 |
On 03 Jul 2008 12:22:01 GMT, Bert Hyman <...@iphouse.com
In news...@4ax.com foob...@home.com
wrote:
Is System Restore supposed to recover deleted files?
Isn't removing icons from your desktop simply deleting some files?
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN ber...@iphouse.com
|
|
On 03 Jul 2008 12:22:01 GMT, Bert Hyman <...@iphouse.com
I've got the great PC Inspector File Recovery tool for recovering
deleted files. It's even pulled long-"deleted" files from my camera
memory cards.
For whatever reason, I used the desktop cleanup utility that was
bugging me about unused icons. I usually ignore it. It moves these
icons to an "unused icons" folder on the desktop. It's easy enough to
then "drag" them back, but I can't remember where some were and my
desktop just doesn't "look right" in terms of where these icons are.
So I'd hoped that if I did the system restore, I'd revert to the
desktop the way it had been.
|
|
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 15:39:04 +0100, "Edna Boxe" <...@ntlworld.com
<...@4ax.com...
Make sure any AV software is disabled before attempting system restore, if
you have Norton it's advisable to also remove the tick from 'turn on
protection for the Norton products.'
HTH,
Edna.
|
|
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 12:07:32 -0400, "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <...@gmail.com
Is Norton AntiVirus installed?
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Desktop Experience - since 2002
AumHa VSOP & Admin http://aumha.net
DTS-L http://dts-l.net/
> that I can try to reinstitute system restore functionality?
|
|
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 14:40:10 -0400, "kineton1" <...@there.com
<...@4ax.com...
I very rarely use the system restore feature, but of course it's a
godsend when I do.
(snipped)
If you have downloaded a program and then you wish to do a restore to a
point before you installed that program, someone told me that you must
uninstall the program before activating the restore procedure. Else you will
get a "Cannot restore" message.
How true this is I cannot be sure .....
Paul
|
|
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 13:59:59 -0600, "Bill in Co." <...@earthlink.net
I don't think that is true (or at least not always true) (but someone can
correct me if I'm wrong). I say that, because I think I have done that
successfully.
IOW, if you have installed a program, and for some reason it created
problems, and you forgot (or were unable to) uninstall it, I think you CAN
use System Restore to roll back. It's not the preferred way of doing
things, however.
|
|
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 14:52:37 -0700, "Richard in AZ" <...@mailinator.com
"Bill in Co." <...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
If you installed a program, and did not uninstall it, then did a system
restore, the registry lines that support that program are gone.
You will still have the program files and folder, and may have some files in
the "system" folder, but the program will not run.
You have to then remove the files and folders manually.
|
|
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 20:36:42 -0600, "Bill in Co." <...@earthlink.net
Right.
I'm not so sure about that. I think if you restore to a previous
setpoint, it *will* remove the program files exe's (and other monitored
types) in that one subfolder, but leave any .txt and .doc files (etc) in it
alone.
Be that as it may, the program IS effectively uninstalled, with a few
harmless files lying around on the disk.
That I am sure of. :-)
Well, at least some of them. Except you really don't have to remove them,
as they are doing no harm.
|
|
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 06:39:24 -0700, "Richard in AZ" <...@mailinator.com
"Bill in Co." <...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
System Restore does not remove any non-windows-system files. Therefore
the program files will still be there.
|
|
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 13:34:28 -0600, "Bill in Co." <...@earthlink.net
Actually, it can, and does. For example, if you have downloaded some
programs and saved them on your HD (and even have not installed them yet),
and then do a System Restore back to a prior point in time, you WILL lose
those exe (and other monitored type) files, UNLESS you had saved them in a
user protected folder like My Documents.
And that is one big annoyance in using System Restore. But as long as you
are aware of it, you can work around it (by saving things in My Documents).
But that is a bit of a nuisance.
|
|
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 17:12:36 -0700, "Richard in AZ" <...@mailinator.com
Bill: I have a folder called "downloads" in my C drive.
I save all downloaded files there. I have never lost a file from this
folder with System Restore.
"Bill in Co." <...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
|
|
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 20:46:07 -0600, "Bill in Co." <...@earthlink.net
Interesting. I have lost exe (and other file types) of files I've saved
but didn't store in the MS designated safe place (My Documents), IF I
restore back to a point prior in time to when I got those files. Why?
Because it's one of the several monitored file types monitored by System
Restore, and System Restore, in its "limited wisdom", assumes it could have
been problematic, so it removes them when I restore back to a previous
setpoint.
Consequentially, I have HAD to get in the habit of either 1) NOT saving such
files anywhere I feel like on my hard drive, but putting them in the MS
recommended folder of My Documents, OR 2) simply create a new System Restore
point after I've got the files, in which case I can leave them there, and
they will stay there (unless I restore back to an earlier point).
|
|
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 10:26:15 -0500, "Unknown" <...@unknown.kom
Hey, hey, you're doing exactly the same thing I am doing. And oddly enough I
have the same name for the file (Downloads)
It's easy to remember. I also have never lost a file. The bad time I had to
use system restore was after I let my granddaughter
use my computer. Needless to say, never again.
"Richard in AZ" <...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
|
|
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 12:45:42 -0600, "Bill in Co." <...@earthlink.net
Maybe when you create a folder called Downloads, it (for some reason) isn't
monitored by System Restore. Is it in the Documents and Settings folder,
or right in the root of the drive, as in C:\Downloads ?
One thing I *can* tell you for a fact is when I have used System Restore to
roll back to a previous point, I *have* lost files (of the monitored types),
UNLESS I had saved them previously in the MS recommended, safe personal
folders (as also mentioned in one of their articles at their web site),
which is not monitored by System Restore.
|
|
On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 12:17:15 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP" <...@this.is.an.invalid.domain
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 12:45:42 -0600, "Bill in Co."
<...@earthlink.net
It's not listed as an unmonitored folder in
http://bertk.mvps.org/html/filesfolders.html
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
|
|
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 13:23:08 -0600, "Bill in Co." <...@earthlink.net
Then I don't know why he hasn't noticed the problem yet. I *have* seen the
problem first hand on several occasions.
Moral to the story: if you don't save the monitored file types in one of the
properly designated places (meaning, unmonitored by System Restore), you
*will* lose some files when you restore back to a previous setpoint.
(BTDT).
|
|
On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 14:13:55 -1200, "Kadaitcha Man" <...@gmail.com
Ken Blake, MVP, ye froward men of grosser blood, thou art a boil, a
plague sore, an embossed carbuncle in my corrupted blood, ye poured
forth:
Un-fucking-believable. Not even Microsoft's Most Valueless Prostitutes can't
get it into their fucking steel-reinforced concrete fuckheads that System
Restore does not restore user files.
A-fucking-mazing. Bunch of fucking less than useless cunts.
--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]
Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk
Member of:
Usenet Ruiner List
Top Assholes on the Net List
Most hated usenetizens of all time List
Cog in the AUK Hate Machine List
Find me on Google Maps: 2439'47.13"S, 1344'20.18"E
Join me for dinner. I'm cooking common mudskipper phlegm with tendon
compote accompanied with decomposed earwax balls and wombat abscess
garnish on top of half-cooked blow flies in contemptible gnats with
fermented duck stomach with strawberry extract on top of nasty gnats and
apple preserve accompanied by dried canker on top of festering monkey
skin and foreskin marinade with gross nostril aside dissipated sea lion
bladder smothered in festering hobo's nose hairs and strawberry topping,
dished up in a circulating pail heaped with dull medley of kidney,
octopus and cartilage in noxious sludge, a side of brain and a bowl of
hot rat serum.
|
|
On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 07:56:48 -0700, §ñühwØ£f <...@netscape.net
On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 14:13:55 -1200, Kadaitcha Man aided th' terraists with
the following claims :
Format C: then install tinyXP with SP3 and drieverses...
HTH
--
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/15682
|
|
On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 02:02:16 -1200, "Kadaitcha Man" <...@gmail.com
hwf, ye browbeaten double heart, where will thou find a cavern dark
enough to mask thy monstrous visage?, ye gnarred:
INSTALL BEOS!!!!11111!!!!!!!
YOu mUsT iNsTaL1 n0w...
--
Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk
|
|
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 07:46:45 -0400, "R. McCarty" <...@mindspring.com
Unfortunately System Restore has no Validate or integrity checks.
It works much like an incremental backup. If you want to Restore
to Monday and it is Friday - all the interim points must be valid.
Once the chain is broken, no restores past the unusable point will
be possible. SR is basically a short-term roll back and it's best to
only depend on a week to 10-days of points. There isn't a repair
feature so turning it off and back on is the way to "Reset it". Even
then there is no way to ensure that the points are usable.
<...@4ax.com...
|
|
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 07:46:45 -0400, "R. McCarty"
<...@mindspring.com
I'd not known this.
If I *create* a restore point (versus the restore points XP
automatically creates), will that created restore point be full (and
thus usable pretty much no matter what), or will that also be
incremental?
|
|
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 23:07:55 +0100, "DL" <address@invalid
Personally I've had a good 'restore' using Erunt
<...@4ax.com...
|
|
"DL" <address@invalid
Very nice program I use it instead of some restore point. To use a
restore point you need to be in the OS. ERUNT you can use if the OS
won't boot, by many options.
--
http://tinyurl.com/5p744l
|
|
This is intriguing - I'd not heard of Erunt until reading this. For
the uninitiated (me), could you describe a good strategy to use with
Erunt that will effectively mimick the intended functionality of
System Restore?
That is, a way to have it run automatically, and save at least ten
days worth of "Erunt restore points?"
|
|
On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:13:54 -0300, "John John (MVP)" <...@nbnet.nb.ca
Erunt is a fine program but it can't effectively "mimick the intended
functionality of System Restore".
System Restore does much more than simple registry backups. "System
Restore reinstates the registry, local profiles, the COM+ database, the
Windows File Protection (WFP) cache (wfp.dll), the Windows Management
Instrumentation (WMI) database, the Microsoft IIS metabase, and files
that the utility copies by default into a Restore archive. You can't
specify what to restore: it's all or nothing."
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb490854.aspx
You could use Task Scheduler for this.
John
|
|
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 20:20:56 -0600, "Bill in Co." <...@earthlink.net
ERUNT is a good supplement to System Restore, but it's not the same thing.
ERUNT *only* restores the registry (and its associated files), and nothing
more, which sometimes is a good thing!
System Restore does that, and a whole lot more - which is sometimes useful,
and sometimes not.
|
|
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 08:59:18 -0400, "R. McCarty" <...@mindspring.com
The way you describe it, the most recent Restore point would have
the highest reliability since it alone is required to roll-back the system
state. To me the reliability decreases with each point ( or day ) back
in time you try to restore to.
System Restore is more of a remedy for the "Oh Damn" type of
change where something is done and the change is immediately seen
as unwanted. I've seen SR move a system back by months, but it's
not something you'd want to depend on. System Imaging is a much
better approach to restoring a system to a previous setup.
<...@4ax.com...
|
|
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 14:02:18 -0600, "Bill in Co." <...@earthlink.net
But at what point does System Restore NOT have to depend on previous restore
points?
It sounds like you're saying here that if he now creates a new one, it
doesn't rely on the previous ones. But yet in other cases, it's
incremental.
|
|
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:36:45 -0400, "R. McCarty" <...@mindspring.com
I didn't phrase the answer very clearly. What I meant was if he purged all
points and then either the daily timer or change detector created a "Single"
point then that would have a higher reliability than points that extend over
several days. Regardless a 1-day roll back is always going to have a higher
chance of success than if you try and take the machine back to a earlier
date because of the chained points dependency.
Sometimes I have the concept, but don't explain it very well.
"Bill in Co." <...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
|
|
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 14:50:15 -0600, "Bill in Co." <...@earthlink.net
OK, so let's see if I understand this better now:
If, and *only if*, one purges all the previous restore points (as in turning
it off and then back on again), and then one creates a new restore point,
that is the ONLY time it will be a complete restore point which does not
depend on any previous ones.
(although actually that's not exactly true, because as soon as one turns
System Restore off and then back on again, a restore point will be created
right then - but you know what I mean)
OR, to put it another way: if someone has two or more restore points on
their system, they ARE always dependent on each other like a chain link
(right down to the earliest restore point), and if any of them were somehow
deleted, System Restore would be rendered useless.
I think that's the way it is, but I'm not positive.
|
|
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:02:28 -0500, "Unknown" <...@unknown.kom
Are you saying if I do a disk cleanup and elect to delete all restore points
except the latest that the latest restore point is rendered useless after
disk cleanup finishes???
"Bill in Co." <...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
|
|
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 20:29:50 -0600, "Bill in Co." <...@earthlink.net
That would be my understanding.
(UNLESS you say turned System Restore off, and then back on again, which
starts afresh - but that is very different from what you're saying).
If you actually look at some of the restore files in the System Volume
Folder (in each RPnnn subdirectory), you will notice a bunch of ini (and
some other) files in addition to the registry files (like the SAM stuff,
etc, which are in the snapshot subfolder).
And the net folder content varies considerably in both size and number of
files, between the different RPnnn restore point subfolders.
|
|
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 05:17:31 -0600, "Bill in Co." <...@earthlink.net
Correction to the below (added just below):
In retrospect, I think System Restore has to be a bit more robust than this,
meaning that if one did manually delete some of the previous restore points
as you said, it might be able to at least recover and reboot using the last
saved registry (if you chose to do so), BUT it may not be able to restore
the system completely to the previous point in time.
So I'm hypothesizing that System Restore basically saves a couple of things
here:
1) the current (and full) registry and its associated files (like ERUNT
does), AND
2) a logging of other prior system changes (and what other monitored files
were changed), and it is this which would be lost, if one deleted some of
the previous restore points. It must work something like this, because as
we know, the oldest restore points eventually get deleted by the system to
make room for new ones, since the total space reserved for them is fixed.
<end note
|
|
"Bill in Co." <...@earthlink.net
Note: I don't use the restore program - it takes up a huge amount of
space.
Restore points are stored in windows/System Volume Information
It's a hidden directory and it won't let you in,; without jumping thru
a few hoops, I dual boot so just go to another OS to view it.
So if you delete anything in this directory with the restore program
(a restore point) it's history.
Using the last saved registry won't save ya, and why ERUNT is
different that a restore point, it restores registry backups from
times you really like the way your computer is running, or before a
major change; Or me once a month.
--
My mom said I could
http://wtfurls.com/videos/313/my-mom-said-i-could
|
|
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 13:44:11 -0600, "Bill in Co." <...@earthlink.net
I've set up those hoops so that I *do* have access to those restore points
in Explorer.
Well, but as "unknown" just said, that's not always true. Check his reply.
Yes, but keep in mind ERUNT *only* backs up and restores the registry and
its associated files (which is sometimes all you need or want). ERUNT
doesn't replace System Restore, it supplements it.
I look at it as using the right (i.e. appropriate) tool, for the right job.
:-)
|
|
"Bill in Co." <...@earthlink.net
Just offering advice or another view.
I have never used the system restore, on any windows OS, so ERUNT is
all I have to offer :)
--
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_-RdAzkKlXY
|
|
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 09:39:34 -0500, "Unknown" <...@unknown.kom
I did have an occasion to use System Restore after deleting all but the
latest Restore Point and it was successful.
"Bill in Co." <...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
|
|
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 13:40:15 -0600, "Bill in Co." <...@earthlink.net
OK, good to know. I presume you deleted those other restore points
manually by getting to them in Windows Explorer (once you got past the
Access Denied crap and straightened that out).
However, I bet what happened was you were able to restore your system, but
probably some of the other changes in system files (if any) (monitored
previously, and kept track of by the earlier restore points), weren't
restored to that prior state.
|
|
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 10:16:31 -0500, "Unknown" <...@unknown.kom
"Bill in Co." <...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
I deleted them by using disk cleanup.
That's impossible since I used the latest restore point. Why, on some files
would
I want to go further back?? Am I misunderstanding something?
|
|
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 12:40:28 -0600, "Bill in Co." <...@earthlink.net
I'm still trying to tease out the belief that System Restore seems on the
one hand to be incrementally based, suggesting that it needs the previous
restore point data (in each of the previous subfolders) for complete success
for a restore operation, with the belief that on the other hand, maybe it
does NOT need those other (prior) restore points and whatever information is
contatined there. OK, maybe this is the explanation below:
I think each time you create a Restore Point it is:
1) saving the complete registry as of that point in time (just like ERUNT),
and
2) saving other program and system changes (not in the registry) made since
the last saved restore point, in a separate set of files. This would be
the incremental logging part I was talking about.
That being said, however, implies that if one deleted the previous restore
points, one could not get all the monitored program and system files back to
their previous state.
|
|
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 14:28:58 -0500, "Unknown" <...@unknown.kom
"Bill in Co." <...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
That is true. In other words, if the last restore point stored something
that was already bad
there is no way to go back further in time. To be 100% successful, the
latest restore point
must have good/correct data. This is precisely why I allow the maximum
amount of space
for restore points. Almost four months worth.
|
|
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 18:37:45 -0600, "Bill in Co." <...@earthlink.net
No, but it is more than that. The last restore point didn't have to store
something that was bad - it's just that it (that one restore point) doesn't
contain everything.
|
|
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 09:06:17 -0500, "Unknown" <...@unknown.kom
No restore point contains everything. There are many files that are not
saved. If you had 20 restore points you still cannot
restore a system 100%. Use a backup system for that, such as an external HD.
"Bill in Co." <...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
|
|
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 12:59:08 -0600, "Bill in Co." <...@earthlink.net
Right. My point was that if you remove some of the older system restore
points, you ARE also also removing some of the capability to get back some
of the other monitored files to the prior state, when using System Restore
to go back in time.
Of course, the ONLY sure way to get everything back is to use a partition
backup routine (like True Image), and restore the backup image or partition.
|
|
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 15:54:16 -0500, "Unknown" <...@unknown.kom
"Bill in Co." <...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
If that's the case, the latest restore point is no good anyway.
|
|
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 15:45:11 -0600, "Bill in Co." <...@earthlink.net
Well, not exactly. I expect that one can at least use the latest restore
point to at least get their system back, based just on the registry restore
(and its associated files) portion. True, the computer may not have ALL of
the other monitored files that were being monitored and not restored, but at
least the system is back again. And as you have already pointed out,
you've successfully done that. So it appears that just having the last
restore point can work, as you have pointed out. I haven't tried that
experiment yet. :-)
|
|
On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:40:37 GMT, Aardvark <...@youllnever.know
Why the fuck do you two insist on either a) top-posting a reply then re-
posting the whole fucking thread or b) replying to some point in the
middle of the other's post and re-posting the whole fucking thread? It's
a real pain in the fucking ass scrolling down a 258 line post to look for
other pearls of wisdom only to find nothing else new.
Snip all the shit except the point to which you wish to reply (while, of
course, endeavouring to keep it in context), leave a blank line and then
post your fucking reply.
Fucking pair of nitwits.
--
Liverpool. European City Of Culture 2008
http://www.liverpool08.com
|
|
On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 01:45:17 -1200, "Aardvark" <...@y0u11n3v3r.kn0w
On FUCKING BUM WORKER! Sun, 06 Jul FUCKING SHUT UP! 2008 15:45:11 -0600,
FUCKING BEDPAN ATTENDANT! PENIS WRINKLE! LOVE BUBBLES! ASS CRACK! Bill
in Co. FUCKING STREET-WHORE! wrote: SUCK! FUCK MUSCLE! SPUNK STICK!
Why FUCKING SMEGMA! MERRY-LEGS! the fuck do you FUCKING CHICK STICKER!
two insist on either FUCKING CUM PUMP! SMEGMA! INNARDS! CUNT STRUCK!
STARFISH! SPUNK! a) top-posting a reply FUCKING SNATCH-PEDDLER! BLACK
PENCIL! AMMUNITION-WHORE! then re- posting the FUCKING ANILINGUS! whole
fucking thread or FUCKING ANAL-INTRUDER! b) replying to some FUCKING
BAREBACK RIDER! point in the middle FUCKING SHITFIRE! of the other's
post FUCKING CONVICTS! and re-posting the whole FUCKING CARCINOMA!
fucking thread? It's a FUCKING BLACK JOCK! ASS PLAY! real pain in the
FUCKING KID! fucking ass scrolling down FUCKING PUDDINGS!
ANAL-COPULATOR! a 258 line post FUCKING BUTTOCK-BROKER! to look for
other FUCKING ANIMAL! CABBAGE HEAD! DITCH SLUT! pearls of wisdom only
FUCKING ANAL-JABBER! to find nothing else FUCKING CROTCH COBRA! BITCH
KITTY! new. CANCER! ARSELICKER!
Snip FUCKING PUSTULE! all the shit except FUCKING COMMON TART! ANAL JOB!
the point to which FUCKING BOWELS! FLASH MOLL! you wish to reply FUCKING
PIECE-OF-SKIRT! (while, of course, endeavouring FUCKING FORNICATION! to
keep it in FUCKING BLUE-VEINED PUSS CHUCKER! BUCKET BROAD! context),
leave a blank FUCKING THIGH! line and then post FUCKING ARSE-PIRATE!
ARSE PIRATE! HERMAPHRODITE! BOWELS! BLUE-VEINED PICCOLO! your fucking
reply. CARNAL STUMP! YO-YO-KNICKERS! VILLAGE-BIKE! BUM-FUCKING!
Fucking FUCKING CREAMSTICK! pair of nitwits. BUTT PUSSY! BUTT SLUT!
|
|
On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:58:05 GMT, Aardvark <...@youllnever.know
My thoughts entirely.
--
Liverpool. European City Of Culture 2008
http://www.liverpool08.com
|
|
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 10:41:21 -0500, "Unknown" <...@unknown.kom
Why do you care. Don't read if it bothers you. Are you the watchman of this
group?
Who are you trying to impress with all that foul language?? Certainly not
us.
"Aardvark" <...@newsfe10.ams2...
|
|
On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:15:12 GMT, Aardvark <...@youllnever.know
<knucklehead top-posting corrected
Not only top-posting with no context and no snippage. The fucking idiot
even re-posts a sig!!! (see above)
You're more of a fucking nincompoop than I thought.
--
Liverpool. European City Of Culture 2008
http://www.liverpool08.com
|
|
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 11:46:28 -0500, "Unknown" <...@unknown.kom
Like I said 'don't read if you don't like contents'.
Who are you trying to impress?
"Aardvark" <...@newsfe10.ams2...
|
|
|