Subject: Re: Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo
Full headers:
From: PeterN <"peter,newdelete">
Subject: Re: Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 21:55:02 -0500
Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $23.95
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <>
References: <p19qv4$1f8c$>
<181220172047100279%nospam@nospam.invalid> <p19rs6$1gce$>
<181220172123331269%nospam@nospam.invalid> <p1b4qj$17kh$>
<191220171145292036%nospam@nospam.invalid> <>
<p1dsh3$1837$> <>
<p1empl$m2o$> <>
<201220172217559014%nospam@nospam.invalid> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
In-Reply-To: <211220171102140565%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Received-Body-CRC: 4286554407
X-Received-Bytes: 2508
Print Article
Forward Article
On 12/21/2017 11:02 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article<>, PeterN
> <"peter,newdelete"> wrote:
>>>> The reason I didn't consider a failing drive, and kept fighting this
>>>> is that there are no other signs of it. No crashes, no errors in
>>>> normal use, nothing at all.
>>> drives can fail in mysterious and sometimes sudden ways.
>>> one of mine randomly decides it's read-only. an unmount/mount fixes it,
>>> at least for a while. needless to say, it's queued for replacement.
>> With my attitude it would not be qued for replacement,n Replacement
>> would take place within a few minutes of ensuring that there was a
>> proper backup.
> there are proper backups, more than one in fact.
> once again, you're talking out your ass.

You really stretched for a nasty comment, that was of no help to anyone.
Go crawl under your corner bed sheet, now that you have made a valuable 
contribution to the discussion..