In article <5ojn361tngfjv7hibj0q8bo4p5f575crdi@4ax.com>, NP-f31 wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 00:27:47 GMT, "Kremlin" <kgb@kremlin.ru> wrote:
>
> >Staying safe is what I meant to do when I used that same agency you did to
> >hire your secretary. I asked my secretary to contact a photographer
> >regarding access to a private online gallery. It was a gallery I found
> >adjacent to a gallery which was open to the public. The contents of the
> >public gallery led me to believe that the contents of the private gallery,
> >though legal, would be of a nature best restricted to those who knew what
> >they would see in the gallery. That secretary agency intercepted either my
> >request or the response I received, which included a link to a file storage
> >service with the passwords to files that were not at all what I was asking
> >for in the first place. I had no way of knowing the link led to files that
> >I did not request (viedo previews of markedly different material than what I
> >expected), but somehow the agency either found this out or had a problem
> >with the person I contacted. They told me they would no longer serve my
> >business needs, recalled my secretary, and banned me from using their
> >services in the future.
> >
> >Can you suggest another similar agency, not the one you still enjoy but one
> >which I can safely use to transact similar business?
> >
> >Also, please be sure any contacts you make through that agency are free of a
> >nature similar to that photographer I contacted.
>
> Dude, you're just going to have to e-mail me because I can't figure
> out now what you're referring to. I thought I knew, but apparently I
> don't. Either that or find a way to be less obtuse.
>
> Doc
> NP-f31
I have found it very entertaining. I wonder if anybody else has.
I hope you Dudes do it some more.
--
Grant
|
|