On Apr 9, 6:45 pm, Bruce Barnett
wrote:

I've seen this mistake a thousand times. Literally.
DON'T FORWARD WARNINGS UNLESS YOU CHECK THE ACCURACY


ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS investigate before you cry wolf. Please.

(sound of pulling hair from head. It's not very loud, as there's not much hair left.)


No need to SCREAM YELL BITCH AND COMPLAIN AT THE TOP OF YOUR LUNGS.

I haven't seen that many caps in a post since the last bitch fight on
rec.woodworking.

And I am not sure Arch started a riot. FWIW, I have plenty of hair
left... I have a tendency to take these things in context.

I learned long ago that not all are as fluent in aspects of our
everyday lives as some. He might have helped someone if this had been
a real deal. Not everyone keeps up with the current hoaxes, scams,
schemes, etc., and more importantly some don't know how to look for
the information (I know, it is pretty easy) to validate some of
them.

For me, I took Arch's warning as a well meaning heads up, nothing
more. If interested, I would vet any warning myself to my own
satisfaction, not relying on his three sentence blurb. Apparently you
do the same. But as a point on Arch's side, I had forgotten about
that LIB thing a long, long time ago. For all I knew, someone had
resurrected the name with a whole new scheme behind it.

Having my eyeballs pulled out through my rectum by some punk ass
vandal that snuck a virus by my antivirus ware, my firewall router and
my network administrator before, I learned that vigilance is the key.
It was a time consuming and expensive lesson.

So what if Arch was given incorrect infomation? No need to scream
like a mashed cat and chastise someone that took the time to post a
three sentence warning. A simple response to ease his mind and maybe
instruct him on your style of vetting would probably have been more
satisfactory to you both.

If you need to, fire away. I will have my ear muffs/decapitalizer on.

Robert