Difference between revisions of "Talk:1694: Phishing License"
m (removed comment that was just a personal attack) |
m |
||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
On the other hand, you used to be able to get a pirating license. The ship attacking one, not the copyright infringement. But then again...--[[User:Henke37|Henke37]] ([[User talk:Henke37|talk]]) 07:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC) | On the other hand, you used to be able to get a pirating license. The ship attacking one, not the copyright infringement. But then again...--[[User:Henke37|Henke37]] ([[User talk:Henke37|talk]]) 07:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC) | ||
+ | |||
+ | Wasn't that specifically called "privateering?" Or was that something else? [[User:CJB42|CJB42]] ([[User talk:CJB42|talk]]) 18:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:23, 16 June 2016
Perhaps it should also mention that the need for a license is analog to the need for one when you actually go fishing. 162.158.234.221 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
While exiting the fake/scam jail, Cueball could have also been amazed that he could pay his bail with *Apple gift cards*. 108.162.229.74 16:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Daniel H
Do I sense a reference to Monty Python's Fish licence sketch here as well? 141.101.98.8 21:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
"Clearly, there is no reason why a license would be available for a clear crime like fraud" I think the tax stamps for illegal drugs come very close to being a license for a clear crime.--108.162.218.59 05:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
On the other hand, you used to be able to get a pirating license. The ship attacking one, not the copyright infringement. But then again...--Henke37 (talk) 07:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Wasn't that specifically called "privateering?" Or was that something else? CJB42 (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)