[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software

Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.programming

My answer to fir

Ramine

3/16/2016 11:14:00 PM


Hello,

fir wrote:
>youre stupid spamer who spetialises in spamming and you ove me more
>and more money for cope'ing to hide this trash ram


Sir, i am not spamming this newsgroup, i have just made an
approximation that i think is good, this good approximation is:
that operational research is also mandatory for computer
programmers, this is why i have gone this way to explain more
my mathematical modeling of a queuing networks for ecommerce websites.
So my methodology is a requirement also to make us better at
climbing the Hill of knowledge that is mandatory for computer
programmers, please notice carefully that my interventiond are
also good for learning more and learning more algorithms...



Thank you for your time.


Amine Moulay Ramdane.
8 Answers

Lamont Cranston

9/16/2008 4:40:00 PM

0

FRANKIE LEE wrote:
> On Sep 16, 4:20 am, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > ...but I'll fix it." McCain.
> >
> > He sounds like Herbert Hoover reborn on the campaign
> > trail!
> >
> > Monday, September 15, 2008
> >
> > McCain as Herbert Hoover
> >
> > This morning in Florida, as the American financial
> > market implodes,
> > John McCain did his Herbert Hoover imitation once
> > again - something
> > that the Obama campaign frequently ridicules him for:
> >
> > "I think still - the fundamentals of our economy are
> > strong.",
> > McCain
> >
> > It makes a certain kind of sense for a sitting president
> > to make
> > this kind of assertion. George Bush has been saying the
> > very same
> > thing for several years as the economy stagnated and
> > financial
> > disaster loomed. But the fact that McCain feels impelled
> > at this
> > stage to embrace the economic-fundamentals-are-strong
> > line reveals
> > as clearly as anything the extent to which he is running
> > as a
> > quasi-incumbent, the extension of the Bush presidency.
> >
> > What McCain had to say today was this:
> >
> > "You know that there's been tremendous
> > turmoil in our financial markets and Wall
> > Street. And it is, it's - people are frightened
> > by these events. Our economy, I think
> > still - the fundamentals of our economy are
> > strong. But these are very, very difficult times."
> >
> > That's virtually indistinguishable from what George Bush
> > has been
> > saying this year. But ironically, McCain went on to
> > argue that what
> > is needed in Washington is a major change in the
> > government's
> > oversight of financial institutions, in particular
> > greater
> > transparency - and that he is the person to bring that
> > change!
> >
> > "This is a failure...The McCain Palin
> > administration will replace the outdated
> > patchwork quilt of regulatory oversight
> > and bring transparency and accountability
> > to Wall Street, we will bring transparency
> > and accountability and we will reform the
> > regulatory bodies of government."
> >
> > Never mind that McCain has been in Washington for
> > decades and done
> > little to beef up regulation and accountability (in the
> > Keating
> > Five scandal in the 1980s he sought to undercut bank
> > regulators and
> > then refused to hold himself accountable for the ensuing
> > bank
> > failures). Nor has McCain brought transparency even in
> > things
> > directly in his control (witness the vast numbers of
> > documents he
> > sealed from public scrutiny in his softball
> > "investigation" of Jack
> > Abramoff).
>
>
> ***is it not true that

....this economy is the direct result of George Bush's
economic policies that were implemented when the Republicans
had control of Congress?

Yes, that is correct.

Mio Myopia

9/16/2008 8:05:00 PM

0


"FRANKIE LEE" <leeahkwee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:50632c9a-10b9-45c1-80a2-00ca3a0e0a1f@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 16, 4:20 am, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> ...but I'll fix it." McCain.
>
> He sounds like Herbert Hoover reborn on the campaign trail!
>
> Monday, September 15, 2008
>
> McCain as Herbert Hoover
>
> This morning in Florida, as the American financial market implodes, John
> McCain did his Herbert Hoover imitation once again - something that the
> Obama campaign frequently ridicules him for:
>
> "I think still - the fundamentals of our economy are strong.", McCain
>
> It makes a certain kind of sense for a sitting president to make this kind
> of assertion. George Bush has been saying the very same thing for several
> years as the economy stagnated and financial disaster loomed. But the fact
> that McCain feels impelled at this stage to embrace the
> economic-fundamentals-are-strong line reveals as clearly as anything the
> extent to which he is running as a quasi-incumbent, the extension of the
> Bush presidency.
>
> What McCain had to say today was this:
>
> "You know that there's been tremendous
> turmoil in our financial markets and Wall
> Street. And it is, it's - people are frightened
> by these events. Our economy, I think
> still - the fundamentals of our economy are
> strong. But these are very, very difficult times."
>
> That's virtually indistinguishable from what George Bush has been saying
> this year. But ironically, McCain went on to argue that what is needed in
> Washington is a major change in the government's oversight of financial
> institutions, in particular greater transparency - and that he is the
> person
> to bring that change!
>
> "This is a failure...The McCain Palin
> administration will replace the outdated
> patchwork quilt of regulatory oversight
> and bring transparency and accountability
> to Wall Street, we will bring transparency
> and accountability and we will reform the
> regulatory bodies of government."
>
> Never mind that McCain has been in Washington for decades and done little
> to
> beef up regulation and accountability (in the Keating Five scandal in the
> 1980s he sought to undercut bank regulators and then refused to hold
> himself
> accountable for the ensuing bank failures). Nor has McCain brought
> transparency even in things directly in his control (witness the vast
> numbers of documents he sealed from public scrutiny in his softball
> "investigation" of Jack Abramoff).


***is it not true that the congress is all time low now in approval
ratings?is it not the democrats who controls the congress?The
economies of the Congress!



It's clear that our language isn't the only American thing that you don't
understand.






John Q Public

9/16/2008 9:28:00 PM

0

On 2008-09-16 16:51:23 -0400, Tartarus <tartarus@rome.com> said:

> On Sep 16, 10:28?am, FRANKIE LEE <leeahk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> is it not the democrats who controls the congress?
>
> No, it is not the Democrats who controls the Congress.
>
> Tartarus

Then how the Fuck can Nancy Pelosi be speaker of the House?
That comment above deserves the term fuckwit if ever a comment did!

Sid9

9/16/2008 10:04:00 PM

0



"John Q Public" <interjecting@2cents.com> wrote in message
news:2008091617280775249-interjecting@2centscom...
> On 2008-09-16 16:51:23 -0400, Tartarus <tartarus@rome.com> said:
>
>> On Sep 16, 10:28 am, FRANKIE LEE <leeahk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> is it not the democrats who controls the congress?
>>
>> No, it is not the Democrats who controls the Congress.
>>
>> Tartarus
>
> Then how the Fuck can Nancy Pelosi be speaker of the House?
> That comment above deserves the term fuckwit if ever a comment did!
>

Let me explain.
Democrats control the House of Representatives.
That makes her Speaker of the House.

Do you need more help in American Government?
Take a class


Leo Marx

9/17/2008 8:34:00 PM

0

Sid9 wrote:
>
> "John Q Public" <interjecting@2cents.com> wrote in message
> news:2008091617280775249-interjecting@2centscom...
> > On 2008-09-16 16:51:23 -0400, Tartarus <tartarus@rome.com> said:
> >
> >> On Sep 16, 10:28 am, FRANKIE LEE <leeahk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> is it not the democrats who controls the congress?
> >>
> >> No, it is not the Democrats who controls the Congress.
> >>
> >> Tartarus
> >
> > Then how the Fuck can Nancy Pelosi be speaker of the House?
> > That comment above deserves the term fuckwit if ever a comment did!
> >
>
> Let me explain.
> Democrats control the House of Representatives.
> That makes her Speaker of the House.
>
> Do you need more help in American Government?
> Take a class

Actually, they do not control the House of Representatives, they are the
majority party.

JAM

Sid9

9/17/2008 8:42:00 PM

0



"Leo Marx" <LeoMarx@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:48D169A9.2475491D@nospam.net...
> Sid9 wrote:
>>
>> "John Q Public" <interjecting@2cents.com> wrote in message
>> news:2008091617280775249-interjecting@2centscom...
>> > On 2008-09-16 16:51:23 -0400, Tartarus <tartarus@rome.com> said:
>> >
>> >> On Sep 16, 10:28 am, FRANKIE LEE <leeahk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>> is it not the democrats who controls the congress?
>> >>
>> >> No, it is not the Democrats who controls the Congress.
>> >>
>> >> Tartarus
>> >
>> > Then how the Fuck can Nancy Pelosi be speaker of the House?
>> > That comment above deserves the term fuckwit if ever a comment did!
>> >
>>
>> Let me explain.
>> Democrats control the House of Representatives.
>> That makes her Speaker of the House.
>>
>> Do you need more help in American Government?
>> Take a class
>
> Actually, they do not control the House of Representatives, they are the
> majority party.
>
> JAM


The Speaker of the House is an extremely powerful person.
No bill come to the floor without her approval.
She a Democrat. Therefore, the Democrats control the house.


kenobi

3/16/2016 9:41:00 PM

0

W dniu sroda, 16 marca 2016 21:12:58 UTC+1 uzytkownik Ramine napisal:
> Hello,
>
> fir wrote:
> >youre stupid spamer who spetialises in spamming and you ove me more
> >and more money for cope'ing to hide this trash ram
>
>
> Sir, i am not spamming this newsgroup, i have just made an
> approximation that i think is good, this good approximation is:
> that operational research is also mandatory for computer
> programmers, this is why i have gone this way to explain more
> my mathematical modeling of a queuing networks for ecommerce websites.
> So my methodology is a requirement also to make us better at
> climbing the Hill of knowledge that is mandatory for computer
> programmers, please notice carefully that my interventiond are
> also good for learning more and learning more algorithms...
>
>
>
youre spamming spammer
'fair use' of the forum is get involved
in rational discussion not
posting unresponsive flods of a trash you
excell in

it would be standable if you would limit
yourself to post in one thread - but youre
ignoring people and flod the spam trash
right into people face - now you seem even
too stupid to notice it

i may enlight you nobody reads that it is
just pure trash like forced advertisments
nobody is interested to see

now youre in trouble imo as you owe me money
for filtrting it out (it is an unpleasant but
necessary work i demand money for ram)
(as youre clear abuser and spammer if im not wrong
some judges in some countries judge money penalties
for spammers to pay)

Richard Heathfield

3/16/2016 9:59:00 PM

0

On 16/03/16 23:13, Ramine wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> fir wrote:
> >youre stupid spamer who spetialises in spamming and you ove me more
> >and more money for cope'ing to hide this trash ram
>
>
> Sir, i am not spamming this newsgroup,

I would agree, but only just. Spamming is unsolicited bulk electronic
communication, and you don't quite post enough for it to qualify as
"bulk", although it doesn't seem to be for the want of trying.

I think fir's main reason for complaint is that you never engage in
discussions. You just keep posting random crap, and then posting a
follow-up every time you notice some trivial error of spelling or the
like. If you tried engaging with people instead of preaching into the
void all the time, you might get a more positive response.

> Thank you for your time.

You are not welcome to my time. Please stop wasting it.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within