RE: [ANE-2] Re: Grouply is Identity Theft Trick
- Hmm, does anyone have similar doubts about other networking schemes, such as
LinkedIn? I was recently invited to join that one.
Douglas C. Comer, Ph.D., Principal
Cultural Site Research and Management, Inc.
2113 St. Paul St.
Baltimore, MD 21218
Office Telephone: 410 244-6320
Cell phone: 202 345-6030
Fax: 410 244-6324
Email: <mailto:dcomer@...> dcomer@...
Website: <http://www.culturalsite.com/> www.culturalsite.com
From: ANEemail@example.com [mailto:ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 8:49 PM
Subject: [ANE-2] Re: Grouply is Identity Theft Trick
Grouply both illegally archives Yahoo group information (anyone who
uses grouply is thus implicit) and in order to use grouply you need to
give them your user name and password. The consequences of this can be
--- In ANE-2@yahoogroups. <mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com> com, "Lampros F.
> McAfee's Siteadvisor say they did not detect any
> important problem.
> http://www.siteadvi <http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/grouply.com>
>__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
> But as you will see, one reviewer, in a 2 June 2008
> said that this is a spammer domain.
> Siteadvisor has a pluggin that is added to your browser
> (only for Firefox?) and provides safety ratings for the
> that appear in your google searches.
> ANE-2 moderators have nothing to do with invitations from
> Grouply. These are send by Grouply using the addresses
> found in the yahoo contacts list of those who join it.
> Lampros F. Kallenos
> Idalion, Lefkosia
database 3652 (20081130) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- At 02:31 PM 12/2/2008, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>It should have a colophon, no? or at least a date?That would be me, and I use the ad-hoc term (Levant Semitic) for the
>Peter T. Daniels <mailto:grammatim%40verizon.net>grammatim@...
>From: Yitzhak Sapir <<mailto:yitzhaksapir%40gmail.com>yitzhaksapir@...>
>Sent: Monday, December 1, 2008 8:53:04 PM
>Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Re: Paleo-Hebrew
>On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > Which means that (even if the tablet is genuine, and even if the ?Hebrew
> > docket on it is genuine) there's no hope of knowing where it came from.
> > At which "LS" (as you call it)-speaking sites were cuneiform economic
> > documents in use in the NB period? --
> > Peter T. Daniels grammatim@verizon. net
> > I know Laurie Pearce as a specialist in mathematical tablets. Is that
> > irrelevant? Why would a mathematical tablet bear a ?Hebrew docket?
>I don't call anything "LS."
2nd & early 1st mbc when the linguistic situation is somewhat messy.
I'm much less familiar with the evidence from the NB period. My
impression is that by that time all we have is Aramaic & Hebrew, with
a hypothetical Phoenician, assumed to be different from Punic.
Nabatean & Syriac come only later in the 1st mbc. Is that correct? Is
there really no evidence of mid-1st mbc Phoenician? And what is the
current body of evidence and "common wisdom" about Samaritan?
[100% bona fide dilettante ... delecto ergo sum!]
Ariel L. Szczupak
AMIS-JLM (Ricercar Ltd.)
POB 4707, Jerusalem, Israel 91406
Phone: +972-2-5619660 Fax: +972-2-5634203