Rent me that you just see what you want to see. However, I will not pull you out of the world. Great: D

Of course ridiculous. Especially after yours

Although I said

One thing I can say - you were self-critical when they said about food: D

Post has been editedscalar - 06.10.15, 15:54

Yes No - this is not me non-fulfillment, and you did not understand. I'm talking about your thought "Allow Torrents to Everyone, because they need you personally - extremely stupid thought", which they voiced with the words "I could voice it" you. Or thoughts coming from you, are your not? : D.

Not in vain. In the subject and so much nonsense from you was - another exactly not needed: D

You do not show - you go to the curves of the analogy, which is not the same: D

I watch nothing changes - you as usual find analogies and consider that from their inadmissibility it is not allowed that making Yota: D

Well you pipets. I thought that here already stuhli all: D

The subject was originally made as a holivarnaya, long beforeruslanbag43 under the table began to walkit was noted: D And it is in Special sections. So that the claim by cash: D

I hope this is not about me? : D

Posted on 22/01/2015, 17:50:

But in general,ruslanbag43 As something too pompous, I think: D

This blue color I have not seen since ancient times, when mocked the computer out of ignorance or out of curiosity: D But reading interesting, thank you.

Ok, in the OSA includes user traffic analysis. But what difference does it make? It also does not mean that any analysis of the traffic - OSA.

Proof can be?

Post has been editedscalar - 16.01.15, 19:26

If they call tariff condition - for sure.Frost_Imp I can say for sure.

From what-have-it is contrary to the law? Well, read the type of traffic in automatic mode, and so what? Not your same posts on the forum they read. It's like blaming the mail in the same infringement from the fact that they know to whom you are sending the letter.

If you are mailing a person does not sign the paper, "I agree that the mail will read my letter." In the case of an iota of the subscriber consciously agreed to these terms. In this case the provider can submit except that they do ugly: D

Posted on 15/01/2015, 18:37:


Request to the provider of the existing subscribers may well be part of the OSA.

His limits? I would like to link to by appropriate laws to see.
And how to deal with by Google in this case? He reads your email, and more - analyzes posing in search and advertising what it considers appropriate: D

Post has been editedscalar - 15.01.15, 13:27

You can not: D It is not for you personally, "monitors". Otherwise, and Google can hang the same thing, because he sees your post.

Miracles logic: rofl: Firstly, where did you get that boring? Read your sentences is quite uplifting. Secondly, I do not flatter myself that one of my desires, this topic will be closed: D

What for? We already tried to argue on the current theme - did not work. Apparently, not come and now: D

In general, I agree - just another word not found: D

Well, you know ", without arguments," I said. For argument appeals to some "similar" situation, either directly or indirectly related to the subject under discussion is not: D

Post has been editedscalar - 13.01.15, 17:58

Properly thought. The essence of the claim is not in it: D