link--this

Robyn Said:
"What they don't realize is that I was "stupid" enough to spam-protect my e-mail address. Just not theirs. Oops.

¤ ¤ credit: robyn | 07.01.03 at 11:10 PM | link--this ¤ ¤"

Anti-facist-ashcroft says:

Actually, according to http://spam.abuse.net/overview/whatisspam.shtml

Whomever this butturmytoast person is, he/she didn't spam you.

Also, since we are all English professors here, lets go down the list of those who decided to "attack" this person's grammar:

The Sarcastic Journalist says:
"There is nothing worse than someone who sends "hate mail" and can't even use correct grammar." Correction - You mean "proper grammar" not "correct." The reason is too long and drawn to get into...

Mikey says:
"you misspell 50% of the words" - Actually, he/she misspelled nothing. So, he/she misspelled 0% of the words. It looks as if your math needs more work than his/her spelling.

I always say that folks who play "grammar cop" on the Net have nothing better to come up with against another flamer. (For those who want to say "but you just did it....", this is something called irony.

(Now I cannot wait to see how much time someone will take to point out my poor grammar, that to me is even more amusing!)

Oh, I really do despise the GOP.

¤ ¤ credit: anti-ashcroft | 07.02.03 at 07:16 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

She never said the e-mail of topic was spam. She implied she took measures to protect her e-mail from receiving spam but didn't take the time to prevent this person from receiving spam. There is a difference.

¤ ¤ credit: Shawn | 07.02.03 at 07:22 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

So, what you are saying shawn is that Robyn is considering signing this persons email address to different mailing lists? Is that what that means? I just want you to clarify that.

¤ ¤ credit: anti-cheney | 07.02.03 at 07:27 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

Actually anti... 'your' is misspelled for the context that it was used. It wouldnt of been misspelled if he said "your boat reminds me of your big fat ass". But since he didnt.. its misspelled.

¤ ¤ credit: jay | 07.02.03 at 07:36 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

Jay - you didn't use an ' in wouldn't.

¤ ¤ credit: antigop | 07.02.03 at 07:51 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

I also didn't use it in didn't and it's. :-p

¤ ¤ credit: jay | 07.02.03 at 09:14 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

Wow! I don't know if I had more fun reading your entry or the comments to it, Robyn. =D

¤ ¤ credit: Julie | 07.02.03 at 09:16 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

Wow! Thank you Mr. Knowledge.

¤ ¤ credit: jewdez | 07.02.03 at 09:55 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

I didn't say they spammed me. But spam-bots that harvest my URL can get ahold of their e-mail address and do with it what they will... I don't have to submit them for anything. Spambots crawl just about every public domain out there. If you don't take measures to hide your address from them, you'll fall victim.

See, don't mess with the blonde.

¤ ¤ credit: robyn | 07.02.03 at 10:42 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

your all stoopid. you just are
;-)

¤ ¤ credit: Quinn | 07.03.03 at 10:46 AM | link--this ¤ ¤

I guess buttur was just wanted to "Dare To Be Stupid" but was too dumb to get that far.

¤ ¤ credit: Yog Sothoth | 07.03.03 at 11:24 AM | link--this ¤ ¤

hey, antibush@yahoo.com... you're an idiot.

see, that's how it should have been spelled.

¤ ¤ credit: mikey | 07.05.03 at 02:22 AM | link--this ¤ ¤

Those people should go out & HAVE A LIFE :) Just removed some messages like that from my guestbook. LOL :) You have a great site!

¤ ¤ credit: Sweety | 07.05.03 at 06:51 AM | link--this ¤ ¤

Mikey,
Coming from you, that comment hold little weight. Someone with little moral value and high valuation for the life of ill repute, I needn't even pay attention to it.

¤ ¤ credit: antibush | 07.05.03 at 07:35 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

antibush, you're about theeeeeees close to getting kicked and banned just because I can. If you're only here to flame, and not contribute, say goodnight Gracie.

¤ ¤ credit: robyn | 07.05.03 at 07:53 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

Wait - he starts by calling me an idiot, I retaliate, but I am the one who started a flame war? How is that?

¤ ¤ credit: antibush | 07.05.03 at 08:08 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

Because you're the one who came in here and started picking people apart one-by-one. They are responding to you, m'dear. You're not. That. Innocent.

¤ ¤ credit: robyn | 07.05.03 at 08:18 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

"Also, since we are all English professors here, lets go down the list of those who decided to "attack" this person's grammar:"

That would be "let's," as in "let us."
Let us go down the list of those who decided to attack this person's grammar.

¤ ¤ credit: Tracy | 07.09.03 at 10:34 PM | link--this ¤ ¤