In article >,
says...
>
> On 24 Mar 2012 19:17:35 GMT, notbob > wrote:
> >
> > Are you ppl obtuse?
> >
> > Here's how it works. They send out a cease and desist notice (C&D).
> > You c&d or not. Your choice. If not, they file a lawsuit against
> > you. You answer the lawsuit or not. If not, there could be a
> > monetary judgement and/or fines levied against you in your absence.
> > If yes, you will need to hire an attorney to advocate on your behalf.
> > All of this costs $$$$!!! If you could just ingnore it, EVERYBODY
> > WOULD! Freakin' DUH!! Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Last
> > option, capitulate and/or settle out of court. Most likely, an out of
> > court settlement will involve you paying the litigant $$$$, which is
> > the whole point.
> >
> > Copyright trolls have done this to everyone from huge coprorations to
> > little old ladies, nine year old kids, and dead people! They don't
> > expect you to fight it, but to settle to avoid huge legal costs. Even
> > large corporations typically settle rather than fight, knowing they
> > will save money in the long run.
> >
> > You think you can ignore it if it happens to you? Silly you.
> >
> > notkidding
>
> You've been living on a mountain top for too long. You probably think
> you need a gun to protect yourself from the government too.

Many years ago when I was a starving student I used "MCA" to refer to
the IBM Micrchannel Architecture. I got an email from the Music
Corporation of America telling me that I must desist from using "MCA".
I replied "It is my intention to continue using 'MCA'. If you wish to
sue me I will save you the trouble--my total assets are a pair of
sneakers with holes in them, two pairs of worn out jeans, 3 sets of
underwear, two pairs of smelly sweat socks, and a beat up tomcat. I
will be happy to send you all of it if you will provide me an address,
however if you want the beat up tomcat you will have to provide a
container."

Never heard another peep from them.

On 2012-03-24, Sqwertz > wrote:

> And 3/4's of the users would press [Accept/I Agree] even if they had
> read it.

Of that, I have no doubt.

mb


--
Fight internet CENSORSHIP - Fight SOPA-PIPA
Contact your congressman and/or representative, now!
http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/
vi --the heart of evil!

Is there no end to sqwishy's eckthpurteez?

>> Unless the defendent fails to contest, then the plaintiff wins by
>> default.
>
>That's still not a precedent. That's blah-blah-blah yap-yap-yap boy
> do I love the sound of my own voice. Even when I know absolutely
> nothing about the subject I can still fill up the void with words, words,
> words, and more words! I LOVE to argue about meaningless trivia.
> Arguing fills up my mind like food fills up normal people. I'm the be-all
> and end-all of Usenet Authority, and if you don't believe me, go
> check the archive. Dumbass.

>And 3/4's

> <screech!>

> Unfortunately, I only use written language at a grade-school level.
> Please excuse my frequent errors because I am, you know, such a
> fabulous genius. Duh.

On 25/03/2012 2:17 AM, notbob wrote:
> On 2012-03-24, > wrote:
>
>>>
>> Having a user sign an agreement acknowledging Facebook's copyright of
>> the term "Book" in no way grants Facebook a copyright on a term in
>> common use in the English language. Test it in a court of law and then
>> see what happens. There have been many precedents thus far on companies
>> attempting to do that and they invariably lose. Remember, "book" is in
>> common use OUTSIDE of Facebook. Any common use of the term "Facebook"
>> explicitly refers to Facebook's operations. They coined the term, they
>> have copyright. They do not have copyright on the generic term "book" no
>> matter how many users sign an agreement to that effect.
>
> You are the one NOT paying attention.
>
> I never claimed they had, in fact, legal right to the terms or would
> win in court. I merely suggested they might possibly sue you. Like I
> replied to the other poster, do you have the financial resources to
> fight an 84 billion dollar company to find out who is legally right?
> I sure as Hell do not.
>
> Feel free to continue espousing your idealistic legal fantasies,
> Krypsis, and pray you are never the target. In the meantime, real ppl
> are being sued by real lawyers for real money, whether there exists
> any real legal right or not.
>
> nb
>
Well, we just had one very small fish in Australia sue Microsoft. Guess
what, common sense prevailed and the small fish won a payout of $300M.
There goes your argument.

--

Krypsis

On 2012-03-24, Krypsis > wrote:

> Well, we just had one very small fish in Australia sue Microsoft. Guess
> what, common sense prevailed and the small fish won a payout of $300M.
> There goes your argument.

I do not live in Australia. There goes yours.

nb


--
Fight internet CENSORSHIP - Fight SOPA-PIPA
Contact your congressman and/or representative, now!
http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/
vi --the heart of evil!

On 25/03/2012 10:54 AM, notbob wrote:
> On 2012-03-24, > wrote:
>
>> Well, we just had one very small fish in Australia sue Microsoft. Guess
>> what, common sense prevailed and the small fish won a payout of $300M.
>> There goes your argument.
>
> I do not live in Australia. There goes yours.
>
> nb
>
>
Funnily enough, neither does Microsoft!

There goes yours!

--

Krypsis

On 2012-03-25, Krypsis > wrote:

> Funnily enough, neither does Microsoft!

Apparently, it lives on your computer. Strange you should rejoice in
its being done dirt. Beside, much like I've reiterated over and over
in this thread, yet you've failed to grasp the concept, settlement is
often better than litigation and 300M to M$ is infinitely less than a
pittance.

nb

--
Fight internet CENSORSHIP - Fight SOPA-PIPA
Contact your congressman and/or representative, now!
http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/
vi --the heart of evil!

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 17:32:43 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > On 24 Mar 2012 19:17:35 GMT, notbob > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > You think you can ignore it if it happens to you? Silly you.
> > >
> > > notkidding
> >
> > You've been living on a mountain top for too long. You probably think
> > you need a gun to protect yourself from the government too.
>
> Many years ago when I was a starving student I used "MCA" to refer to
> the IBM Micrchannel Architecture. I got an email from the Music
> Corporation of America telling me that I must desist from using "MCA".
> I replied "It is my intention to continue using 'MCA'. If you wish to
> sue me I will save you the trouble--my total assets are a pair of
> sneakers with holes in them, two pairs of worn out jeans, 3 sets of
> underwear, two pairs of smelly sweat socks, and a beat up tomcat. I
> will be happy to send you all of it if you will provide me an address,
> however if you want the beat up tomcat you will have to provide a
> container."
>
> Never heard another peep from them.
>
Are you sure you weren't being pranked by someone spoofing the Music
Corporation of America? How would they know about you? You know that
kind of thing doesn't fly today. When someone posts an unknown
acronym to me, I can google it and come up with pages of the same
letters that stand for pages of other things that don't make any sense
in the context given.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

I will not have a Facebook account, for numerous reasons, and this is
but another reason. When I was looking into getting an account, and
found out that it went into your email history and automatically added
people you had emailed as your "friends", it seemed like an invasion
of privacy of sorts. It didn't help that I recently watched The
Social Network and the Mark Zuckerberg character came across as a
giant douche.

On 25/03/2012 3:43 PM, Michael OConnor wrote:
> I will not have a Facebook account, for numerous reasons, and this is
> but another reason. When I was looking into getting an account, and
> found out that it went into your email history and automatically added
> people you had emailed as your "friends", it seemed like an invasion
> of privacy of sorts. It didn't help that I recently watched The
> Social Network and the Mark Zuckerberg character came across as a
> giant douche.

It only invades your email if you "allow" it to do so. I don't. Besides,
I don't use a real name on Facebook because it's only so my grandkids
can communicate with me. My list of "friends" is pretty much just relatives.

--

Krypsis

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:37:40 +1100, Krypsis >
wrote:

>On 25/03/2012 3:43 PM, Michael OConnor wrote:
>> I will not have a Facebook account, for numerous reasons, and this is
>> but another reason. When I was looking into getting an account, and
>> found out that it went into your email history and automatically added
>> people you had emailed as your "friends", it seemed like an invasion
>> of privacy of sorts. It didn't help that I recently watched The
>> Social Network and the Mark Zuckerberg character came across as a
>> giant douche.
>
>It only invades your email if you "allow" it to do so. I don't. Besides,
>I don't use a real name on Facebook because it's only so my grandkids
>can communicate with me.

Nor do I, but everyone who matters knows it's me. FB is basically used
around here as a communications medium/meeting place for the locals
rather than a way to kill time with inane crap.
Saves on phone calls quite a bit.

Other than that, I have no interest in it.

On 25/03/2012 8:45 PM, Jeßus wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:37:40 +1100, >
> wrote:
>
>> On 25/03/2012 3:43 PM, Michael OConnor wrote:
>>> I will not have a Facebook account, for numerous reasons, and this is
>>> but another reason. When I was looking into getting an account, and
>>> found out that it went into your email history and automatically added
>>> people you had emailed as your "friends", it seemed like an invasion
>>> of privacy of sorts. It didn't help that I recently watched The
>>> Social Network and the Mark Zuckerberg character came across as a
>>> giant douche.
>>
>> It only invades your email if you "allow" it to do so. I don't. Besides,
>> I don't use a real name on Facebook because it's only so my grandkids
>> can communicate with me.
>
> Nor do I, but everyone who matters knows it's me. FB is basically used
> around here as a communications medium/meeting place for the locals
> rather than a way to kill time with inane crap.
> Saves on phone calls quite a bit.
>
> Other than that, I have no interest in it.
>
>
Well, most of my peers have no interest in Facebook. I guess they are
just too old .. or dead.

I've had to tell a few family members to ease up a bit on what they are
broadcasting. Some of the stuff they write could come back and bite them
on the backside!

--

Krypsis

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:48:33 +1100, Krypsis >
wrote:

>On 25/03/2012 8:45 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:37:40 +1100, >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 25/03/2012 3:43 PM, Michael OConnor wrote:
>>>> I will not have a Facebook account, for numerous reasons, and this is
>>>> but another reason. When I was looking into getting an account, and
>>>> found out that it went into your email history and automatically added
>>>> people you had emailed as your "friends", it seemed like an invasion
>>>> of privacy of sorts. It didn't help that I recently watched The
>>>> Social Network and the Mark Zuckerberg character came across as a
>>>> giant douche.
>>>
>>> It only invades your email if you "allow" it to do so. I don't. Besides,
>>> I don't use a real name on Facebook because it's only so my grandkids
>>> can communicate with me.
>>
>> Nor do I, but everyone who matters knows it's me. FB is basically used
>> around here as a communications medium/meeting place for the locals
>> rather than a way to kill time with inane crap.
>> Saves on phone calls quite a bit.
>>
>> Other than that, I have no interest in it.
>>
>>
>Well, most of my peers have no interest in Facebook. I guess they are
>just too old .. or dead.
>
>I've had to tell a few family members to ease up a bit on what they are
>broadcasting. Some of the stuff they write could come back and bite them
>on the backside!

It's amazing what some people will post on FB.

As you say, one day it's going to bite them on the arse.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On 24 Mar 2012 15:26:25 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>
>> So, if they are so concerned about outside infringement, why are they
>> demanding inside users agree to their conditions?
>
> It's called covering your ass and strengthening your position in a
> court of law.
> <http://legalblogwatch.typepad.com/legal_blog_watch/2012/03/facebook-revises-user-agreement-to-bolster-trademark-claim-on-word-book.html>
>
>
All the more reason not to bother with Facebook. In my book

Jill

On Mar 25, 2:45*am, Jeßus > wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:37:40 +1100, Krypsis >
> wrote:
>
> >On 25/03/2012 3:43 PM, Michael OConnor wrote:
> >> I will not have a Facebook account, for numerous reasons, and this is
> >> but another reason. *When I was looking into getting an account, and
> >> found out that it went into your email history and automatically added
> >> people you had emailed as your "friends", it seemed like an invasion
> >> of privacy of sorts. *It didn't help that I recently watched The
> >> Social Network and the Mark Zuckerberg character came across as a
> >> giant douche.
>
> >It only invades your email if you "allow" it to do so. I don't. Besides,
> >I don't use a real name on Facebook because it's only so my grandkids
> >can communicate with me.
>
> Nor do I, but everyone who matters knows it's me. FB is basically used
> around here as a communications medium/meeting place for the locals
> rather than a way to kill time with inane crap.
> Saves on phone calls quite a bit.
>
> Other than that, I have no interest in it.

If you want to chat within a group, AIM chat still works.

On 27/03/2012 5:39 AM, spamtrap1888 wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2:45 am, > wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:37:40 +1100, >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 25/03/2012 3:43 PM, Michael OConnor wrote:
>>>> I will not have a Facebook account, for numerous reasons, and this is
>>>> but another reason. When I was looking into getting an account, and
>>>> found out that it went into your email history and automatically added
>>>> people you had emailed as your "friends", it seemed like an invasion
>>>> of privacy of sorts. It didn't help that I recently watched The
>>>> Social Network and the Mark Zuckerberg character came across as a
>>>> giant douche.
>>
>>> It only invades your email if you "allow" it to do so. I don't. Besides,
>>> I don't use a real name on Facebook because it's only so my grandkids
>>> can communicate with me.
>>
>> Nor do I, but everyone who matters knows it's me. FB is basically used
>> around here as a communications medium/meeting place for the locals
>> rather than a way to kill time with inane crap.
>> Saves on phone calls quite a bit.
>>
>> Other than that, I have no interest in it.
>
> If you want to chat within a group, AIM chat still works.

But AIM chat isn't "cool" with the younger set! ;-)

--

Krypsis

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:39:20 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888
> wrote:

>On Mar 25, 2:45*am, Jeßus > wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:37:40 +1100, Krypsis >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On 25/03/2012 3:43 PM, Michael OConnor wrote:
>> >> I will not have a Facebook account, for numerous reasons, and this is
>> >> but another reason. *When I was looking into getting an account, and
>> >> found out that it went into your email history and automatically added
>> >> people you had emailed as your "friends", it seemed like an invasion
>> >> of privacy of sorts. *It didn't help that I recently watched The
>> >> Social Network and the Mark Zuckerberg character came across as a
>> >> giant douche.
>>
>> >It only invades your email if you "allow" it to do so. I don't. Besides,
>> >I don't use a real name on Facebook because it's only so my grandkids
>> >can communicate with me.
>>
>> Nor do I, but everyone who matters knows it's me. FB is basically used
>> around here as a communications medium/meeting place for the locals
>> rather than a way to kill time with inane crap.
>> Saves on phone calls quite a bit.
>>
>> Other than that, I have no interest in it.
>
>If you want to chat within a group, AIM chat still works.

It does.

Presumably IRC is still around as well, can't believe how much time
and trouble I went to doing large file transfers all those years ago


I'm not partial to 'live' chat though... keeps you chained to your
computer, IMO.

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 08:28:14 -0400, "jmcquown" >
wrote:

>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 24 Mar 2012 15:26:25 GMT, notbob > wrote:
> >
> >> So, if they are so concerned about outside infringement, why are they
> >> demanding inside users agree to their conditions?
> >
> > It's called covering your ass and strengthening your position in a
> > court of law.
> > <http://legalblogwatch.typepad.com/legal_blog_watch/2012/03/facebook-revises-user-agreement-to-bolster-trademark-claim-on-word-book.html>
> >
> >
> All the more reason not to bother with Facebook. In my book
>
The people who have been scared of FB haven't signed up and the people
who aren't scared have. I'm not scared of FB. 'Nuff said.


--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

sf > wrote in
:


>>
> The people who have been scared of FB haven't signed up and the people
> who aren't scared have. I'm not scared of FB. 'Nuff said.
>
>


Agreed.

Speaking of which, I had a look at the rfc facebook page...... not much
happening in there.



--
Peter
Tasmania
Australia

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:39:20 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888
> wrote:
>
> If you want to chat within a group, AIM chat still works.

That one is as annoying as skype.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

sf > wrote in news:2mv1n7lluqsshc3ep0l0ehms7eagv4a9ad@
4ax.com:

> On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:39:20 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888
> > wrote:
>>
>> If you want to chat within a group, AIM chat still works.
>
> That one is as annoying as skype.
>


My BIL *insits* on calling us on Skype all the time.... it's a PITA.... he
always sounds like he's talking from the bottom of a well.

I only ever 'visited' rfc chat a couple of times...... it was just too damn
'noisy' with 15 conversations going on at once.



--
Peter
Tasmania
Australia

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 23:32:58 +0000 (UTC), "I'm back on the laptop"
> wrote:
>
> Speaking of which, I had a look at the rfc facebook page...... not much
> happening in there.

It's slow if you're looking for the pace we have here.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

sf > wrote in news:grf2n7h3h9e8aio0sh4dtdv21ocpvlg2ml@
4ax.com:

> On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 23:32:58 +0000 (UTC), "I'm back on the laptop"
> > wrote:
>>
>> Speaking of which, I had a look at the rfc facebook page...... not much
>> happening in there.
>
> It's slow if you're looking for the pace we have here.
>


Wouldn't want it like that...... but last time I looked there was only 3(?)
members, IIRC.



--
Peter
Tasmania
Australia

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 00:07:34 +0000 (UTC), "I'm back on the laptop"
> wrote:

> sf > wrote in news:2mv1n7lluqsshc3ep0l0ehms7eagv4a9ad@
> 4ax.com:
>
> > On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:39:20 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888
> > > wrote:
> >>
> >> If you want to chat within a group, AIM chat still works.
> >
> > That one is as annoying as skype.
> >
>
>
> My BIL *insits* on calling us on Skype all the time.... it's a PITA.... he
> always sounds like he's talking from the bottom of a well.

What I didn't like is it always showed when I was online and person
who only wants to video chat would call me. I'm fine with text or
voice chat, but I *hate* video chat. The only reason I installed
skype was to be able to communicate with my grandchildren when we're
on the other side of the world on an extended vacation and I use it to
chat with an in-law when she's out of the country for 3-4 months at a
time.
>
> I only ever 'visited' rfc chat a couple of times...... it was just too damn
> 'noisy' with 15 conversations going on at once.

If we wanted to chat with one person in particular, we'd go private
and also take part in chat on the channel... but times have changed -
it's a quiet little backwater now. You're lucky to find anyone "home"
and there's no one at the moment (I just looked). Back in the day,
Thursday night was when the crowd gathered. It was a lot of fun. To
my knowledge, there may be a group chat ability in rfc on FB - but
nobody uses it.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 04:24:09 +0000 (UTC), "I'm back on the laptop"
> wrote:

> sf > wrote in news:grf2n7h3h9e8aio0sh4dtdv21ocpvlg2ml@
> 4ax.com:
>
> > On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 23:32:58 +0000 (UTC), "I'm back on the laptop"
> > > wrote:
> >>
> >> Speaking of which, I had a look at the rfc facebook page...... not much
> >> happening in there.
> >
> > It's slow if you're looking for the pace we have here.
> >
>
>
> Wouldn't want it like that...... but last time I looked there was only 3(?)
> members, IIRC.

Are you talking about RFC on FaceBook? There are 168 members as of
this moment. You were probably looking at the wrong one, the real one
can be hard to find. Christine had to add me, because I couldn't
bring it up even by copying and pasting the correct term into the
search box and in spite of having several active members of the group
as FB Friends. Several other people have had the same problem, so
you're not alone.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 27/03/2012 3:38 PM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 00:07:34 +0000 (UTC), "I'm back on the laptop"
> > wrote:
>
>> > wrote in news:2mv1n7lluqsshc3ep0l0ehms7eagv4a9ad@
>> 4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:39:20 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888
>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If you want to chat within a group, AIM chat still works.
>>>
>>> That one is as annoying as skype.
>>>
>>
>>
>> My BIL *insits* on calling us on Skype all the time.... it's a PITA.... he
>> always sounds like he's talking from the bottom of a well.
>
> What I didn't like is it always showed when I was online and person
> who only wants to video chat would call me. I'm fine with text or
> voice chat, but I *hate* video chat. The only reason I installed
> skype was to be able to communicate with my grandchildren when we're
> on the other side of the world on an extended vacation and I use it to
> chat with an in-law when she's out of the country for 3-4 months at a
> time.

You can make yourself "invisible" so on one knows whether you are online
or not. Most of the time I am "invisible" but those who I want to call
me anytime know to try ringing. If I want to talk, I respond, if not I
don't. Sometimes I have way too much work on my hands and can't be
sidetracked. Then I will turn Skpe off entirely.
>>
>> I only ever 'visited' rfc chat a couple of times...... it was just too damn
>> 'noisy' with 15 conversations going on at once.
>
> If we wanted to chat with one person in particular, we'd go private
> and also take part in chat on the channel... but times have changed -
> it's a quiet little backwater now. You're lucky to find anyone "home"
> and there's no one at the moment (I just looked). Back in the day,
> Thursday night was when the crowd gathered. It was a lot of fun. To
> my knowledge, there may be a group chat ability in rfc on FB - but
> nobody uses it.
>


--

Krypsis

On 2012-03-27, Krypsis > wrote:

> You can make yourself "invisible" so on one knows whether you are online
> or not. Most of the time I am "invisible"......

If you truly believe that, you must stupid all of the time!

nb

--
Fight internet CENSORSHIP - Fight SOPA-PIPA
Contact your congressman and/or representative, now!
http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/
vi --the heart of evil!

On 28/03/2012 12:07 AM, notbob wrote:
> On 2012-03-27, > wrote:
>
>> You can make yourself "invisible" so on one knows whether you are online
>> or not. Most of the time I am "invisible"......
>
> If you truly believe that, you must stupid all of the time!
>
> nb
>
Only in the sense that people can't "see" you online and therefore don't
"annoy" you by calling.

No one is anonymous on the internet, not even Peter Lucas! 55 years in
the public service has taught me that much at least.

--

Krypsis

notbob > wrote in
:

> On 2012-03-27, Krypsis > wrote:
>
>> You can make yourself "invisible" so on one knows whether you are
>> online or not. Most of the time I am "invisible"......
>
> If you truly believe that, you must stupid all of the time!
>
> nb
>



LOL!!! That it is... that it is!!!! :-)

It's as dumb as a sack full of rocks.



--
Peter
Tasmania
Australia

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:13:07 +1100, Krypsis >
wrote:

> You can make yourself "invisible" so on one knows whether you are online
> or not. Most of the time I am "invisible" but those who I want to call
> me anytime know to try ringing. If I want to talk, I respond, if not I
> don't. Sometimes I have way too much work on my hands and can't be
> sidetracked. Then I will turn Skpe off entirely.

Most of the time, I hadn't even turned the d*amned thing on but he
knew I was online anyway. I finally figured out that it was starting
up with the computer and made it stop that business. The netbook,
which is the computer we take on vacation, got something or other that
messed it up and I didn't reinstall skype on it yet and I have a new
desktop computer that I won't install skype on. I use Google Voice to
not use up cell phone minutes when I'm in the States.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 28/03/2012 6:45 AM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:13:07 +1100, >
> wrote:
>
>> You can make yourself "invisible" so on one knows whether you are online
>> or not. Most of the time I am "invisible" but those who I want to call
>> me anytime know to try ringing. If I want to talk, I respond, if not I
>> don't. Sometimes I have way too much work on my hands and can't be
>> sidetracked. Then I will turn Skpe off entirely.
>
> Most of the time, I hadn't even turned the d*amned thing on but he
> knew I was online anyway. I finally figured out that it was starting
> up with the computer and made it stop that business. The netbook,
> which is the computer we take on vacation, got something or other that
> messed it up and I didn't reinstall skype on it yet and I have a new
> desktop computer that I won't install skype on. I use Google Voice to
> not use up cell phone minutes when I'm in the States.
>
Yes, that's an option I untick immediately after an install.

I have discovered that, even when invisible, an alert pops up on other
people's skype notification when you log in. Don't know how to alter
that aspect but, I must admit, I usually only fire up Skype if I need to
talk to someone. Just been chatting to a friend in the UK on Skype. My
early morning is his late evening but it's the only time we can match times.

--

Krypsis