as one of the top employers in the
> U.S. FB is still undergoing growing pains but I suspect they will be very
> close to Google, if not larger, in size this year.
>
> I use FB on a daily basis. I only scan my groups on Usenet about once a
> week. Not much has changed on Usenet since the early 1990s. I guess it
> depends on how much time one has and if one wants to deal with all the
> bullshit on Usenet. The character assasinations, Net Nannies, troll
> feeding, flame wars etc. can be very annoying.
>
> I enjoy the chatty feel of FB but there are also a lot of Usenet people
> on FB. We post our recipes, blog links, recipes etc., but we also post
> about our interests and lives. There are pros and cons to both Usenet and
> FB. I don't have time for both so I spend the majority of my online time
> on FB. It is also very easy to block someone on FB. I do have security
> concerns on FB so I stay on top of those issues.
>
> Michael
>

Personally I miss seeing you here. I tried to give Facebook a chance but
hated it. Hated the chat interface, didn't like much of anything I saw
there. No real discussion I could ascertain. And people I don't know kept
trying to "friend" me. Why, because we're six separations apart a la Kevin
Bacon?! Oh well, we still have email Please keep in touch!

Jill

On 1/21/2011 9:05 AM, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Fri 21 Jan 2011 03:59:37a, jmcquown told us...
>
>>
>> "Michael > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> >
>>> : in
>>> rec.food.cooking
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Google had to raise salaries and bonuses to keep their employees
>>>> from going elsewhere and making a lot more money right out of
>>>> the starting gate. Their choice was to retain or train.... and
>>>> they decided to retain.
>>>
>>> I invested in Google eons ago when they first took over Dejanews.
>>> I am most decidedly enjoying the dividends I get from Google
>>> every quarter. I have also invested in FB. Google estimates it
>>> will be hiring 150,000 people in 2011. And they are rated as one
>>> of the top employers in the U.S. FB is still undergoing growing
>>> pains but I suspect they will be very close to Google, if not
>>> larger, in size this year.
>>>
>>> I use FB on a daily basis. I only scan my groups on Usenet about
>>> once a week. Not much has changed on Usenet since the early
>>> 1990s. I guess it depends on how much time one has and if one
>>> wants to deal with all the bullshit on Usenet. The character
>>> assasinations, Net Nannies, troll feeding, flame wars etc. can be
>>> very annoying.
>>>
>>> I enjoy the chatty feel of FB but there are also a lot of Usenet
>>> people on FB. We post our recipes, blog links, recipes etc., but
>>> we also post about our interests and lives. There are pros and
>>> cons to both Usenet and FB. I don't have time for both so I
>>> spend the majority of my online time on FB. It is also very easy
>>> to block someone on FB. I do have security concerns on FB so I
>>> stay on top of those issues.
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>
>> Personally I miss seeing you here. I tried to give Facebook a
>> chance but hated it. Hated the chat interface, didn't like much
>> of anything I saw there. No real discussion I could ascertain.
>> And people I don't know kept trying to "friend" me. Why, because
>> we're six separations apart a la Kevin Bacon?! Oh well, we still
>> have email Please keep in touch!
>>
>> Jill
>>
>>
>
> I miss seeing Michael here, too. And, although I am on FB, I don't
> really "do" FB.
>
My complaint about FB is that many people think I am just waiting with
bated breath to be their "friend." I'm not on FB, don't want to be on FB
and don't want to be "friends" with people I have never met nor known.
I'm beginning to think some folks on FB are harvesting email addresses
from their friends and from UseNet. I received fifteen friend request
this week alone. Finally traced it down to one of my wife's first
cousins who fails to BCC anyone he sends emails to. Evidently his many
friends have harvested my email addy. Now I've got to get him to either
Bcc addresses or take me off his mailing list, PITA.

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 09:22:44 -0600, George Shirley
> wrote:

> Now I've got to get him to either Bcc addresses or take me off his mailing list, PITA.

Every crowd has a clueless one like that and it always seems to be a
close relative. <sigh>

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

In article >,
George Shirley > wrote:



> My complaint about FB is that many people think I am just waiting with
> bated breath to be their "friend." I'm not on FB, don't want to be on FB
> and don't want to be "friends" with people I have never met nor known.
> I'm beginning to think some folks on FB are harvesting email addresses
> from their friends and from UseNet. I received fifteen friend request
> this week alone. Finally traced it down to one of my wife's first
> cousins who fails to BCC anyone he sends emails to. Evidently his many
> friends have harvested my email addy. Now I've got to get him to either
> Bcc addresses or take me off his mailing list, PITA.

Be aware that there are friend requests and friend "suggestions". FB
just wants to harvest as many Email addresses as they can, so they will
keep pumping these "suggestions" to you. If somebody becomes inactive
on FB, then FB will start generating repeat "suggestions" to everybody
to "friend" them, so they'll come back. Several times a week, FB
prompts me to use their "friend finder" to send friend requests to every
single person in some piece of software on my computer. The first, of
course, is my Email client. Not understanding, I agreed the first time,
and it failed because my Email client is not very standard. Yesterday
it tried FOUR TIMES, first my Email, then the Mac address book, then IM
and then something else. I had to delete it four times before it went
away.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Michael \"Dog3\" > wrote:

>George Shirley > news:4d39a4c9$0$9963

>> My complaint about FB is that many people think I am just waiting with
>> bated breath to be their "friend." I'm not on FB, don't want to be on FB
>> and don't want to be "friends" with people I have never met nor known.
>> I'm beginning to think some folks on FB are harvesting email addresses
>> from their friends and from UseNet. I received fifteen friend request
>> this week alone. Finally traced it down to one of my wife's first
>> cousins who fails to BCC anyone he sends emails to. Evidently his many
>> friends have harvested my email addy. Now I've got to get him to either
>> Bcc addresses or take me off his mailing list, PITA.

>Answering this better late than never I guess. I've never had a problem
>with people harvesting my email addy. But then I've only got a couple
>hundred friends and do not "friend" people I don't know. My security
>settings are pretty tight as far as I can tell. So far, I've not had a
>problem with FB. Not saying I won't but so far so good.

It's been a regular feature of Facebook for a couple years that a FB
user can input any sort of address-book or list of email addresses
into it that they like, and all the recipients receive an email
join request. It's just another form of spam, I do not treat such
an email as I would a personal request, even if it's from someone
I know.

Steve

Steve Pope wrote:

> It's been a regular feature of Facebook for a couple years that a FB
> user can input any sort of address-book or list of email addresses
> into it that they like, and all the recipients receive an email
> join request. It's just another form of spam, I do not treat such
> an email as I would a personal request, even if it's from someone
> I know.

That's my big suspicion, I no sooner signed up when I got friend
requests from people on rfc that I don't think were just sitting
there waiting for me to join. Still when I get friend requests I
wonder if that person did ask me or if Facebook sent it as I'm
a "friend" of their "friend."

I never did ask anyone if they actually wished me to friend them.
Heh. I'll be crushed when they say No, I didn't ask for you!

nancy

On Jan 21, 10:38*am, Dan Abel > wrote:
> In article >,
> *George Shirley > wrote:
>
> > My complaint about FB is that many people think I am just waiting with
> > bated breath to be their "friend." I'm not on FB, don't want to be on FB
> > and don't want to be "friends" with people I have never met nor known.
> > I'm beginning to think some folks on FB are harvesting email addresses
> > from their friends and from UseNet. I received fifteen friend request
> > this week alone. Finally traced it down to one of my wife's first
> > cousins who fails to BCC anyone he sends emails to. Evidently his many
> > friends have harvested my email addy. Now I've got to get him to either
> > Bcc addresses or take me off his mailing list, PITA.
>
> Be aware that there are friend requests and friend "suggestions". *FB
> just wants to harvest as many Email addresses as they can, so they will
> keep pumping these "suggestions" to you. *If somebody becomes inactive
> on FB, then FB will start generating repeat "suggestions" to everybody
> to "friend" them, so they'll come back. *Several times a week, FB
> prompts me to use their "friend finder" to send friend requests to every
> single person in some piece of software on my computer. *The first, of
> course, is my Email client. *Not understanding, I agreed the first time,
> and it failed because my Email client is not very standard. *Yesterday
> it tried FOUR TIMES, first my Email, then the Mac address book, then IM
> and then something else. *I had to delete it four times before it went
> away.

You take the time to delete that? I just ignore it.

On Feb 9, 9:01*am, projectile vomit chick
> wrote:
> On Jan 21, 10:38*am, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article >,
> > *George Shirley > wrote:
>
> > > My complaint about FB is that many people think I am just waiting with
> > > bated breath to be their "friend." I'm not on FB, don't want to be on FB
> > > and don't want to be "friends" with people I have never met nor known..
> > > I'm beginning to think some folks on FB are harvesting email addresses
> > > from their friends and from UseNet. I received fifteen friend request
> > > this week alone. Finally traced it down to one of my wife's first
> > > cousins who fails to BCC anyone he sends emails to. Evidently his many
> > > friends have harvested my email addy. Now I've got to get him to either
> > > Bcc addresses or take me off his mailing list, PITA.
>
> > Be aware that there are friend requests and friend "suggestions". *FB
> > just wants to harvest as many Email addresses as they can, so they will
> > keep pumping these "suggestions" to you. *If somebody becomes inactive
> > on FB, then FB will start generating repeat "suggestions" to everybody
> > to "friend" them, so they'll come back. *Several times a week, FB
> > prompts me to use their "friend finder" to send friend requests to every
> > single person in some piece of software on my computer. *The first, of
> > course, is my Email client. *Not understanding, I agreed the first time,
> > and it failed because my Email client is not very standard. *Yesterday
> > it tried FOUR TIMES, first my Email, then the Mac address book, then IM
> > and then something else. *I had to delete it four times before it went
> > away.
>
> You take the time to delete that? *I just ignore it.

Sorta like what we do here with you.