My wife and I have received two recorded message type phone calls in the past two days from someone claiming to be from IRS and that I was being investigated unless I called them. The phone number to call was given as 1-352-281-6660 in both cases.

That same number showed up on caller ID as the number of the calling party. If it is so easy to get these phone numbers, why doesn't some federal agency track these shysters down and prosecute them?????

On 9/13/16 8:38 PM, wrote:
My wife and I have received two recorded message type phone calls in
the past two days from someone claiming to be from IRS and that I
was being investigated unless I called them. The phone number to
call was given as 1-352-281-6660 in both cases.

That same number showed up on caller ID as the number of the calling
party. If it is so easy to get these phone numbers, why doesn't
some federal agency track these shysters down and prosecute
them?????


Maybe it's the sheer volume of them. I've gotten some new ones the
last couple days. The woman wishes me luck if I don't call her number soon.

On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 20:51:45 -0500, Dean Hoffman
wrote:

On 9/13/16 8:38 PM, wrote:
My wife and I have received two recorded message type phone calls in
the past two days from someone claiming to be from IRS and that I
was being investigated unless I called them. The phone number to
call was given as 1-352-281-6660 in both cases.

That same number showed up on caller ID as the number of the calling
party. If it is so easy to get these phone numbers, why doesn't
some federal agency track these shysters down and prosecute
them?????


Maybe it's the sheer volume of them. I've gotten some new ones the
last couple days. The woman wishes me luck if I don't call her number soon.


Yep. Our police have asked people to stop reporting these calls.
.. some dumb idiots have actually fallen for this obvious scam !
... they have gone out and bought " phone cards " and called back
to the scammers - with the phone-card code-numbers - thinking that
the Canada Revenue / IRS actually works this way .. geeeze.
Really ? !
John T.

On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 8:51:49 PM UTC-5, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 9/13/16 8:38 PM, wrote:
My wife and I have received two recorded message type phone calls in
the past two days from someone claiming to be from IRS and that I
was being investigated unless I called them. The phone number to
call was given as 1-352-281-6660 in both cases.

That same number showed up on caller ID as the number of the calling
party. If it is so easy to get these phone numbers, why doesn't
some federal agency track these shysters down and prosecute
them?????

Maybe it's the sheer volume of them. I've gotten some new ones the
last couple days. The woman wishes me luck if I don't call her number soon.


I like to call them back speaking like Achmed The Dead Terrorist as I threaten them telling them I will find them, murder their children and blow up their homes. I had a telepest speaking English as a second language call my cellphone today I assume trying to sell computer service or some scam that would get me to logon to a website that would load ransom-ware. I told him speaking in my own Engrish as a second language voice that I charge $85/hr for computer service. He said,"You have sex with your mother." I said,"No, she's dead. I can't have sex with her anymore." The telepest hung up. I love to frak with telepests. \(—¦'Œ£'—¦)/

[8~{} Uncle Pesky Monster

On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 8:38:09 PM UTC-5, wrote:
My wife and I have received two recorded message type phone calls in the past two days from someone claiming to be from IRS and that I was being investigated unless I called them. The phone number to call was given as 1-352-281-6660 in both cases.

That same number showed up on caller ID as the number of the calling party. If it is so easy to get these phone numbers, why doesn't some federal agency track these shysters down and prosecute them?????

Beatrice Bell SE 10 Ave Gainesville Florida 352-281-6660

On 9/13/2016 9:31 PM, bob_villa wrote:
On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 8:38:09 PM UTC-5, wrote:
My wife and I have received two recorded message type phone calls in the past two days from someone claiming to be from IRS and that I was being investigated unless I called them. The phone number to call was given as 1-352-281-6660 in both cases.

That same number showed up on caller ID as the number of the calling party. If it is so easy to get these phone numbers, why doesn't some federal agency track these shysters down and prosecute them?????

XXXXXXXX XXXXX SE 10 Ave Gainesville Florida 352-281-6660



Maybe or maybe not. Let's also consider that these goofs can spoof
caller ID numbers and thus confuse idiots who go on the internet, Google
search a number and then post it to these lists which can cause harm to
innocent people.

I ran the number through a teleco database that is updated intraday and
came up with totally different subscriber information

Just saying!

On 09/14/2016 01:38 AM, wrote:
My wife and I have received two recorded message type phone calls in the past two days from someone claiming to be from IRS and that I was being investigated unless I called them. The phone number to call was given as 1-352-281-6660 in both cases.

That same number showed up on caller ID as the number of the calling party. If it is so easy to get these phone numbers, why doesn't some federal agency track these shysters down and prosecute them?????

Small world, I got a similar call.

With the right equipment, caller id can be faked. If you're worried about it, call the IRS number listed on the irs.gov website.

On 9/14/2016 1:38 AM, joe wrote:
On 09/14/2016 01:38 AM, wrote:
My wife and I have received two recorded message type phone calls in
the past two days from someone claiming to be from IRS and that I was
being investigated unless I called them. The phone number to call was
given as 1-352-281-6660 in both cases.

That same number showed up on caller ID as the number of the calling
party. If it is so easy to get these phone numbers, why doesn't some
federal agency track these shysters down and prosecute them?????

Small world, I got a similar call.

With the right equipment, caller id can be faked. If you're worried
about it, call the IRS number listed on the irs.gov website.


Not so small. I got one today, and 5 in one day last week.

On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 19:35:47 -0700, Bob F wrote:


Not so small. I got one today, and 5 in one day last week.

I got 2 IRS scam calls yesterday within one hour.
Maybe 6-7 in the past 3 weeks.

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 6:49:37 AM UTC-5, Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 19:35:47 -0700, Bob F wrote:


Not so small. I got one today, and 5 in one day last week.

I got 2 IRS scam calls yesterday within one hour.
Maybe 6-7 in the past 3 weeks.

I got one too in my voicemail. Was yours a robot like voice? The number the robot voice said to call was different from the number the call came from. I'm thinking of having some real fun with it. I love to frak with telepests and telefraudsters. I had one call me yesterday trying to sell dental insurance so I told the gal I was in a hospital about to go into surgery to have my legs cut off. I went on and on about why did the doctors want to cut my legs off and she said to give them a call about dental insurance so I told her that the nurse promised not to lose my dentures while I was having my legs cut off. It was then the gal finally figured out she was wasting her time and said goodbye.(€¢€¿€¢)

[8~{} Uncle Legless Monster

On 9/13/2016 9:38 PM, wrote:
My wife and I have received two recorded message type phone calls in the past two days from someone claiming to be from IRS and that I was being investigated unless I called them. The phone number to call was given as 1-352-281-6660 in both cases.

That same number showed up on caller ID as the number of the calling party. If it is so easy to get these phone numbers, why doesn't some federal agency track these shysters down and prosecute them?????


Without caller ID to identify the caller as someone you know or deal
with, nobody can answer the phone anymore. Our feckless government is
fully aware of this and does squat.

On 9/14/2016 6:46 AM, Frank wrote:
On 9/13/2016 9:38 PM, wrote:
My wife and I have received two recorded message type phone calls in
the past two days from someone claiming to be from IRS and that I
was being investigated unless I called them. The phone number to
call was given as 1-352-281-6660 in both cases.

That same number showed up on caller ID as the number of the calling
party. If it is so easy to get these phone numbers, why doesn't
some federal agency track these shysters down and prosecute them?????


Without caller ID to identify the caller as someone you know or deal
with, nobody can answer the phone anymore. Our feckless government is
fully aware of this and does squat.

Our laws apply within our borders, but the phone scammers are
overseas. Even so, the feds have managed to shut a few of these down.
Problem is, it's an endless game of whack-a-mole. Scammer A hires a
bunch of people to work the phones, and while doing so, they learn how
the scam works. Even if their employer gets shut down, some of them
just get into the business themselves and the scam continues - except
where it began with one boiler room operation, now there's multiple
ones. The "Rachel from Card Services" scam is a known example of that,
and the IRS scam is probably doing the same. Once a con artist comes
up with a new idea, a bunch more jump on the bandwagon.

This has been a problem for decades, so everyone should know by now
that you don't _have_ to answer a call, especially when we have the
ability to screen calls and take messages. That's the power each of us
has for handling these. If you haven't figured that out by now, the
problem isn't just getting unwanted calls, it's your inability to
figure out how to ignore them.

On 9/14/2016 8:09 AM, Moe DeLoughan wrote:
On 9/14/2016 6:46 AM, Frank wrote:
On 9/13/2016 9:38 PM, wrote:
My wife and I have received two recorded message type phone calls in
the past two days from someone claiming to be from IRS and that I
was being investigated unless I called them. The phone number to
call was given as 1-352-281-6660 in both cases.

That same number showed up on caller ID as the number of the calling
party. If it is so easy to get these phone numbers, why doesn't
some federal agency track these shysters down and prosecute them?????


Without caller ID to identify the caller as someone you know or deal
with, nobody can answer the phone anymore. Our feckless government is
fully aware of this and does squat.

Our laws apply within our borders, but the phone scammers are overseas.
Even so, the feds have managed to shut a few of these down. Problem is,
it's an endless game of whack-a-mole. Scammer A hires a bunch of people
to work the phones, and while doing so, they learn how the scam works.
Even if their employer gets shut down, some of them just get into the
business themselves and the scam continues - except where it began with
one boiler room operation, now there's multiple ones. The "Rachel from
Card Services" scam is a known example of that, and the IRS scam is
probably doing the same. Once a con artist comes up with a new idea, a
bunch more jump on the bandwagon.

This has been a problem for decades, so everyone should know by now that
you don't _have_ to answer a call, especially when we have the ability
to screen calls and take messages. That's the power each of us has for
handling these. If you haven't figured that out by now, the problem
isn't just getting unwanted calls, it's your inability to figure out how
to ignore them.

I know most are overseas. If I get a live one, I've been telling them
lately that I'm sorry but I don't speak to colored people. Sorta hope I
make them mad enough to quit or demand more money.

I'm no computer expert but think there are things we could do.
Telephone companies could note millions of calls and cut them off.
The "microsoft" scammers could take over a computer that infects them
with a fatal virus instead of the other way around.

Per Frank:
I'm no computer expert but think there are things we could do.
Telephone companies could note millions of calls and cut them off.

My gut reaction is that, somehow, the phone companies benefit from those
calls. For sure, the cell phone carriers do because they are burning
minutes for those on minute-limited plans. For land line carriers, I
would think that those calls serve a marketing purpose: selling people
like me on paying extra for CallerID/Simultaneous ring.
--
Pete Cresswell

On 9/14/2016 10:27 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Frank:
I'm no computer expert but think there are things we could do.
Telephone companies could note millions of calls and cut them off.

My gut reaction is that, somehow, the phone companies benefit from those
calls. For sure, the cell phone carriers do because they are burning
minutes for those on minute-limited plans. For land line carriers, I
would think that those calls serve a marketing purpose: selling people
like me on paying extra for CallerID/Simultaneous ring.


That's the way I feel about it.
Last I heard the Feds were telling the telephone companies to help
otherwise they would step in. Does not make any sense since Feds should
have been working with them.

Per Moe DeLoughan:
If you haven't figured that out by now, the
problem isn't just getting unwanted calls, it's your inability to
figure out how to ignore them.

It isn't the content of the calls for me... *any* caller has about .7
seconds to show some response and then I hang up... "Hello, this is Pete
Cresswell.... HelloHello.... CLICK!".

But the sheer number of rings is a problem - even letting them to go
answering machine is a problem when you start getting a half-dozen to a
dozen a day.

I've had plain old basic phone service since Day-1 and, cheap as I am, I
am about *that* far away from either putting out the big bucks for
CallerID/Simultaneous ring or putting my incoming calls on the VOIP
service I use for outgoing.

The first option would give me access to apps that crowd-source junk
call identification.

The second one would let me implement Challenge/Response: "Hello, this
is the Cresswell's answering machine. "Press 1 for Joe, Press 2 for
Sue..." and so-forth - along with a GoldList of known callers that do
not get the prompt. The downsides of the second are uncertainty
about how 911 calls would work and family members who do not like
change.
--
Pete Cresswell

But the sheer number of rings is a problem - even letting them to go
answering machine is a problem when you start getting a half-dozen to a
dozen a day.

this is a job the NSA should handle

at least we would get some benefit for all the money they get

m

On 9/14/2016 7:34 AM, wrote:


But the sheer number of rings is a problem - even letting them to go
answering machine is a problem when you start getting a half-dozen to a
dozen a day.

this is a job the NSA should handle

at least we would get some benefit for all the money they get

m




We should let Whitey Bulger out on the condition he solve the problem

On 9/14/2016 7:25 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Moe DeLoughan:
If you haven't figured that out by now, the
problem isn't just getting unwanted calls, it's your inability to
figure out how to ignore them.

It isn't the content of the calls for me... *any* caller has about .7
seconds to show some response and then I hang up... "Hello, this is Pete
Cresswell.... HelloHello.... CLICK!".

But the sheer number of rings is a problem - even letting them to go
answering machine is a problem when you start getting a half-dozen to a
dozen a day.

I've had plain old basic phone service since Day-1 and, cheap as I am, I
am about *that* far away from either putting out the big bucks for
CallerID/Simultaneous ring or putting my incoming calls on the VOIP
service I use for outgoing.

The first option would give me access to apps that crowd-source junk
call identification.

The second one would let me implement Challenge/Response: "Hello, this
is the Cresswell's answering machine. "Press 1 for Joe, Press 2 for
Sue..." and so-forth - along with a GoldList of known callers that do
not get the prompt. The downsides of the second are uncertainty
about how 911 calls would work and family members who do not like
change.


What I want is a device that will make callers press a # before the
phone will pass a ring on to my phones. OR the phone company could do
the same before they ring my house. Such devices have been available in
the past, but I haven't found any made now.

Per Bob F:
What I want is a device that will make callers press a # before the
phone will pass a ring on to my phones. OR the phone company could do
the same before they ring my house. Such devices have been available in
the past, but I haven't found any made now.

That functionality is available if you use a VOIP provider like
CallCentric.com.

But I like the simplicity of the device a lot better.... seems like
there should be some out there considering the need.
--
Pete Cresswell

On 9/14/16 10:25 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
I
am about *that* far away from either putting out the big bucks for
CallerID/Simultaneous ring or putting my incoming calls on the VOIP
service I use for outgoing.

Put your incoming calls on VOIP (phone over the internet).

Then, sign up for "nomorobo.com".
(assuming your ISP/VOIP service will handle it)

I had my doubts about it.
But for non-commerical use (homeowner), it works, and quite
well.

Phone rings once, then callerID displays call number.
Nothing more.

Per John Albert:

Put your incoming calls on VOIP (phone over the internet).

Then, sign up for "nomorobo.com".
(assuming your ISP/VOIP service will handle it)

That's what I was thinking about if/when I go over to
CallerID/Simultaneous ring.

Had not considered that Simultaneous Ring might be available via my VOIP
provider.... Gotta look into that.
--
Pete Cresswell

On 9/14/2016 10:25 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Moe DeLoughan:
If you haven't figured that out by now, the
problem isn't just getting unwanted calls, it's your inability to
figure out how to ignore them.

It isn't the content of the calls for me... *any* caller has about .7
seconds to show some response and then I hang up... "Hello, this is Pete
Cresswell.... HelloHello.... CLICK!".

But the sheer number of rings is a problem - even letting them to go
answering machine is a problem when you start getting a half-dozen to a
dozen a day.

I've had plain old basic phone service since Day-1 and, cheap as I am, I
am about *that* far away from either putting out the big bucks for
CallerID/Simultaneous ring or putting my incoming calls on the VOIP
service I use for outgoing.

The first option would give me access to apps that crowd-source junk
call identification.

The second one would let me implement Challenge/Response: "Hello, this
is the Cresswell's answering machine. "Press 1 for Joe, Press 2 for
Sue..." and so-forth - along with a GoldList of known callers that do
not get the prompt. The downsides of the second are uncertainty
about how 911 calls would work and family members who do not like
change.


I, too, have an old land line used for business with fax machine.
Connection is FIOS as they are getting rid of copper here but not billed
or serviced as VoIP. I could not get an old answering machine to work
with it and the fax so will pick it up if I am nearby.
99% of all calls are telemarketers or scammers. Even most of the faxes
are spam.

I think, particularly when I got it many years ago, that it is under my
name as Sr. which I got as a business phone at homeowner price as
additional phone. Seniors are targeted by spammers as many are more
susceptible to fraud.

It's totally disgusting what has happened to our phones. One guy even
said he would vote for president anyone that said they would clean up
this mess.

Per Frank:
It's totally disgusting what has happened to our phones. One guy even
said he would vote for president anyone that said they would clean up
this mess.

I'm probably closer to that guy that I would care to admit.

And the cynic in me says that if those robocallers that the Pennsylvania
State DA claims cannot be prosecuted were to threaten political figures
above a certain level, said robocallers would be behind bars within 24
hours.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 7:18:46 AM UTC-5, Frank wrote:
On 9/14/2016 10:25 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Moe DeLoughan:
If you haven't figured that out by now, the
problem isn't just getting unwanted calls, it's your inability to
figure out how to ignore them.

It isn't the content of the calls for me... *any* caller has about .7
seconds to show some response and then I hang up... "Hello, this is Pete
Cresswell.... HelloHello.... CLICK!".

But the sheer number of rings is a problem - even letting them to go
answering machine is a problem when you start getting a half-dozen to a
dozen a day.

I've had plain old basic phone service since Day-1 and, cheap as I am, I
am about *that* far away from either putting out the big bucks for
CallerID/Simultaneous ring or putting my incoming calls on the VOIP
service I use for outgoing.

The first option would give me access to apps that crowd-source junk
call identification.

The second one would let me implement Challenge/Response: "Hello, this
is the Cresswell's answering machine. "Press 1 for Joe, Press 2 for
Sue..." and so-forth - along with a GoldList of known callers that do
not get the prompt. The downsides of the second are uncertainty
about how 911 calls would work and family members who do not like
change.

I, too, have an old land line used for business with fax machine.
Connection is FIOS as they are getting rid of copper here but not billed
or serviced as VoIP. I could not get an old answering machine to work
with it and the fax so will pick it up if I am nearby.
99% of all calls are telemarketers or scammers. Even most of the faxes
are spam.

I think, particularly when I got it many years ago, that it is under my
name as Sr. which I got as a business phone at homeowner price as
additional phone. Seniors are targeted by spammers as many are more
susceptible to fraud.

It's totally disgusting what has happened to our phones. One guy even
said he would vote for president anyone that said they would clean up
this mess.


You could always do what I do and use telepests as a form of entertainment. I must call the fake IRS "officer" back and really frak with him. ʘ€¿Ê˜

[8~{} Uncle IRS Monster

On 9/14/2016 4:46 AM, Frank wrote:
On 9/13/2016 9:38 PM, wrote:
My wife and I have received two recorded message type phone calls in
the past two days from someone claiming to be from IRS and that I was
being investigated unless I called them. The phone number to call was
given as 1-352-281-6660 in both cases.

That same number showed up on caller ID as the number of the calling
party. If it is so easy to get these phone numbers, why doesn't some
federal agency track these shysters down and prosecute them?????


Without caller ID to identify the caller as someone you know or deal
with, nobody can answer the phone anymore. Our feckless government is
fully aware of this and does squat.

Blame the government?

The phone company could do something about these things. At least offer
us a number to call immediately after a scam call that would register
the preceding call as a scam, so they can then block all these calls.
But no, that's too much bother for them.

Maybe the government can require them to clean up their service.

On 9/13/2016 6:38 PM, wrote:
My wife and I have received two recorded message type phone calls in the past two days from someone claiming to be from IRS and that I was being investigated unless I called them. The phone number to call was given as 1-352-281-6660 in both cases.

That same number showed up on caller ID as the number of the calling party. If it is so easy to get these phone numbers, why doesn't some federal agency track these shysters down and prosecute them?????

I have been ****ing the IRS for years now. These days April 15th is
more like April fools day on the IRS.

On 14/09/16 20:49, Colonel Edmund J. Burke wrote:

I have been ****ing the IRS for years now. These days April 15th is
more like April fools day on the IRS.

There are people trained to steal money by cheating using jokes. DO NOT
underestimate the power of a joke or any form of mind trick.

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
�借貸! ��騙! ��交! �打交! �打劫! �自殺! 請考慮綜� (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa

On 9/14/2016 6:18 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 14/09/16 20:49, Colonel Edmund J. Burke wrote:

I have been ****ing the IRS for years now. These days April 15th is
more like April fools day on the IRS.

There are people trained to steal money by cheating using jokes. DO NOT
underestimate the power of a joke or any form of mind trick.

Never tell me wot to do, chink.

On 14/09/16 09:38, wrote:
That same number showed up on caller ID as the number of the calling party. If it is so easy to get these phone numbers, why doesn't some federal agency track these shysters down and prosecute them?????

I dunno about USA, but in Hong Kong, the caller ID can be forged. Don't
trust it. Call the official phone number listed in your government
website instead. Don't just blindly follow a given number.

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
�借貸! ��騙! ��交! �打交! �打劫! �自殺! 請考慮綜� (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa

Per Mr. Man-wai Chang:
I dunno about USA, but in Hong Kong, the caller ID can be forged. Don't
trust it.

True in the USA too. On my VOIP service, I have the CallerID spoofed on
my cell phone to the cell phone's number when I am using Bria to call
via VOIP instead of tMobile.
--
Pete Cresswell

On 14/09/16 22:32, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

True in the USA too. On my VOIP service, I have the CallerID spoofed on
my cell phone to the cell phone's number when I am using Bria to call
via VOIP instead of tMobile.

The caller ID is not far from the fax number on incoming fax... I suspect...

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
�借貸! ��騙! ��交! �打交! �打劫! �自殺! 請考慮綜� (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa

On 9/13/2016 6:38 PM, wrote:
My wife and I have received two recorded message type phone calls in the past two days from someone claiming to be from IRS and that I was being investigated unless I called them. The phone number to call was given as 1-352-281-6660 in both cases.

That same number showed up on caller ID as the number of the calling party. If it is so easy to get these phone numbers, why doesn't some federal agency track these shysters down and prosecute them?????

APRIL 15th is like April 1st for me and Pleasance.

You don't have much credibility when you can't even spell my name correctly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 12:44:41 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

You don't have much credibility when you can't even spell my name correctly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can't tell whom you mean if you can't quote some context in the
thread. I asked about that before.

n Wed, 14 Sep 2016 12:44:41 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

You don't have much credibility when you can't even spell my name correctly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Can't tell whom you mean if you can't quote some context in the
thread. I asked about that before.

I was responding to nutcase Burke

On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 13:27:37 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

n Wed, 14 Sep 2016 12:44:41 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

You don't have much credibility when you can't even spell my name correctly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Can't tell whom you mean if you can't quote some context in the
thread. I asked about that before.

I was responding to nutcase Burke

Fair enough. I don't see him as he is a troll. Thanks.

You didn't quote my name, but I got your drift, somehow.

On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 13:27:37 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

n Wed, 14 Sep 2016 12:44:41 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

You don't have much credibility when you can't even spell my name correctly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Can't tell whom you mean if you can't quote some context in the
thread. I asked about that before.

I was responding to nutcase Burke


Actually, you were replying to yourself.

You don't have much credibility when you can't even
spell my name correctly !


Can't tell whom you mean if you can't quote some context in the thread.


I was responding to nutcase Burke


.... thus diminishing your own credibility ..