On Tuesday, August 19, 2003 11:28 AM [GMT+1200=NZT], Juha Saarinen wrote:

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Thomas Salmen wrote:

...

so this is your fault juha

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3518682&thesection=ne ws&t

...

hesubsection=general

Fault?

I think Thomas means "handiwork" :) Ahh the irony. The man who must have wasted thousands of hours of other peoples' time and money receiving, opening and deleting his millions of unwanted spam messages, and whose peddling of such dodgy products as penis enlargement pills, viagra and goodness knows what else has made the Internet an unsafe place for five year olds, cries foul when he gets 20 phone calls and can't let his own son answer the phone? Looks like he got a well deserved taste of his own medicine to me. Still, he's just a drop in the ocean and I'm still receiving as much spam today as I was yesterday. And one wonders how long Mr. Atkinson's new-found conscience will last - just long enough for people to forget about him and for him to set up under a new name, I expect. -Simon

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Thomas Salmen wrote:

well, perhaps fault is a bit harsh

accomplishment perhaps? it was you that wrote the original article was it not? if not i apologise.

Yes, I wrote the original two stories, plus the one in today's Herald. When you said "fault" I thought you meant I'd done something wrong... I take it that's not the case? The stories happened because I bust a blood vessel seeing all the "gain three inches" spam pouring into my postmaster account, so I decided to follow the trail. Was surprised that it ended in NZ. -- Juha Saarinen

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Juha Saarinen wrote:

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Thomas Salmen wrote: *SNIP* The stories happened because I bust a blood vessel seeing all the "gain three inches" spam pouring into my postmaster account, so I decided to follow the trail. Was surprised that it ended in NZ.

Was that burst a blood vessel seeing them all or buying all the products? :P Seriously though, nice bit of investigative journalism. It's always good to give <adjective> <adjective> <adjective> such as this one a good LARTing, even if the T in this case was something other than the preferred clue-by-four.