Asp Forum - Earn money easily

Hdhdg Sfgdgfjsdk

7/31/2006 11:03:00 AM

IF YOU EVER WONDERED IF IT IS POSSIBLE TO MAKE MONEY ONLINE AND DO SO
SURPRISINGLY FAST-THEN YOU ARE GOING TO LOVE THIS. THIS CAN WORK FOR
ANYONE. CAN TURN $12 INTO $25,000 or More USING EGOLD. READING THIS
COULD CHANGE YOUR FINANCIAL LIFE!

I found this on a bulletin board and decided to try it. This giant
concept is 100% legal (refer to US Lottery Laws, Title 18, Section 1302
and 1341, or Title 18, Section 3005 in the US code, also in the code of
Federal Regulations, Volume 16, Sections 255 and 436, which state a
product or service must be exchanged for money received).

A little while back, I was browsing through the internet, and came
across an article similar to this that said you could make thousands of
dollars within a short time with only an initial investment of $12.00! I
was very curious. Therefore I kept reading. It said that you send $2.00
to each of the 6 Egold Accounts listed in this article. You then place
your own Egold account number in the bottom of the list at #6. Post the
article in at least 200 newsgroups. Keep a copy of this passage so that
you can use it a second time. So I thought it over and over, and after
talking to some people, I decided to try it.

I invested the measly $12.00. GUESS WHAT! Within a couple of days, I
started to get money in my Egold account! I was alarmed! I thought it
would end soon. However the money just kept on coming. In my first week,
I made about $60.00. By the end of the second week, I made over $450.00!
In the third week, I received about $9,000. This is now my fourth week,
and I have over $20,000 and it is still growing.

IF YOU FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS EXACTLY, YOU WILL START MAKING MONEY MORE
THAN YOU THOUGHT POSSIBLE BY DOING SOMETHING SO EASY! READ THIS ENTIRE
ARTICLE VERY CARE-FULLY !! Print it out or download it. Follow the
directions, and see your money grow! It is easy. It is legal. Your
investment is only $12.00. This is not a rip-off. This is not indecent.
This is not illegal.

THIS PROGRAM IS RELATIVELY NEW TO EGOLD USERS. NOW IS EXCELLENT TIME TO
TAKE YOUR POSITION AT THE TOP

If you do not have an e-gold account you can open it for free at:
http://www.... (you will find all the INFORMATION on how to
transfer money to e-gold and how to withdraw it at www.e-gold.com).
This program is successful because of the honesty and integrity of the
participants.

Following is a list of six Egold user accounts. Send $2.00 egold to EACH
OF THEM using your Egold account. Make sure that, in the MEMO, you write
"PLEASE ADD MY ACCOUNT NUMBER IN THE LIST" (This keeps the program 100%
legal. So please do not forget it!). What you are doing is creating a
service. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY LEGAL! You are requesting a legitimate
service and you are paying for THIS SERVICE. Like most of us I was a
little skeptical and a little worried about the legal aspects of it all.
SO I CHECKED IT OUT WITH SOME LAWYERS AND THEY CONFIRMED THAT THIS IS
INDEED LEGAL. SEND $2.00 TO EACH OF THE FOLLOWING Egold Accounts.

#1. 2624313
#2. 2667023
#3. 3410386
#4. 3425787
#5. 3434969
#6. 3085540

24 Answers

elanders

1/30/2009 7:16:00 AM

Daniel Damouth wrote:
> elanders <elanders@zoomtown.com> wrote in news:49ead$4981650d$4ad7fee9
> $25953@FUSE.NET:
>
>> The Swedish infantry was making bivouac. Eight thousand of the finest
>> killers in the world were making ready for the battle that lie ahead.
>
> "lay ahead", surely.
>
> -DD

No.

Lie ahead.

lie (present,) lay (past) and lain (past participle).

EG

--
Riclanders Dot Com
http://ricla...

elanders

1/30/2009 7:18:00 AM

J.J. O'Shea wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:22:53 -0500, Daniel Damouth wrote
> (in article <Xns9BA2D9801D7B5damouthsanrrcom@69.16.186.8>):
>
>> elanders <elanders@zoomtown.com> wrote in news:49ead$4981650d$4ad7fee9
>> $25953@FUSE.NET:
>>
>>> The Swedish infantry was making bivouac. Eight thousand of the finest
>>> killers in the world were making ready for the battle that lie ahead.
>> "lay ahead", surely.
>>
>
> Not in his universe.
>
>

No, shitheeler.

"Lie is correct. And that's at least the third or forth time you get a
simple grammar concept wrong.

lie (present,) lay (past) and lain (past participle).

EG

--
Riclanders Dot Com
http://ricla...

zeborah

1/30/2009 8:03:00 AM

elanders <elanders@zoomtown.com> wrote:

> Daniel Damouth wrote:
> > elanders <elanders@zoomtown.com> wrote in news:49ead$4981650d$4ad7fee9
> > $25953@FUSE.NET:
> >
> >> The Swedish infantry was making bivouac. Eight thousand of the finest
> >> killers in the world were making ready for the battle that lie ahead.
> >
> > "lay ahead", surely.
>
> No.
>
> Lie ahead.
>
> lie (present,) lay (past) and lain (past participle).

But the surrounding sentences are in the past tense: "was", "were",
etc. So you should have "lay" (past) to match.

Zeborah
--
Gravity is no joke.
http://www.geocities.com/...
rasfc FAQ: http://www.lshelby.com/ras...

elanders

1/30/2009 8:46:00 AM

Zeborah wrote:
> elanders <elanders@zoomtown.com> wrote:
>
>> Daniel Damouth wrote:
>>> elanders <elanders@zoomtown.com> wrote in news:49ead$4981650d$4ad7fee9
>>> $25953@FUSE.NET:
>>>
>>>> The Swedish infantry was making bivouac. Eight thousand of the finest
>>>> killers in the world were making ready for the battle that lie ahead.
>>> "lay ahead", surely.
>> No.
>>
>> Lie ahead.
>>
>> lie (present,) lay (past) and lain (past participle).
>
> But the surrounding sentences are in the past tense: "was", "were",
> etc. So you should have "lay" (past) to match.
>
> Zeborah

Surrounding sentences has nothing to do with it. It's the sentence the
verb lie is in.

And this is yet another example of you twisting and bending the laws of
physics to find fault in everything I say, Zeborah.

It's a real pathology with you.

Now beat it, you witch, before somebody drops a house on you.

EG

--
Riclanders Dot Com
http://ricla...

David Friedman

1/30/2009 9:01:00 AM

In article <9b126$4982a930$4ad7fee9$17200@FUSE.NET>,
elanders <elanders@zoomtown.com> wrote:

> Daniel Damouth wrote:
> > elanders <elanders@zoomtown.com> wrote in news:49ead$4981650d$4ad7fee9
> > $25953@FUSE.NET:
> >
> >> The Swedish infantry was making bivouac. Eight thousand of the finest
> >> killers in the world were making ready for the battle that lie ahead.
> >
> > "lay ahead", surely.
> >
> > -DD
>
> No.
>
> Lie ahead.
>
> lie (present,) lay (past) and lain (past participle).

And, as you have already conceded, your sentence in the form is
grammatically mistaken. "Battle" is singular, so in the present it's
"the battle that lies ahead."

"Lay ahead" would actually say what you want to say, since "were making
ready" is in the past. To be consistent, after fixing the error of
number, you ned "Eight thousand of the finest killers in the world are
making ready for the battle that lies ahead."

--
http://www.daviddfri... http://daviddfriedman.blo...
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.

David Friedman

1/30/2009 9:02:00 AM

In article <cbf73$4982a9ba$4ad7fee9$17200@FUSE.NET>,
elanders <elanders@zoomtown.com> wrote:

> J.J. O'Shea wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:22:53 -0500, Daniel Damouth wrote
> > (in article <Xns9BA2D9801D7B5damouthsanrrcom@69.16.186.8>):
> >
> >> elanders <elanders@zoomtown.com> wrote in news:49ead$4981650d$4ad7fee9
> >> $25953@FUSE.NET:
> >>
> >>> The Swedish infantry was making bivouac. Eight thousand of the finest
> >>> killers in the world were making ready for the battle that lie ahead.
> >> "lay ahead", surely.
> >>
> >
> > Not in his universe.
> >
> >
>
> No, shitheeler.
>
> "Lie is correct. And that's at least the third or forth time you get a
> simple grammar concept wrong.
>
> lie (present,) lay (past) and lain (past participle).

"Lie" is doubly wrong. As you already conceded in an exchange with me,
it's wrong because the subject is singular, hence "the battle that lies
ahead." And it's wrong because it ought to be in the past tense, as
others have pointed out.

--
http://www.daviddfri... http://daviddfriedman.blo...
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.

zeborah

1/30/2009 9:50:00 AM

elanders <elanders@zoomtown.com> wrote:

> Zeborah wrote:
> > elanders <elanders@zoomtown.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Daniel Damouth wrote:
> >>> elanders <elanders@zoomtown.com> wrote in news:49ead$4981650d$4ad7fee9
> >>> $25953@FUSE.NET:
> >>>
> >>>> The Swedish infantry was making bivouac. Eight thousand of the finest
> >>>> killers in the world were making ready for the battle that lie ahead.
> >>> "lay ahead", surely.
> >> No.
> >>
> >> Lie ahead.
> >>
> >> lie (present,) lay (past) and lain (past participle).
> >
> > But the surrounding sentences are in the past tense: "was", "were",
> > etc. So you should have "lay" (past) to match.
>
> Surrounding sentences has nothing to do with it. It's the sentence the
> verb lie is in.

Yes, the sentence that the verb "lie" is in includes "were making
ready", which is in the past tense.

Moreover you are talking about the past: the battle was in the past.
It doesn't lie ahead now as the reader reads it; it lay ahead then at
the time that the story events were happening. The story is in the past
so the verbs should be in the past tense.

Zeborah
(Lest anyone wonder, I'm just really curious to see what excuse he comes
up with next.)
--
Gravity is no joke.
http://www.geocities.com/...
rasfc FAQ: http://www.lshelby.com/ras...

elanders

1/30/2009 10:25:00 AM

David Friedman wrote:
> In article <9b126$4982a930$4ad7fee9$17200@FUSE.NET>,
> elanders <elanders@zoomtown.com> wrote:
>
>> Daniel Damouth wrote:
>>> elanders <elanders@zoomtown.com> wrote in news:49ead$4981650d$4ad7fee9
>>> $25953@FUSE.NET:
>>>
>>>> The Swedish infantry was making bivouac. Eight thousand of the finest
>>>> killers in the world were making ready for the battle that lie ahead.
>>> "lay ahead", surely.
>>>
>>> -DD
>> No.
>>
>> Lie ahead.
>>
>> lie (present,) lay (past) and lain (past participle).
>
> And, as you have already conceded, your sentence in the form is
> grammatically mistaken. "Battle" is singular, so in the present it's
> "the battle that lies ahead."
>
> "Lay ahead" would actually say what you want to say, since "were making
> ready" is in the past. To be consistent, after fixing the error of
> number, you ned "Eight thousand of the finest killers in the world are
> making ready for the battle that lies ahead."
>

Actually, your right. It's been a long night. "were" is the tip-off.
It's the past tense so lie should be as well -- lay.

EG

--
Riclanders Dot Com
http://ricla...

elanders

1/30/2009 10:35:00 AM

Zeborah wrote:
> elanders <elanders@zoomtown.com> wrote:
>
>> Zeborah wrote:
>>> elanders <elanders@zoomtown.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Daniel Damouth wrote:
>>>>> elanders <elanders@zoomtown.com> wrote in news:49ead$4981650d$4ad7fee9
>>>>> $25953@FUSE.NET:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Swedish infantry was making bivouac. Eight thousand of the finest
>>>>>> killers in the world were making ready for the battle that lie ahead.
>>>>> "lay ahead", surely.
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> Lie ahead.
>>>>
>>>> lie (present,) lay (past) and lain (past participle).
>>> But the surrounding sentences are in the past tense: "was", "were",
>>> etc. So you should have "lay" (past) to match.
>> Surrounding sentences has nothing to do with it. It's the sentence the
>> verb lie is in.
>
> Yes, the sentence that the verb "lie" is in includes "were making
> ready", which is in the past tense.
>
> Moreover you are talking about the past: the battle was in the past."
> It doesn't lie ahead now as the reader reads it; it lay ahead then at
> the time that the story events were happening. The story is in the past
> so the verbs should be in the past tense.
>
> Zeborah
> (Lest anyone wonder, I'm just really curious to see what excuse he comes
> up with next.)

What I've got to say is this: your logic is a howler.

"The story is in the past so the verbs should be in the past tense."
-- Zeborah

Are you nuts, Zeborah?

"Suppose I had written "The battles lie ahead"?

are you saying that should be changed because the story is in the past?

But that would give us "The battles lay ahead" -- which is wrong!

Anyway, I concede --"lay" is correct in the original sentence but not
for the reasons you give.

Eg

EG

--
Riclanders Dot Com
http://ricla...

zeborah

1/30/2009 11:01:00 AM

elanders <elanders@zoomtown.com> wrote:

> What I've got to say is this: your logic is a howler.
>
> "The story is in the past so the verbs should be in the past tense."
> -- Zeborah
>
> Are you nuts, Zeborah?

One of us is.

> "Suppose I had written "The battles lie ahead"?
>
> are you saying that should be changed because the story is in the past?

Basically, yes. More precisely, it should be changed because the point
at which the battles are in the future, is in the past of the point at
which the narrator utters/writes the sentence.

> But that would give us "The battles lay ahead" -- which is wrong!

In what way is it wrong?

> Anyway, I concede --"lay" is correct in the original sentence but not
> for the reasons you give.

For what reason(s), then?

Zeborah
--
Gravity is no joke.
http://www.geocities.com/...
rasfc FAQ: http://www.lshelby.com/ras...

comp.lang.ruby

Earn money easily

Hdhdg Sfgdgfjsdk

elanders

elanders

zeborah

elanders

David Friedman

David Friedman

zeborah

elanders

elanders

zeborah

x Login to ForumsZone