[AGSF] Revelations

[Brother Cadfael]

Since AGSF has decided to make me a prime target for their fucked up
elitist attitudes, I'm going to be very blunt within this post and not
afford them the privacy and secrecy their members have requested via
email.

And although one person threw themselves on the grenade and 'fessed up
to the mailing list and fellow AGSF members, I assure the entire AGSF
group-- He is not the only one who has revealed you. There are at least
two others who have contacted me thus far.

And for those who have been so kind as to keep me in touch with the
situations: I'm sorry if I have betrayed your trust in this post, but I
feel that my fellow-posters have a right to know what I know. They are
a part of this group.

First, AGSF does exist. They proclaim that they wish to keep a low
profile because it's easier to fight spam and trolls. Perhaps.

But they also have a mailing list. And who has recently been discussed
on that mailing list? Why me, of course. And not very nice things
either. Yes, some of the members have defended me for whatever reason
they saw fit. Some have even risked their membership by doing such and
letting me in on their little groups activities.

From the mouth of one member:

"AGSF exists...We have an e-mail list and everything."

And another:

"I thought we all agreed this list was supposed to NOT exist in other
a.g'ers eyes in the first place?"

Does this not make you uncomfortable? A group who effects the
environment in which we post and gather, yet does not want to 'exist'?
Those who are accountable to the public are not the ones to fear in
life. It is those who work behind closed doors and on secret budgets
for their own purposes that should be seen as potentially dangerous. A
small group having the ability to effect a large one, without being
responsible or accountable to anyone but themselves.

And it seems that a handful of its members have become upset with the
turn that AGSF has taken. Once a group of do-gooders who kept us free
of spam and trolls, it has taken the form of thought-police and their
mailing list has become less of a 'spam killer' discussion and more a
discussion of many of us who *they* find annoying. Am I the only one
being discussed? Certainly not. Oh no, not by a long shot.

From one other AGSF member:

"Talk of this user or that user, simply because they are mildly
disruptive or do not conform to *our* desires and what we should do
about it has been rampant recently. This is not what AGSF and its list
was created for. It is certainly not what I joined them for."

And:

"And now, there is perhaps a different, much harder, level of damage
control to be done."

"I think it's high time we shut down the list, as per previous
discussions..."

I know that some of the people who have not offered information to me
and are on the list are _not_ against me or many of the rest of us. I
do know that at least one has specifically said they like me in general.
This makes exposing this information a little difficult for me because
while I feel everyone has a right to know who is really controlling
things behind the scenes and how, I don't want to alienate those who
I've grown to like and those who I have not yet pissed off. If I've
managed to hurt *them* in anyway, I have nothing that will change their
feelings except, perhaps: I felt that we had a right to know.

To them I can only offer my apology-- not to the rest of the AGSF
mailing list.

AGSF could be a strong and reliable force if they stick to spam and
trolls and stay out of personal attacks and the interactions of posters
in general. They are not alt.gothic. They are a group of people who
banded together for what was once a common cause, but that that does not
*make* them the entirety of what alt.gothic stands for, should be, or
was.

I am contemplating whether or not I should release the names and email
addresses of those who are in AGSF and especially those on its mailing
list.

You and I have a right to know who they are if we're talking to them
elsewhere in threads. On the other hand, some of them have been very
civil to me and I don't want to damage them personally, in anyway.

I have some thinking to do: Keep information that you should rightly
have, or risk turning these few good people against me?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brother...@earthcorp.com
http://home.fia.net/~cadfael/
ICQ: 6474437

[Mixy]

Brother Cadfael wrote in message <69gcva$3i4...@news.ipns.com>...

>Since AGSF has decided to make me a prime target for their fucked up
>elitist attitudes, I'm going to be very blunt within this post and not
>afford them the privacy and secrecy their members have requested via
>email.
>

OK BC time to put a few things straight. Yes the AGSF list did exist and I
was a part of that list. It was conceived as a low key organisation to
protect the gothic newsgroups from spam and bombings. You only became the
topic of discussion after you advocated illegal tactics to be used against
spammers and since several of the list members worked for ISPs they could
not be seen to be associated with you because they could lose their jobs.
The other reason it was kept secret was that it is simply easier to fight
the spam if you are organised. The front was kept up so that spammers would
think it was the whole newsgroup (which is how it should be) who were
fighting the spam.

>And although one person threw themselves on the grenade and 'fessed up
>to the mailing list and fellow AGSF members, I assure the entire AGSF
>group-- He is not the only one who has revealed you. There are at least
>two others who have contacted me thus far.
>
>And for those who have been so kind as to keep me in touch with the
>situations: I'm sorry if I have betrayed your trust in this post, but I
>feel that my fellow-posters have a right to know what I know. They are
>a part of this group.

Posting of private email is extremely bad netiquette as you well know. You
are doing irreperable harm to the newsgroup over this to satisfy your own
rampant ego.

>First, AGSF does exist. They proclaim that they wish to keep a low
>profile because it's easier to fight spam and trolls. Perhaps.

Not prehaps - TRUE. See my statements above.

>
>But they also have a mailing list. And who has recently been discussed
>on that mailing list? Why me, of course. And not very nice things
>either. Yes, some of the members have defended me for whatever reason
>they saw fit. Some have even risked their membership by doing such and
>letting me in on their little groups activities.
>

You were discussed because you were acting like a rampant vigilante and
bringing everyone else into disrepute. You were discussed simply because we
wanted to calm you down, politely warn you of the situation and to stop you
making such rash statements that were only doing damage to the newsgroup as
a whole. We wanted to prevent you making a total dick of yourself, something
you've now done in spectacular fashion without any help from us.

>From the mouth of one member:
>
>"AGSF exists...We have an e-mail list and everything."

True. There was a list. Now because of your actions and those of someone who
should never have been on the list in the first place it is no more and ag
is once again at the mercy of the spammers. There is such a thing as the
common good. The list was there to protect it but certain people are
egotistical and selfish enough to put themselves first.

>
>And another:
>
>"I thought we all agreed this list was supposed to NOT exist in other
>a.g'ers eyes in the first place?"

That again is true. Why should that be a problem. All the AG readers would
ever notice is a dramamtic reduction in the amount of spam.

>Does this not make you uncomfortable? A group who effects the
>environment in which we post and gather, yet does not want to 'exist'?
>Those who are accountable to the public are not the ones to fear in
>life. It is those who work behind closed doors and on secret budgets
>for their own purposes that should be seen as potentially dangerous. A
>small group having the ability to effect a large one, without being
>responsible or accountable to anyone but themselves.

OH god, AGSF is the CIA. The only effect we had on the newsgroup was to
reduce the spam and kill spammers accounts as well as putting up websites to
teach others how to do that. You were only discussed because you were acting
like a prick and something needed to be done about you before you did any
real damage. YOU were the one who advocated mailbombing, we only did as much
as we could to disassociate ourselves from you since we stay well within the
law and bounds of netiquette.

>
>And it seems that a handful of its members have become upset with the
>turn that AGSF has taken. Once a group of do-gooders who kept us free
>of spam and trolls, it has taken the form of thought-police and their
>mailing list has become less of a 'spam killer' discussion and more a
>discussion of many of us who *they* find annoying. Am I the only one
>being discussed? Certainly not. Oh no, not by a long shot.
>

No, there was ONE other who also advocated mailbombing who was discussed.
That is a long shot? Included in that discussion was points about whether
newbies should be sent a copy of the FAQ and a "welcome to ag - points to
note" letter to prevent the war zone that ag has become at times due to
clueless newbies. Hardly "thought-police".

>From one other AGSF member:
>
>"Talk of this user or that user, simply because they are mildly
>disruptive or do not conform to *our* desires and what we should do
>about it has been rampant recently. This is not what AGSF and its list
>was created for. It is certainly not what I joined them for."
>
>
>And:
>
>"And now, there is perhaps a different, much harder, level of damage
>control to be done."
>
>"I think it's high time we shut down the list, as per previous
>discussions..."
>

Quotes taken out of context to suit your meaning.

>I know that some of the people who have not offered information to me
>and are on the list are _not_ against me or many of the rest of us. I
>do know that at least one has specifically said they like me in general.
> This makes exposing this information a little difficult for me because
>while I feel everyone has a right to know who is really controlling
>things behind the scenes and how, I don't want to alienate those who
>I've grown to like and those who I have not yet pissed off. If I've
>managed to hurt *them* in anyway, I have nothing that will change their
>feelings except, perhaps: I felt that we had a right to know.
>

And because of your "right to know" some of them stand to lose their jobs.
Get things straight - the AGSF list existed to fight spam and to ensure the
smooth running of AG. We never advocated or took action against any member
of the group, only against spammers. The furthest we would ever go was a
polite email from one of the list members pointing out to someone the error
of their ways. It was a good thing. Now because you feel put out it is at an
end and you (and your snitches) will be to blame for the rampant rise in
spam to hit the newsgroups. I do not see why I should have to waste my time
fighting spam when idiots act the way you do to satisfy their own petty
egos.

>To them I can only offer my apology-- not to the rest of the AGSF
>mailing list.

You also need to apologise to the whole newsgroup for spoiling it for them.

>AGSF could be a strong and reliable force if they stick to spam and
>trolls and stay out of personal attacks and the interactions of posters
>in general. They are not alt.gothic. They are a group of people who
>banded together for what was once a common cause, but that that does not
>*make* them the entirety of what alt.gothic stands for, should be, or
>was.

It never was. It is too late now as through your rash irresponsible actions
(and those of a certain list member) it is over. As I said before, you were
discussed because you were a troll yourself and were bringing the perceived
AGSF (ie the whole newsgroup) into disrepute.

>
>I am contemplating whether or not I should release the names and email
>addresses of those who are in AGSF and especially those on its mailing
>list.
>

Go ahead. Some of them may well lose their jobs. After all, they are guilty
of the most heinous crime of spamfighting and the lesser charge of trying to
protect the newsgroup from idiots such as yourself.

>You and I have a right to know who they are if we're talking to them
>elsewhere in threads. On the other hand, some of them have been very
>civil to me and I don't want to damage them personally, in anyway.

As none of the group ever wanted to damage you, just to inform you that in
order for agsf to exist they must stay within the law, something you did not
agree with. They could easily have forwarded your posts to your ISP but they
chose the right path and instead tried to warn you through email and
newsgroup posts.

>
>I have some thinking to do: Keep information that you should rightly
>have, or risk turning these few good people against me?

Rough translation "I want all the list members to come begging to me not to
reveal them so I can have a big ego trip watching them grovel."

Do what you want. The damage is done. You would only be hurting the people
who have been good enough to give up their own time to protect the newsgroup
and you seem to think they deserve to be punished. You and your snitches are
solely responsible for the consequences. You said you were leaving. I tried
to dissuade you. Now I sincerely hope you do leave and never come back and I
would be surprised and disappointed if anyone will now give you the time of
day on the newsgroup.

Mixy <AGSF UKPG division>
<<The views contained herein are strictly my own or those of the voices in
my head>>
=====================================================================
Automated spammers; the current FCC: rhu...@fcc.gov jqu...@fcc.gov
sn...@fcc.gov rch...@fcc.gov | UPSP too: cust...@email.usps.gov
=====================================================================

[Axel]

Brother Cadfael wrote in message <69gcva$3i4...@news.ipns.com>...
>Since AGSF has decided to make me a prime target for their fucked up

<snip alleged AGSF conspiracy rant>

>have, or risk turning these few good people against me?

Yeah, whatever....

Axel... ...Callisti
Hail Eris... ...All Hail Discordia
<axelmaya@SPAM_IS_NOT_NICEglobalserve.net>
02 days & counting...

[Ron Cecchini]

"Axel" <axelmaya@SPAM_is_not_very_NICEglobalserve.net> wrote:

> Yeah, whatever....

This was so much better than Mixy's 12 page reply (no offense, Mixy).

It's just that I was thinking the same thing, like:

"Duh. Everyone knows about AGSF.
Duh. Everyone knows the more outspoken AGSFers.
Duh. Ranting about it is only a waste of time & makes you look worse."

Learn The Lesson of the Lily Tree:

To let the "healing begin", it is better to just be silent and let the
storm blow over. A boisterous defensive posture gets you nowhere.

][

[Eidolon]

On Tue, 13 Jan 1998, Ron Cecchini wrote:

> It's just that I was thinking the same thing, like:
>
> "Duh. Everyone knows about AGSF.
> Duh. Everyone knows the more outspoken AGSFers.
> Duh. Ranting about it is only a waste of time & makes you look worse."

You may have been thinking that, but I did not. Admist the flames and
conspisary theorys I actually learned something about the inner workings
of a.g.s.f., unfortuneatly at the cost of the orginization. I did know
who are the more out spoken AGSFers were, but I was actually under the
impression that it was an informal group, proven wrong by Brother C.'s
and Mixy's posts. So your guise did work for me. (Shit I even tried to
help out a little here and a little more in ABG) The knowledge, though,
is not going to stop me from my spam fighting efforts, however weak they
may be.

Will

--

And all I loved, I loved alone.
--E. A. Poe

[Mixy]

Ron Cecchini wrote in message ...

>"Axel" <axelmaya@SPAM_is_not_very_NICEglobalserve.net> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, whatever....
>
>This was so much better than Mixy's 12 page reply (no offense, Mixy).
>

None taken. By the way, the list was never kept secret as there have been
multiple majordomo and cc: lists (it even says so on the a.g.s-f pages, if
anyone cares to look), and really it would be a surprise if there weren't.

>It's just that I was thinking the same thing, like:
>
>"Duh. Everyone knows about AGSF.
> Duh. Everyone knows the more outspoken AGSFers.
> Duh. Ranting about it is only a waste of time & makes you look worse."
>

>Learn The Lesson of the Lily Tree:
>
>To let the "healing begin", it is better to just be silent and let the
>storm blow over. A boisterous defensive posture gets you nowhere.
>

Sadly there won't be any healing as the list is now defunct. There will just
be a mass of spamming. I for one am not going to bother wasting my time
protecting AG any more, rather concentrating my efforts on groups that
actually appreciate it.

[Jack]

Brother Cadfael pissed and whined in message
<69gcva$3i4...@news.ipns.com>...
<tripe snip>

>I am contemplating whether or not I should release the names and email
>addresses of those who are in AGSF and especially those on its mailing
>list.

Don't bother, luser. I'm not on the list, but I'm willing to bet I could
tell you who *is*. It's not that hard to tell who here has a clue when it
comes to spam and troll fighting.

>You and I have a right to know who they are if we're talking to them
>elsewhere in threads. On the other hand, some of them have been very
>civil to me and I don't want to damage them personally, in anyway.
>

>I have some thinking to do: Keep information that you should rightly

>have, or risk turning these few good people against me?

I think that you should put a plastic bag over your head, a rubber band
around your neck, and then lay down and wait for the saucer people to pick
you up. Hope that helps.

You are the biggest fucking whiner I have seen in ages. I mean, in the
time I've been back, I've seen a lot of nonsense from idiots, but your
lame whining about, "they won't let me into their Seckrit Clubhouse and
I'm gonna TELL!!!" has to take the cake. You are a fucking
self-centered, immature, lame-assed jerk, and you ought to remove yourself
from the gene pool before you manage to spawn another generation of lusers
like yourself.

Hey, are those Black Helicopters I hear? Better put on your tinfoil hat,
and get down to your hide-out in the basement before the Cabal activates
that chip in you neck.

Fucking lame-assed luser twit.
--
-Jack- "Death, it's not just for breakfast anymore."
If you want to avoid getting lost in the spam, send
replies to jack (AT) mari (DOT) net

[Kirckjerck]

I guess that AGSF stands for ALT.GOTH.STRIKE.FORCE? Wow, thats nutty as a
snickers bar, but absolutley cool. Its good to think that this elite force is
secretly protecting the goth sites. I think that a mathematician could prove
the Theorem that if you get a certain critical mass of pitch clad types
together, secret societies inevitably and spontaneously form.

Which is again, cool as candles. I am obviously just scratching the surface of
this frozen pond. I hope that the Rosicrucians of AGSF keep me safe from the
evil powers of bulk mail and teasing posters.

One complaint though, as much as I enjoyed learning of your protective coven,
it would have been better if it was just hinted at instead of blabbed about. It
loses some of its ominous character when brother clodful lays it all out.

Try harder to loom. By responding to his post you further subtract from the
enigma.

Enjoying your erstwhile and serious effort, Matthew

[Leonora the KittenLady]

In The Year Of Our Lord Tue, 13 Jan 1998 18:49:14 GMT,

Brother...@earthcorp.com (Brother Cadfael) Dared To Write:

>Does this not make you uncomfortable? A group who effects the
>environment in which we post and gather, yet does not want to 'exist'?

uhm
how did we affect the environment of the group? Hello. We got rid of
trolls and spammers in an organized fashion. We taught each other how
to read headers. We didn't send out cancel bots on posters who we
didn't like because as individuals we all have different preferences.
Think about it before you post it dumb fuck.

We never discussed you in full, because you weren't a threat to the
newsgroup. EXCEPT for when you suggested taking illegal actions
against spammers, trolls etc. Only then were you brought up. Certain
members of the list did not like you, but fuck. Certain people of this
newsgroup don't like you. The list did not moderate the group. The
list did not try to have your fucking account taken away ever. Moron.

>And it seems that a handful of its members have become upset with the
>turn that AGSF has taken. Once a group of do-gooders who kept us free
>of spam and trolls, it has taken the form of thought-police and their
>mailing list has become less of a 'spam killer' discussion and more a
>discussion of many of us who *they* find annoying. Am I the only one
>being discussed? Certainly not. Oh no, not by a long shot.

THOUGHT POLICE? You motherfuckingcocksucker. You know absolutely
nothing except what you've been told. If *I* were able to be the
thought police here then 90% of this crap would be gone.

>"I think it's high time we shut down the list, as per previous
>discussions..."

yes
you made us shut down the list
it serves no purpose now
i hope you're fucking happy. You just alienated yourself from a lot of
people here.

You are a complete and total newbie to alt.gothic comapred to the
people who were on the list. You don't know anything about its purpose
and what we discussed except what you were fowarded. You are making
stupid assumptions based on heresay.

if i drop out of the newsgroup, it's because of dumbfucks like you who
think they own everything. You thought I was snobbish? you're one to
talk.

-Leonora (Mistress of All Evil & Goddess Material :)
--
OfficialCDWhorePigCarryingKittenLadyWenchGoth |Don't Hate Me |
oftheNYRangers & the Alt.Gothic.Crown.Princess | Just Because |
http://www.geocities.com/~tonygirl/goffhockey/ | *You're* |
Be Aware Of The Choices Within Your Grasp-Covenant| Flammable |

[tee...@spamtrap.com]

Mixy <Mi...@gte.net> wrote:

: Brother Cadfael wrote in message <69gcva$3i4...@news.ipns.com>...

:>Since AGSF has decided to make me a prime target for their fucked up
:>elitist attitudes, I'm going to be very blunt within this post and not
:>afford them the privacy and secrecy their members have requested via
:>email.
:>

: OK BC time to put a few things straight. Yes the AGSF list did exist and I
: was a part of that list. It was conceived as a low key organisation to
: protect the gothic newsgroups from spam and bombings. You only became the

And has degenerated to idle gossip of who we like and don't like.

: topic of discussion after you advocated illegal tactics to be used against

: spammers and since several of the list members worked for ISPs they could
: not be seen to be associated with you because they could lose their jobs.

Get real. ISP employees will not be fired unless they do something illegal
or otherwise unethical.

Are you suggesting that this sort of thing DOES go on?

And if it does, don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to complain when
someone else advocates that activity?

: The other reason it was kept secret was that it is simply easier to fight

: the spam if you are organised. The front was kept up so that spammers would
: think it was the whole newsgroup (which is how it should be) who were
: fighting the spam.

It is never absolutely everyone fighting the spam. And if you don't think
people like Territickle already have a shit-list, you're sadly mistaken.

:>And although one person threw themselves on the grenade and 'fessed up

:>to the mailing list and fellow AGSF members, I assure the entire AGSF
:>group-- He is not the only one who has revealed you. There are at least
:>two others who have contacted me thus far.

So NYEAH!!! Pleasant dreams.

:>And for those who have been so kind as to keep me in touch with the

:>situations: I'm sorry if I have betrayed your trust in this post, but I
:>feel that my fellow-posters have a right to know what I know. They are
:>a part of this group.

: Posting of private email is extremely bad netiquette as you well know. You
: are doing irreperable harm to the newsgroup over this to satisfy your own
: rampant ego.

I handed it off to him. Admittedly, I did it while incredibly pissed off
at Albatross, but I STILL feel that Cadfael had a right to know he was
under discussion, and by whom.

:>First, AGSF does exist. They proclaim that they wish to keep a low

:>profile because it's easier to fight spam and trolls. Perhaps.

: Not prehaps - TRUE. See my statements above.

That was the stated purpose, and it WAS true. But the list became a gossip
column.

:>But they also have a mailing list. And who has recently been discussed

:>on that mailing list? Why me, of course. And not very nice things
:>either. Yes, some of the members have defended me for whatever reason
:>they saw fit. Some have even risked their membership by doing such and
:>letting me in on their little groups activities.

: You were discussed because you were acting like a rampant vigilante and
: bringing everyone else into disrepute. You were discussed simply because we
: wanted to calm you down, politely warn you of the situation and to stop you

The posts I saw were far from polite.

: True. There was a list. Now because of your actions and those of someone who

: should never have been on the list in the first place it is no more and ag
: is once again at the mercy of the spammers. There is such a thing as the

This is total bullshit. I am still here, and do not intend to let spammers
take over the newsgroup. I assume you will still do the same.

This newsgroup is by no means open now to spammers, just because a list
has died. If it was, it wouldn't deserve to exist, anyway.

: common good. The list was there to protect it but certain people are

: egotistical and selfish enough to put themselves first.

Such as?

:>"I thought we all agreed this list was supposed to NOT exist in other

:>a.g'ers eyes in the first place?"

: That again is true. Why should that be a problem. All the AG readers would
: ever notice is a dramamtic reduction in the amount of spam.

MOSTLY bullshit. Again, it is not open season for spammers just yet.

: OH god, AGSF is the CIA. The only effect we had on the newsgroup was to

Funny you should mention that.... Some people were most definitely
treating it as a Star Chamber of sorts.

: reduce the spam and kill spammers accounts as well as putting up websites to

: teach others how to do that. You were only discussed because you were acting
: like a prick and something needed to be done about you before you did any
: real damage. YOU were the one who advocated mailbombing, we only did as much
: as we could to disassociate ourselves from you since we stay well within the
: law and bounds of netiquette.

You do not discuss what to do with a prick on an anti-spam list. You
discuss what to do with spammers.

If you stay well within the law and bounds of netiquette, the ISP
employees you mentioned earlier have nothing to fear, yes?

:>And it seems that a handful of its members have become upset with the

:>turn that AGSF has taken. Once a group of do-gooders who kept us free
:>of spam and trolls, it has taken the form of thought-police and their
:>mailing list has become less of a 'spam killer' discussion and more a
:>discussion of many of us who *they* find annoying. Am I the only one
:>being discussed? Certainly not. Oh no, not by a long shot.

: No, there was ONE other who also advocated mailbombing who was discussed.

I'm sorry, when did EmptyEyes discuss mailbombing? I must have missed
that.

: That is a long shot? Included in that discussion was points about whether

: newbies should be sent a copy of the FAQ and a "welcome to ag - points to
: note" letter to prevent the war zone that ag has become at times due to
: clueless newbies. Hardly "thought-police".

I often think lately that the problem is less 'clueless newbies', and more
'arrogant old-timers'.

Lately, it seems that every newbie that drifts in here is 'clueless'. For
me, that says more about the people applying the label, and their
inability to make allowances for gradual adjustment to the newsgroup.

:>"Talk of this user or that user, simply because they are mildly

:>disruptive or do not conform to *our* desires and what we should do
:>about it has been rampant recently. This is not what AGSF and its list
:>was created for. It is certainly not what I joined them for."
:>

:>"And now, there is perhaps a different, much harder, level of damage

:>control to be done."
:>
:>"I think it's high time we shut down the list, as per previous
:>discussions..."

: Quotes taken out of context to suit your meaning.

One of those quotes is mine, pal. It's in PERFECT context.

: And because of your "right to know" some of them stand to lose their jobs.

Why? What specifically will cause them to lose their jobs?

: Get things straight - the AGSF list existed to fight spam and to ensure the

: smooth running of AG. We never advocated or took action against any member
: of the group, only against spammers. The furthest we would ever go was a
: polite email from one of the list members pointing out to someone the error
: of their ways. It was a good thing. Now because you feel put out it is at an
: end and you (and your snitches) will be to blame for the rampant rise in
: spam to hit the newsgroups. I do not see why I should have to waste my time
: fighting spam when idiots act the way you do to satisfy their own petty
: egos.

You don't want to fight spam, fine. Don't blame us if you don't want to
put in the effort anymore. But I think you'll probably find that without
the list, it's pretty much business as usual.

: You also need to apologise to the whole newsgroup for spoiling it for them.

I see a newsgroup that runs quite well, and apart from this thread doesn't
even seem to notice the list's absence.

:>AGSF could be a strong and reliable force if they stick to spam and

:>trolls and stay out of personal attacks and the interactions of posters
:>in general. They are not alt.gothic. They are a group of people who
:>banded together for what was once a common cause, but that that does not
:>*make* them the entirety of what alt.gothic stands for, should be, or
:>was.

: It never was. It is too late now as through your rash irresponsible actions
: (and those of a certain list member) it is over. As I said before, you were
: discussed because you were a troll yourself and were bringing the perceived
: AGSF (ie the whole newsgroup) into disrepute.

Blah. What is and isn't a troll is a subjective decision, and I for one
don't agree with you that he's a troll. He's tried to engage in
discussions, with a certain amount of success, and that makes him NOT a
troll in my book.

As far as I am concerned, the vague definition of 'troll' potentially
makes trolls an inappropriate discussion for the list as well, since it
basically began to boil down to troll=people who annoy us.

:>I am contemplating whether or not I should release the names and email

:>addresses of those who are in AGSF and especially those on its mailing
:>list.

: Go ahead. Some of them may well lose their jobs. After all, they are guilty

Why?

: of the most heinous crime of spamfighting and the lesser charge of trying to

: protect the newsgroup from idiots such as yourself.

He has a far from complete list. The only names he has, as far as I know,
are the names of those who discussed him.

: As none of the group ever wanted to damage you, just to inform you that in

: order for agsf to exist they must stay within the law, something you did not
: agree with. They could easily have forwarded your posts to your ISP but they
: chose the right path and instead tried to warn you through email and
: newsgroup posts.

His posts held very little legal water. You know that. You'd have stood an
OUTSIDE chance of getting him bumped off.

: Rough translation "I want all the list members to come begging to me not to

: reveal them so I can have a big ego trip watching them grovel."

Actually, given the chance to blackmail, he threw it away, making the
list's presence known when he could have jerked it around instead.

[Lonny]

Yup. Those AGSF fnord types. Killing spammers. Making the net a
nicer place to be fnord. Bastards. They should all be shot. They're
part of the Illuminati, I tell you.

Let the spam flow freely! Fnord!

Lonny fnord -> It's all a plot.

--
Fnord

Due to the amount of rampant flaming that occurs on the
net, I have decided to prematurely apologise for this
post/email. I was stupid and wrongheaded. Forgive me.
http://lonestar.texas.net/~lonny lo...@texas.net

[Lady Greycat]

On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 04:36:12 GMT, tonyg...@worldnet.att.net (Leonora
the KittenLady) babbled profusely:

>
>if i drop out of the newsgroup, it's because of dumbfucks like you who
>think they own everything. You thought I was snobbish? you're one to
>talk.
>
>-Leonora (Mistress of All Evil & Goddess Material :)

Just look at my .sig dear...it says it all...:)

Greycat
******************************************************
Http://members.theglobe.com/ladygreycat
The only people who compain about elists really think
they're better than the elitists. Thereby fullfilling
their own definition of one. -oddlystrange

[EmptyEyed1]

Greycat sig'ed:

>Http://members.theglobe.com/ladygreycat
>The only people who compain about elists really think
>they're better than the elitists. Thereby fullfilling
>their own definition of one. -oddlystrange
>

Not better.

Equal.

BTW I'm surprised noone's commented on my new sig yet....

~Empty

"Well, Damn the man!"
Lucas, _Empire_Records_

[Marcus Pan]

tee...@spamtrap.com wrote:
> Actually, given the chance to blackmail, he threw it away, making the
> list's presence known when he could have jerked it around instead.

Awwwww...lost your ammo dear boy. <snicker>

--
-----=====>Papa-PAN<=====----- http://www.zenweb.com/pan
Adopter of lost BabyGoths everywhere...I *heart* Cymbeline &
Asafoetida & Hillary & Niles & Narnia & Necroangel & Carrie
& Ghoulie & Miscreant & Azrielle & Ischtar & Ivy & Zoe!

[Brother Cadfael]

My final statements on this matter:

I valued AGSF for the help lent in freeing us from spam. However it
crossed it's boundaries when it tried to become a puppet-master and
deciding for the rest of AG what should or shouldn't be.

I am prepared for onslaught by those in AGSF who will strongly affirm
that they have never even approached what I and others claim. I also am
prepared for them to completely avoid concerning themselves with this.

I have received some rather odd email from members who are angry with me
about what I have said. One person said:

"AGSF is no secret! Everyone knew about the list forever!" and then
continues later to say "Thanks! Because you had to blab to all of AG
about us, our list was shut down!"

Why? If it wasn't a secret and everybody knew?

Also recall in my original declarative post which quoted what a member
of AGSF said: "Why wasn't this something that was discussed previous to
telling the world the list exists? I thought we all agreed this was

supposed to NOT exist in other a.g'ers eyes in the first place?"

And for those in AGSF who have hounded me for my actions in this manner,
I can only say: I'm not a part of your defunct group. I'm not bound by
obligation to you. Keep tabs on your own members and see that they
don't get out of line instead of holding people like myself and
X******** more accountable for our statements than your own people who
you say "do not speak for the whole of AGSF".

And face it, had you not become so cocky and sure of yourselves, your
precious little list would still be a secret. Else, how did I find out
about it?

As AGSF is comprised of over 100 people, I will not pretend that they
aren't going to always be there. Maybe they'll weed the bad out from
the good and get back to the task of spam-killer instead of
social-engineer.

And I did not 'destroy' your mailing list. Those members of your group
who you could not control destroyed your mailing list. I only provided
information to the newsgroup as it was provided to me. Once again, I am
not accountable for your group. I took no 'oath' and I hold no
obligation to anyone.

AGSF is supposed to be everyone. The list was simply for secure
communication about spammers. Somewhere, it deviated and became the
forum for discussion of 'problem children'. I was not the only one
being discussed in this manner.

And as further proof of their egalitarianism, they have harshly attacked
one of their own for talking behind their back to me, about them.
However, they seemed quite eager to talk about me to each other, behind
my back. Quite a display of hypocricy

For those who think that I am being 'oh so egotistical' to think that a
group of people like AGSF have nothing better to do than fuck around
with me, I offer another bit from one of their members (contributed with
permission):

"I felt that Cadfael had a right to know why we were slashing away at
him with fangs bared and mouths afoam. Those of you who have done so do
not speak for me...I do not feel that we are being fair to him..."

And for those who wish documentation on my statements, you are free to
email me and make such a request. I will provide my records of contact
with AGSF, with headers.

As for email addresses of those involved, I will NOT make those public.
My intentions are not to destroy AGSF but to see them weed out those who
use it as a tool for solving their personal disagreements and wars in
the public domain of AG.

I like what AGSF was supposed to be. I dislike what it's become.

Feel free to flame me or agree with me. I have made the information
available and I am through with this. Arguments are futile except to
disturb the usefulness of this group and I've seen enough dissention to
last a life-time. I have nothing to defend as my statements are
supported by documentation.

I did not wake up and decided to drive a steak into AGSF. I was brought
into this by the attacks of your members

Like a dirty old uncle, many of them seem to sodomize you and expect you
to see them only in a good light.

I'm through. I've said my piece. On to what AG is supposed to be
about: Anne's Breasts.

[zoe]

EmptyEyed1 wrote:
snippity

> BTW I'm surprised noone's commented on my new sig yet....
>
> ~Empty
>
> "Well, Damn the man!"
> Lucas, _Empire_Records_

WooHOO!
"Not on Rex Manning day!"

I really like that movie. Of course that may have someting to do with
the cute bald girl :)
(and yes I know she was the one in the Craft)

Zoe

[clay3young]

Some people take Usenet soooooo seriously. There are, I think, more
important things to get your knickers in a knot over than whether or not
a newsgroup has a secret cabal (I rather like the idea. Spooky.) and
whether or not they try to squeeze out the occasional spud.

Brother Cadfael wrote:

> And as further proof of their egalitarianism, they have harshly attacked
> one of their own for talking behind their back to me, about them.
> However, they seemed quite eager to talk about me to each other, behind
> my back. Quite a display of hypocricy

Please find a dictionary and look up "egalitarian".

>
> I did not wake up and decided to drive a steak into AGSF. I was brought
> into this by the attacks of your members
>

And while you're at it, look up "steak".

----Clay

[Raven]

Brother Cadfael <Brother...@earthcorp.com> wrote in article
<69hn0l$1v8...@news.ipns.com>...

> My final statements on this matter:
>
> I valued AGSF for the help lent in freeing us from spam. However it
> crossed it's boundaries when it tried to become a puppet-master and
> deciding for the rest of AG what should or shouldn't be.

OK hands up everybody who feels that the AGSF have influenced their way of
thinking and decided what they should be alowed to post. Wow that wasn't
very many hands was it. Or am I the only person who thinks that AGSF
doesn't directly control this group? Ah but wait, they are subtel and use
subliminal messages and mind control so we wouldn't know.

> I have received some rather odd email from members who are angry with me
> about what I have said. One person said:
>
> "AGSF is no secret! Everyone knew about the list forever!" and then
> continues later to say "Thanks! Because you had to blab to all of AG
> about us, our list was shut down!"
>
> Why? If it wasn't a secret and everybody knew?

Everybody knew that AGSF existed and many people knew that a mailing list
existed, what they didn't want was the entire population of a.g subscribing
to it, thus the semi secrecy. Or so I would guess, as I'm not a member

<BC rant about this and that snipped>

> Maybe they'll weed the bad out from
> the good and get back to the task of spam-killer instead of
> social-engineer.

Again where is this social-engineering aspect? I have been contacted once
by the AGSF after doing something very silly (I fed a troll), two people
sent me e-mails, which where short and polite telling me not to to do that,
I responded by sending back an appology. Is this social engineering? Where
they trying to controll my mind? That's not the way I see it, they were
simply keeping the newsgroup clean of trolls.
<even more BC rant snipped>
I know that I personally salute the work of the regular AGSF'ers and I'm
sure just about everybody else on the group does as well. Thanks to their
homepage I have started to learn the fine art of spam hunting, and Have
thanks to them racked up a few heads of my own.

And BC, I used to enjoy your posts many of them were good and some I even
found very thought provoking, put on this you have simply gone of the deep
end, well and truly. You've filliped my friend, try to get yourself the
right way up.

Raven
"vainly I had thought to borrow
From my books surcease of sorrow"
E.A Poe

[Albatross]

Raven wrote:

> OK hands up everybody who feels that the AGSF have influenced their way of
> thinking and decided what they should be alowed to post. Wow that wasn't
> very many hands was it. Or am I the only person who thinks that AGSF
> doesn't directly control this group? Ah but wait, they are subtel and use
> subliminal messages and mind control so we wouldn't know.

As I've said, several times,
alt.gothic is controlled by the Mother Goth Brain.
It lives in a hole in my back yard.
God, I can see that slab of ooze
pulsing obscenly out there right now. Its so much
more perverse in the rain.

Pretty soon itll be feeding time. *sigh*
Know what that means? Yep, break out the porno.
Mother Goth Brain Needs the Jism.

Albatross
Keeper of MoGB

[Mixy]

tee...@spamtrap.com wrote in message <69hfcb$mj7$1...@news.jumpnet.com>...

>Mixy <Mi...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>: Brother Cadfael wrote in message <69gcva$3i4...@news.ipns.com>...
>:>Since AGSF has decided to make me a prime target for their fucked up
>:>elitist attitudes, I'm going to be very blunt within this post and not
>:>afford them the privacy and secrecy their members have requested via
>:>email.
>:>
>
>: OK BC time to put a few things straight. Yes the AGSF list did exist and
I
>: was a part of that list. It was conceived as a low key organisation to
>: protect the gothic newsgroups from spam and bombings. You only became the
>
>And has degenerated to idle gossip of who we like and don't like.

Sadly there were a few discussions as to possible troublecausers and what to
do about disruptive newbies just before BC went on his tantrum spree but the
main objective of the list was always spamfighting.

>
>: topic of discussion after you advocated illegal tactics to be used
against
>: spammers and since several of the list members worked for ISPs they could
>: not be seen to be associated with you because they could lose their jobs.
>
>Get real. ISP employees will not be fired unless they do something illegal
>or otherwise unethical.

Such as using the companies resources for their own interests.

>
>Are you suggesting that this sort of thing DOES go on?
>
>And if it does, don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to complain when
>someone else advocates that activity?

Nothing illegal ever went on. AGSF didn't work that way and you know it.
Unlike certain people we had standards and morals.

>
>: The other reason it was kept secret was that it is simply easier to fight
>: the spam if you are organised. The front was kept up so that spammers
would
>: think it was the whole newsgroup (which is how it should be) who were
>: fighting the spam.
>
>It is never absolutely everyone fighting the spam. And if you don't think
>people like Territickle already have a shit-list, you're sadly mistaken.

To a clueless spammer it would have looked that way. Maybe not everyone but
a large %age of the newsgroup. Yes, they already have their shitlists but
not all of AGSF were on them and there were people she hated that were not
on the AGSF mailing list.

>
>:>And although one person threw themselves on the grenade and 'fessed up
>:>to the mailing list and fellow AGSF members, I assure the entire AGSF
>:>group-- He is not the only one who has revealed you. There are at least
>:>two others who have contacted me thus far.
>
>So NYEAH!!! Pleasant dreams.
>

These are the idiots who put their own interests before those of the
newsgroup.

>:>And for those who have been so kind as to keep me in touch with the
>:>situations: I'm sorry if I have betrayed your trust in this post, but I
>:>feel that my fellow-posters have a right to know what I know. They are
>:>a part of this group.
>
>: Posting of private email is extremely bad netiquette as you well know.
You
>: are doing irreperable harm to the newsgroup over this to satisfy your own
>: rampant ego.
>
>I handed it off to him. Admittedly, I did it while incredibly pissed off
>at Albatross, but I STILL feel that Cadfael had a right to know he was
>under discussion, and by whom.

You should have discussed it with the list first. Now because of your
actions there is no list and AGSF is a much reduced force.

>
>:>First, AGSF does exist. They proclaim that they wish to keep a low
>:>profile because it's easier to fight spam and trolls. Perhaps.
>
>: Not prehaps - TRUE. See my statements above.
>
>That was the stated purpose, and it WAS true. But the list became a gossip
>column.

Only in the last few days because certain people were advocating illegal
tactics.

>
>:>But they also have a mailing list. And who has recently been discussed
>:>on that mailing list? Why me, of course. And not very nice things
>:>either. Yes, some of the members have defended me for whatever reason
>:>they saw fit. Some have even risked their membership by doing such and
>:>letting me in on their little groups activities.
>
>: You were discussed because you were acting like a rampant vigilante and
>: bringing everyone else into disrepute. You were discussed simply because
we
>: wanted to calm you down, politely warn you of the situation and to stop
you
>
>The posts I saw were far from polite.

The posts were by individuals and not by the list. We discussed warning him
and a couple of the members tried to have a meaningful dialogue with him
without revealing the existance of the list. You saw fit to blab to him
without any thought for the consequencies.

>
>: True. There was a list. Now because of your actions and those of someone
who
>: should never have been on the list in the first place it is no more and
ag
>: is once again at the mercy of the spammers. There is such a thing as the
>
>This is total bullshit. I am still here, and do not intend to let spammers
>take over the newsgroup. I assume you will still do the same.

But a lot of the organisation we had is gone. There is no way for us to work
together now. It is all your fault (along with the other Judas's in the
group).

>
>This newsgroup is by no means open now to spammers, just because a list
>has died. If it was, it wouldn't deserve to exist, anyway.
>

But it is now a lot more vunerable.

>: common good. The list was there to protect it but certain people are
>: egotistical and selfish enough to put themselves first.
>
>Such as?
>

Look in the mirror. I won't name any names as at least I have a bit of
decency in me.

>:>"I thought we all agreed this list was supposed to NOT exist in other
>:>a.g'ers eyes in the first place?"
>
>: That again is true. Why should that be a problem. All the AG readers
would
>: ever notice is a dramamtic reduction in the amount of spam.
>
>MOSTLY bullshit. Again, it is not open season for spammers just yet.

No but soon.

>
>: OH god, AGSF is the CIA. The only effect we had on the newsgroup was to
>
>Funny you should mention that.... Some people were most definitely
>treating it as a Star Chamber of sorts.

2 individuals (who advocated illegal tactics) and the flood of clueless
newbies were discussed. No action was ever taken to stop anybody. Hardly the
CIA now is it.

>
>: reduce the spam and kill spammers accounts as well as putting up websites
to
>: teach others how to do that. You were only discussed because you were
acting
>: like a prick and something needed to be done about you before you did any
>: real damage. YOU were the one who advocated mailbombing, we only did as
much
>: as we could to disassociate ourselves from you since we stay well within
the
>: law and bounds of netiquette.
>
>You do not discuss what to do with a prick on an anti-spam list. You
>discuss what to do with spammers.

But if the prick is advocating mailbombing bringing himself and the
perceived AGSF into disrepute? Even then his ISP was not contacted because
that would have been taking things too far. A friendly word was all that was
needed but you and several other people had to go that much further the
other way.

>
>If you stay well within the law and bounds of netiquette, the ISP
>employees you mentioned earlier have nothing to fear, yes?

No, see my point above.

>
>:>And it seems that a handful of its members have become upset with the
>:>turn that AGSF has taken. Once a group of do-gooders who kept us free
>:>of spam and trolls, it has taken the form of thought-police and their
>:>mailing list has become less of a 'spam killer' discussion and more a
>:>discussion of many of us who *they* find annoying. Am I the only one
>:>being discussed? Certainly not. Oh no, not by a long shot.
>
>: No, there was ONE other who also advocated mailbombing who was discussed.
>
>I'm sorry, when did EmptyEyes discuss mailbombing? I must have missed
>that.

In the thread "spamfighting ideas" or something like that he/she/it openly
suggested mailbombing spammers. Shows how closely you read the group.

>
>: That is a long shot? Included in that discussion was points about whether
>: newbies should be sent a copy of the FAQ and a "welcome to ag - points to
>: note" letter to prevent the war zone that ag has become at times due to
>: clueless newbies. Hardly "thought-police".
>
>I often think lately that the problem is less 'clueless newbies', and more
>'arrogant old-timers'.

no, it is clueless newbies who come charging in asking "what is goth" and
cause all sorts of flamewars. A simple welcoming letter sent to any newbie
and posted every week would be enough to stop major flamewars from ever
starting and would lead to more old-timers.

>
>Lately, it seems that every newbie that drifts in here is 'clueless'. For
>me, that says more about the people applying the label, and their
>inability to make allowances for gradual adjustment to the newsgroup.

They are clueless because most of them are on aol or webtv and do not know
the rules of netiquette and there is no pressure to read them. The idea
above would simply point the groundrules (which are there for EVERYBODY'S
good) and make for a smoother running newsgroup. Discussion of this in your
eyes though is plotting against the group and shouldn't be allowed. Get
real.

>
>:>"Talk of this user or that user, simply because they are mildly
>:>disruptive or do not conform to *our* desires and what we should do
>:>about it has been rampant recently. This is not what AGSF and its list
>:>was created for. It is certainly not what I joined them for."
>:>
>:>"And now, there is perhaps a different, much harder, level of damage
>:>control to be done."
>:>
>:>"I think it's high time we shut down the list, as per previous
>:>discussions..."
>
>: Quotes taken out of context to suit your meaning.
>
>One of those quotes is mine, pal. It's in PERFECT context.
>

Did you ever bother to read any of the replies? Most people agreed with you
but you still had to turn everyone against you and trash the list becuase it
didn't suit you.

>: And because of your "right to know" some of them stand to lose their
jobs.
>
>Why? What specifically will cause them to lose their jobs?

USING THEIR COMPANY RESOURCES FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES> IT WAS STATED SEVERAL
TIMES IN LETTERS FROM THE LIST. Did it get through that time?

>
>: Get things straight - the AGSF list existed to fight spam and to ensure
the
>: smooth running of AG. We never advocated or took action against any
member
>: of the group, only against spammers. The furthest we would ever go was a
>: polite email from one of the list members pointing out to someone the
error
>: of their ways. It was a good thing. Now because you feel put out it is at
an
>: end and you (and your snitches) will be to blame for the rampant rise in
>: spam to hit the newsgroups. I do not see why I should have to waste my
time
>: fighting spam when idiots act the way you do to satisfy their own petty
>: egos.
>
>You don't want to fight spam, fine. Don't blame us if you don't want to
>put in the effort anymore. But I think you'll probably find that without
>the list, it's pretty much business as usual.

I think not. Without the organisation of the list and the resources of
several members of that list there will be a marked increase in the spam on
ag. I'll still fight spam but not so much on ag, more in the groups I enjoy
more.

>
>: You also need to apologise to the whole newsgroup for spoiling it for
them.
>
>I see a newsgroup that runs quite well, and apart from this thread doesn't
>even seem to notice the list's absence.

Yet. It was only shut down yesterday. Maybe that was the whole point that
the newsgroup never noticed the lists's existance but given time the spam
will come flooding back.

>
>:>AGSF could be a strong and reliable force if they stick to spam and
>:>trolls and stay out of personal attacks and the interactions of posters
>:>in general. They are not alt.gothic. They are a group of people who
>:>banded together for what was once a common cause, but that that does not
>:>*make* them the entirety of what alt.gothic stands for, should be, or
>:>was.
>
>: It never was. It is too late now as through your rash irresponsible
actions
>: (and those of a certain list member) it is over. As I said before, you
were
>: discussed because you were a troll yourself and were bringing the
perceived
>: AGSF (ie the whole newsgroup) into disrepute.
>
>Blah. What is and isn't a troll is a subjective decision, and I for one
>don't agree with you that he's a troll. He's tried to engage in
>discussions, with a certain amount of success, and that makes him NOT a
>troll in my book.

He suggested illegal activities. That makes him a troll in my book but not
one worthy of getting his account shut off. All that was suggested was a
friendly talking to pointing out the error of his ways.

>
>As far as I am concerned, the vague definition of 'troll' potentially
>makes trolls an inappropriate discussion for the list as well, since it
>basically began to boil down to troll=people who annoy us.

No, the only people ever discussed were those two who suggested mailbombing
as a spamfighting tactic.

>
>:>I am contemplating whether or not I should release the names and email
>:>addresses of those who are in AGSF and especially those on its mailing
>:>list.
>
>: Go ahead. Some of them may well lose their jobs. After all, they are
guilty
>
>Why?
>
>: of the most heinous crime of spamfighting and the lesser charge of trying
to
>: protect the newsgroup from idiots such as yourself.
>
>He has a far from complete list. The only names he has, as far as I know,
>are the names of those who discussed him.

Well needless to say you supplied him with the rest.

>
>: As none of the group ever wanted to damage you, just to inform you that
in
>: order for agsf to exist they must stay within the law, something you did
not
>: agree with. They could easily have forwarded your posts to your ISP but
they
>: chose the right path and instead tried to warn you through email and
>: newsgroup posts.
>
>His posts held very little legal water. You know that. You'd have stood an
>OUTSIDE chance of getting him bumped off.
>

Yes but what about the clueless who saw his posts and decided that
mailbombing was a good idea?

>: Rough translation "I want all the list members to come begging to me not
to
>: reveal them so I can have a big ego trip watching them grovel."
>
>Actually, given the chance to blackmail, he threw it away, making the
>list's presence known when he could have jerked it around instead.

He should never have known about the list in the first place but idiots like
you made sure he did.

[tee...@spamtrap.com]

Mixy <Mi...@gte.net> wrote:

: None taken. By the way, the list was never kept secret as there have been

: multiple majordomo and cc: lists (it even says so on the a.g.s-f pages, if
: anyone cares to look), and really it would be a surprise if there weren't.

Eh? Okay, everybody who wasn't on the list but knew about it anyway, raise
your hands....

And I guess those who are upset with me for confirming its existence can
just lay off now, eh?

: Sadly there won't be any healing as the list is now defunct. There will just

: be a mass of spamming. I for one am not going to bother wasting my time
: protecting AG any more, rather concentrating my efforts on groups that
: actually appreciate it.

Ah, well. You know where the door is.

It's good to find out now that you don't care unless you have a secret
club. Sure would have hated to wait until we actually needed you to find
out.

[Mixy]

tee...@spamtrap.com wrote in message <69hrmu$q5k$1...@news.jumpnet.com>...

>Mixy <Mi...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>: None taken. By the way, the list was never kept secret as there have been
>: multiple majordomo and cc: lists (it even says so on the a.g.s-f pages,
if
>: anyone cares to look), and really it would be a surprise if there
weren't.
>
>Eh? Okay, everybody who wasn't on the list but knew about it anyway, raise
>your hands....
>

Several people judging by the responses to this thread. Egg meet Teekem's
face. teekem's face meet egg.

>And I guess those who are upset with me for confirming its existence can
>just lay off now, eh?

No, you did wrong. You deserve a good flaming (I'd say spanking but you'd
probably enjoy it too much).

>
>: Sadly there won't be any healing as the list is now defunct. There will
just
>: be a mass of spamming. I for one am not going to bother wasting my time
>: protecting AG any more, rather concentrating my efforts on groups that
>: actually appreciate it.
>
>Ah, well. You know where the door is.

I didn't say I was leaving, just that I'll be devoting my time spent
spamfighting to the other gothic groups.

>
>It's good to find out now that you don't care unless you have a secret
>club. Sure would have hated to wait until we actually needed you to find
>out.

Oh I do care. I'd just rather spend the 3 hours or so a day I do on the net
protecting people who aren't gonna throw it back in my face. Sorry to all
those on ag who mailed me and said they do appreciate it but it's the few
bad apples that have spoiled it for the whole bunch.

[EmptyEyed1]

> As I've said, several times,
> alt.gothic is controlled by the Mother Goth Brain.
> It lives in a hole in my back yard.
> God, I can see that slab of ooze
> pulsing obscenly out there right now. Its so much
> more perverse in the rain.
>
> Pretty soon itll be feeding time. *sigh*
> Know what that means? Yep, break out the porno.
> Mother Goth Brain Needs the Jism.
>
>
> Albatross
> Keeper of MoGB
>

To quote Coil, "Love's Secret Domain",

"Thou art sick"

~Empty, who just might be taking this quote attribution thingie a wee bit too
far...

[Mixy]

Brother Cadfael wrote in message <69hn0l$1v8...@news.ipns.com>...

>My final statements on this matter:

Rough translation - "I'm being made to look like the idiot I am so I'll run
and hide now"

>
>I valued AGSF for the help lent in freeing us from spam. However it
>crossed it's boundaries when it tried to become a puppet-master and
>deciding for the rest of AG what should or shouldn't be.

It never did. You were just upset that they were talking about you
(deservedly) behind your back. If you hadn't had suggested mailbombing it
would never have happened. Stop shifting the blame away from yourself.

>
>I am prepared for onslaught by those in AGSF who will strongly affirm
>that they have never even approached what I and others claim. I also am
>prepared for them to completely avoid concerning themselves with this.
>

>I have received some rather odd email from members who are angry with me
>about what I have said. One person said:
>
>"AGSF is no secret! Everyone knew about the list forever!" and then
>continues later to say "Thanks! Because you had to blab to all of AG
>about us, our list was shut down!"
>
>Why? If it wasn't a secret and everybody knew?

Everybody knew of the existance of the list. They just didn't know who was
on it and what the name of it was. It was shut down because certain members
informed a certain idiot whose actions bordered on the illegal that he was
being discussed because people might think what he was suggesting was a good
idea.

>
>Also recall in my original declarative post which quoted what a member
>of AGSF said: "Why wasn't this something that was discussed previous to

>telling the world the list exists? I thought we all agreed this was

>supposed to NOT exist in other a.g'ers eyes in the first place?"

That was more for the eyes of spammers than the group.

>
>And for those in AGSF who have hounded me for my actions in this manner,
>I can only say: I'm not a part of your defunct group. I'm not bound by
>obligation to you. Keep tabs on your own members and see that they
>don't get out of line instead of holding people like myself and
>X******** more accountable for our statements than your own people who
>you say "do not speak for the whole of AGSF".

We will deal with them in time. You were the one that chose to announce the
existance of the list though and it is ultimately you who brought around its
demise. Therefore any increase in spam on ag due to the reduction in
effectiveness of AGSF is totally down to you. If I was in your position I
would leave (as you already said you were doing) and never come back but you
see that is part of how usenet works. I (or any other member of AGSF) cannot
stop you posting here. If you suggest mailbombing as a tactic we could of
course forward that to your ISP but instead AGSF chose to warn you first to
stop you making that mistake. Next time your account is toast as you do not
deserve any such consideration given your recent actions.

>
>And face it, had you not become so cocky and sure of yourselves, your
>precious little list would still be a secret. Else, how did I find out
>about it?

You found out about it because certain people who were untrustworthy enough
never to have been allowed on the list in the first place decided to blab
straight to you instead of discussing their problems with the list. They got
on their moral high ground and all it did was reduce the effective fighting
power of agsf, make themselves look stupid and cause all sorts of bad
feeling.

>
>As AGSF is comprised of over 100 people, I will not pretend that they

>aren't going to always be there. Maybe they'll weed the bad out from

>the good and get back to the task of spam-killer instead of
>social-engineer.

They never were social engineers. They did discuss two potential idiots who
advocated illegal activities and also the possibility of a welcome letter
for clueless newbies to ease their integration into the group. Hardly
running the group now is it?

>
>And I did not 'destroy' your mailing list. Those members of your group
>who you could not control destroyed your mailing list. I only provided
>information to the newsgroup as it was provided to me. Once again, I am
>not accountable for your group. I took no 'oath' and I hold no
>obligation to anyone.

You were the one who chose to post it to usenet therefore you are VERY
responsible. Your last statement smacks of the nazi defence of "I was only
following orders".

>
>AGSF is supposed to be everyone. The list was simply for secure
>communication about spammers. Somewhere, it deviated and became the
>forum for discussion of 'problem children'. I was not the only one
>being discussed in this manner.

No, there was one other (Emptyeyes) who also posted saying mailbombing was a
good idea. "Problem child" is a very apt description in light of your recent
tantrums.

>
>And as further proof of their egalitarianism, they have harshly attacked
>one of their own for talking behind their back to me, about them.
>However, they seemed quite eager to talk about me to each other, behind
>my back. Quite a display of hypocricy

Yes and they deserved it for breaking the security of the list. We discussed
how best to help you by stopping you getting yourself into trouble. We could
quite easily have got your account nuked but we didn't instead choosing to
try and help you. Certain members had their own problems with you but then
so do a lot of the newsgroup.

>
>For those who think that I am being 'oh so egotistical' to think that a
>group of people like AGSF have nothing better to do than fuck around
>with me, I offer another bit from one of their members (contributed with
>permission):
>
>"I felt that Cadfael had a right to know why we were slashing away at
>him with fangs bared and mouths afoam. Those of you who have done so do
>not speak for me...I do not feel that we are being fair to him..."

This from the person that said (contributed without permission)

"Unsubscribe me from the fucking list. I'll see you jokers on the
newsgroup. All further mail to me concerning this matter will be forwarded
to Usenet.
I am too pissed off to even want to discuss it."

>
>And for those who wish documentation on my statements, you are free to
>email me and make such a request. I will provide my records of contact
>with AGSF, with headers.

As I will do just to prove he is seeing only what he wants to see.

>
>As for email addresses of those involved, I will NOT make those public.
>My intentions are not to destroy AGSF but to see them weed out those who
>use it as a tool for solving their personal disagreements and wars in
>the public domain of AG.

Too late. The list is defunct and it's all your fault.

>
>I like what AGSF was supposed to be. I dislike what it's become.

You don't know what it's become. You were just upset becuse they said some
bad things about you (deservedly). You brought it on yourself.

>
>Feel free to flame me or agree with me. I have made the information
>available and I am through with this. Arguments are futile except to
>disturb the usefulness of this group and I've seen enough dissention to
>last a life-time. I have nothing to defend as my statements are
>supported by documentation.

Well I have documentation that proves you wrong. You have plenty to defend
but you are choosing the cowards way out by refusing to discuss it.

>
>I did not wake up and decided to drive a steak into AGSF. I was brought
>into this by the attacks of your members

But you had the option of keeping the secrecy of the list intact which you
chose to ignore.

>
>Like a dirty old uncle, many of them seem to sodomize you and expect you
>to see them only in a good light.
>

AGSF never did anything to hurt you, only to try and stop you making an
idiot of yourself through polite discussion.

To quote some members of the list:

"I'm already talking to Brother Cadfael, and have been for some time; I had
words with him regarding the dangers of talking about any illegal activity
he may be involved in. He is going to be more careful now. I am continuing
this discussion with him, with regard to details. It should all be taken
care of soon. "

or:

"Outside of me, and thats strictly personal, who was slashing away at him
with fangs bared? It certainly was nothing instituted or condoned by this
list. So far as I know, there has never been a question of this list being
adversarial with Bro C, or any other poster on a.g. "

or:

"If you're referring to me being nasty, that had nothing to do with this
list.I just
don't like the fucker."

>I'm through. I've said my piece. On to what AG is supposed to be
>about: Anne's Breasts.
>

Showing your true colours. I used to have a lot of respect for you. Now I'm
thinking about going to C4 just to see the fallout from this.

[EmptyEyed1]

As per usual, I'll be throwing my two bits in on this one, unasked, uncensored
and (hopefully but doubtfully) unflamed.

Well.

This whole situation, although slightly amusing after the "We're not elitists"
posts, has become tiresome.

I am all for an organisation working in the interests of protecting this NG
from spam. Spam is evil- I think all present can attest and agree to that.

The problem is the definition of spam. Is spam merely people trying to make a
quick buck on the internet? IMHO, that is what the definition of spam is. Or
should be. Whatever.

The problem arises when the "Spam Canopy"(patent pending) is extended over
trolls and assholes.

Trolls WILL leave if they go unanswered- hence the phrase "Feed not the
trolls". Trolling is done for response, as a negative attention getting device.
If they aren't getting any attention, they starve.

Assholes(like yours truly, for example), are somewhat intolerable. Yes, we
disagree with many of you. Yes, we may even bicker upon occassion. But the main
difference is that I, Brother Cadfael, and many other "assholes" on this NG are
NOT here solely for the limited joys of being assholes. We are here to be with
our peers. Perhaps we might argue, but then again (glaring generalization time)
most goths I know thrive on conflict.

I admit, this AGSF thing is a good idea- provided the spam canopy stays over
the heads of those that deserve it, i.e. the advertisers and UBE'ers. The
frightening thing is that this organisation exists in semi-secret(or did,
assuming it really IS defunct). I have visited the AGSF Wall Of Pikes. Cute.
Stylish. But downright frightening.

I read an interview once (Margot Adler, _Drawing_Down_The_Moon_) with a high
priestess in a wiccan coven in Salem Massachusetts. I really doubt I have to
explain Salem's signifigance to this crowd. Anyways, the interview took place
in a cafe chock full of Salem residents. When Adler expressed her dismay at the
loud voice the priestess was speaking in, saying something along the lines of
"Shouldn't you be a little quieter? This _IS_ Salem...".

The priestess replied "Hell no- it was secrets that made people suspicious in
the first place."

Secrets... or "low-key organisations".... Why be secret or low-key if you are
doing nothing morally reprehensible or illegal? IS it a Good-Ole_Boys network?
I hope it was/is merely a desire to be a part of something secret. I truly do.

IMHO, a SPAM-fighting organisation would do better if it was well known- word
would spread amongst the spam. Company-to-company memos would read "Spam thee
not in alt.gothic, for that place is surely death"(well, maybe they might
phrase it a bit differently).

If, however, there are immoral, unethical, or downright illegal activities
going on in the ranks of this organisation, then it should be disbanded. The
governments(primarily mine it shames me to admit) are already trying hard to
get their beaurocratic little claws into the internet as it is- We should not
give them any more ammo to use against us.

If, on the other hand, AGSF is truly a legal and moral group, then I do hereby
submit my draft card. I stand against spam. Advertising should stay where it is
welcome. If we don't want to allow the governments to police us on what may be
the last truly free source of international communication we have, then we
needs must police ourselves.

Anything else would be ridiculous.

In summary, long live alt.gothic. The people make this place what it is, and I
for one would protect it from the government and the companies in any way that
does not compromise my morals and ethics.

~Empty.

[EmptyEyed1]

Mixy said

>No, the only people ever discussed were those two who suggested mailbombing
>as a spamfighting tactic.

FYI, the mailbomb suggestion I made was in complete jest....

[-=Xandraius=-]

Brother Cadfael wrote:

> And for those in AGSF who have hounded me for my actions in this manner,
> I can only say: I'm not a part of your defunct group. I'm not bound by
> obligation to you. Keep tabs on your own members and see that they
> don't get out of line instead of holding people like myself and
> X******** more accountable for our statements than your own people who
> you say "do not speak for the whole of AGSF".

Don't. Do not even go there. Do not even look at the travel brochure.
Really cute of you, BC. I'm the ONLY FUCKING PERSON here with a handle
starting with an
'X' and running out that many characters, so to 'protect identity', you go
all 'Harriet the Spy'. Tell you what, you don't drop my name in
conversation, and I won't drop yours. If anyone was talking about me, well,
that's their perogative. If they take exception to something about me, well,
that too is their perogative. Once words leave my keyboard
and enter the NG, they are pretty much fair game. Oh 'wah-fucking' well, no
big damn
deal. Others have been here for quite a while, and they feel protective of
their social
stomping ground. Again, so what? They WERE here first, which does give them
more
legitimacy (sp) in terms of keeping watch. Lemme give you one last statement
in two parts: 1) AGS-F's nature is no mystery. I believe that the FAQ, which
has been spread like a cloudburst, states the following: "We are facist
net.cops, deal!". How much more
obvious can you be?
2)
GOat
*PLONK!*
-=X*******=-

[Giolla Decair]

previously EmptyEyed1 may have written article <19980114114...@ladder01.news.aol.com> saying:
[snip]

>The problem is the definition of spam. Is spam merely people trying to make a
>quick buck on the internet? IMHO, that is what the definition of spam is. Or
>should be. Whatever.

Spam has a technical definition, spam is any article which is
substantively similair that exceeds 20 on the breidbart index, most
isp's use this definition of SPAM/Veleveeta.
have a look at http://spam.abuse.net
or read news.admin.net-abuse.usenet

>The problem arises when the "Spam Canopy"(patent pending) is extended over
>trolls and assholes.

that wouldn't be spam.

[snip]

>Secrets... or "low-key organisations".... Why be secret or low-key if you are
>doing nothing morally reprehensible or illegal? IS it a Good-Ole_Boys network?
>I hope it was/is merely a desire to be a part of something secret. I truly do.

Two words "mail bombs". oh and "denial of service attacks", people who
are publily fighting spam do have a rtemarkable tendancy to experience
such delights first hand, especially where terri tickle was concerned.
They also get thir names added delibrately to UCE lists.

make a few posts to any of the news.admin.net-abuse groups and you
will see an increase in the amount of junk mail you receive.

[snip]
--
Giolla Decair ____
"Broken inside now our hearts lost forever \ _/__
Can't replace the fear or the thrill of the chase" \X /
"You can hide hide hide behind paranoid eyes" \/

[ka...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca]

Kirckjerck (kirck...@aol.com) wrote:
: I guess that AGSF stands for ALT.GOTH.STRIKE.FORCE? Wow, thats nutty as a

: snickers bar, but absolutley cool. Its good to think that this elite force is
: secretly protecting the goth sites. I think that a mathematician could prove
: the Theorem that if you get a certain critical mass of pitch clad types
: together, secret societies inevitably and spontaneously form.

Partly true; however, AGSF was not the list (although, the list was part
of AGSF.)

That must be remembered.

*YOU* (that means all of you) are still as responsible for keeping this
newsgroup clean from spam and bin-bombers as you always thought you were.

: One complaint though, as much as I enjoyed learning of your protective coven,

: it would have been better if it was just hinted at instead of blabbed about. It
: loses some of its ominous character when brother clodful lays it all out.

Somewhat true... "public" awareness of it makes it self-destructive to
it's goal - it was *not* AGSF, but rather an organized aspect of it.
Making people aware of it risked creating the idea that it was the "true"
AGSF, which defeats both the purpose of the list *and* that of AGSF.

: Try harder to loom. By responding to his post you further subtract from the
: enigma.

It's dead already. Otherwise, I wouldn't even be discussing it. But lets
try not to let the betrayals (both those that the list was responsible
for, and that which killed it) destroy the actual AGSF. Which is still
what it always claimed to be.

--
Randomness is not hypocrisy, if done with honesty.
In chaos, all is possible.

[Marcus Pan]

tee...@spamtrap.com wrote:
> And I guess those who are upset with me for confirming its existence can
> just lay off now, eh?

In your dreams, fucker.

[Marcus Pan]

Brother Cadfael wrote:
> And I did not 'destroy' your mailing list. Those members of your group
> who you could not control destroyed your mailing list. I only provided
> information to the newsgroup as it was provided to me. Once again, I am
> not accountable for your group. I took no 'oath' and I hold no
> obligation to anyone.

And now you never will have an obligation to anyone becuase you've shown
the trust you're capable of, haven't you? Hmm? Thanks for taking your
mask off. :)

[Marcus Pan]

Mixy wrote:
> Showing your true colours. I used to have a lot of respect for you. Now I'm
> thinking about going to C4 just to see the fallout from this.

There will be no fallout at C4. If ANYONE wants to get physical and
harm the event that people such as Leanan, Sheryl, Siobhan, Sue & Gregg
have worked ALL YEAR and SO HARD on, I will personally stick my size
twelve military issue tanker bot deep enough up your ass you'll be
buying stock in Depends underwear for the reast of your fucking life.

'Nuff said.

[Overlord of Darkness]

clay3young (clay3...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: > I did not wake up and decided to drive a steak into AGSF. I was brought

: > into this by the attacks of your members

:
: And while you're at it, look up "steak".

OH NO!!! Brother Cadfael plans to eat all of us! I guess the steak is
meant to be the chewy center or something... his true cannibalistic nature
is revealed! Hold onto your orifices, folks, lest they become passageways
for Brother Cadfael's hot teriyaki sauce!.. and guys, hide your penii,
lest they become soft and tender appetizers, stuffed with dressing, and
caked in guacamole dip!

BC has a bottle of barbecue sauce and a cauldron of boiling water for each
and every one of us! Not even our rock-hard outer shells will save us from
BC's ovens o' doom! Run away! Hide!

Quick! everyone must bath in cheap American beer! Cover yourselves in
soggy pork rinds! Make yourselves as unappetizing as possible! Save
yourselves from BC's cannibal holocaust!

This stern warning/rant brought to you as a public service by:

Rat Bastard
--
__/|_|\________Rat Bastard, Feline Overlord of Darkness at WFU________/|_|\__
\x x/ _____________________________________________ \x x/
/\Y/\ |"On the mezzanine I watch the old man scream,| /\Y/\
=^^===^^==== |Like cats ripping doves apart wing by wing." | ======^^===^^=
|__| -Thought Industry|__|

[Anne]

worse."
>
> Learn The Lesson of the Lily Tree:
>
> To let the "healing begin", it is better to just be silent and let the
> storm blow over. A boisterous defensive posture gets you nowhere.
>

Why yes Ron,
Nice point....
I was going to say something to that effect recently but decieded
against it at the time as much was going on....
But I must say that I do think that Miss Lily may now drop the Silly
from her name....
She has indeed wound up being of worth....and I enjoy the side she now
shows us much more....
It should be noted by all lurkers who are considering uncloaking, that a
little polite consideration of others will get you a long long
way...while rudeness and animosity may garner you numerous threads with
your name in them(Usually in a less than complimentary way) but it will
most certainly do nothing but bring those of us who respect eachother
(even those of us with differences)closer together to scour the likes of
you from our midst.
Love,
Anne
(Who is rather fond of A.G.S.F.:)
> ][

[Jillian Venters]

In article <34BC7F...@drizzle.com>, tpa...@drizzle.com wrote:

> Raven wrote:
>
> Or am I the only person who thinks that AGSF
> > doesn't directly control this group? Ah but wait, they are subtel and use
> > subliminal messages and mind control so we wouldn't know.
>

> As I've said, several times,
> alt.gothic is controlled by the Mother Goth Brain.

which has no connection to the Orbital Perkygoth MindControl Lasers.

It's just a coincindence that the MoGB and the control panel for the OPMCL
system are both in Seattle. <nods knowingly> Yep, a coincidence.

> It lives in a hole in my back yard.
> God, I can see that slab of ooze
> pulsing obscenly out there right now. Its so much
> more perverse in the rain.

we just get blinky lights. And switches. Nothing pulsing obscenely.

>
> Pretty soon itll be feeding time. *sigh*
> Know what that means? Yep, break out the porno.
> Mother Goth Brain Needs the Jism.

eww. we don't have to do that for the control panels, either. Bird boy,
are you sure that was in the "Care and Feeding of your MoGB" pamphlet?

>
> Albatross
> Keeper of MoGB

and remember gang! Wrapping your head in tinfoil *doesn't* actually
deflect the OPMCL rays! It just ensures your brain steams to a nice
doneness. So, no wrapping your head in tinfoil, unless you add some
garlic and basil first. :)

-Jilli

--
"Gracious pet, I'm a supernatural being"
-the Phouka, _War for the Oaks_

*I'm not speaking for WotC*

[Ron Cecchini]

p...@idt.net wrote:

> I will personally stick my size twelve

"Marcus has a big 12 inch. Oh yaaah!"

(yeah, riiiiiiiiiiiight...)

(not that I would know...)

> military issue tanker bot

'bot?

"Iceberg ahead, Thrall! Iceberg ahead! Thrall, you fucking idiot!
There's an iceberg! Don't you hear me? Thrall, you suck!"

"Yeah, but at least I don't use teeth like <some people>..."

> deep enough up your ass you'll be buying stock in Depends underwear

What...?
You mean not everyone wears Depends for... fun...?

][

[EmptyEyed1]

>There will be no fallout at C4. If ANYONE wants to get physical and
>harm the event that people such as Leanan, Sheryl, Siobhan, Sue & Gregg
>have worked ALL YEAR and SO HARD on, I will personally stick my size
>twelve military issue tanker bot deep enough up your ass you'll be
>buying stock in Depends underwear for the reast of your fucking life.
>
>'Nuff said.
>
>--
>-----=====>Papa-PAN<=====----- http://www.zenweb.com/pan

I stand by Monsieur Pan on this one.

I don't have the tanker boots though.... Size 12 steeltoe Cats close enough?

[Marcus Pan]

Ron Cecchini wrote:
> "Marcus has a big 12 inch. Oh yaaah!"
>
> (yeah, riiiiiiiiiiiight...)
>
> (not that I would know...)

Umm...<snicker>

> 'bot?

Yeah, yeah. I caught that typo after I posted it too. :)

> "Iceberg ahead, Thrall! Iceberg ahead! Thrall, you fucking idiot!
> There's an iceberg! Don't you hear me? Thrall, you suck!"
>
> "Yeah, but at least I don't use teeth like <some people>..."

BWAHAHA! I just visited #altgothic today. Thrall rawks...no
questions. He's the only bot I know with so much damn style. :)

> What...?
> You mean not everyone wears Depends for... fun...?

Well, some do, but now they'll have to wear it for necessity. ;)

--
-----=====>Papa-PAN<=====----- http://www.zenweb.com/pan

[Marcus Pan]

EmptyEyed1 wrote:
> I stand by Monsieur Pan on this one.
>
> I don't have the tanker boots though.... Size 12 steeltoe Cats close enough?

Sure 'nuff! :) And if you do good on your NGD assignment, I might just
LET you stand near me. <big 'ol pretentious huffy smile> ;)

[Mixy]

Marcus Pan wrote in message <34BCD9...@idt.net>...

>Mixy wrote:
>> Showing your true colours. I used to have a lot of respect for you. Now
I'm
>> thinking about going to C4 just to see the fallout from this.
>

>There will be no fallout at C4. If ANYONE wants to get physical and
>harm the event that people such as Leanan, Sheryl, Siobhan, Sue & Gregg
>have worked ALL YEAR and SO HARD on, I will personally stick my size
>twelve military issue tanker bot deep enough up your ass you'll be
>buying stock in Depends underwear for the reast of your fucking life.

Who mentioned anything getting physical? I would go just to see BC sitting
alone in the corner because nobody (except his snitches) will talk to him.
The man cannot be trusted, simple as that. Of course if he starts anything
violent it will quickly be stopped as I have a 3rd Dan blackbelt in Karaoke
and my rendition of "New York New York" would stop a charging angrygoth at
40 paces.

[Brother Cadfael]

evan...@wfu.edu (Overlord of Darkness) wrote:

|Quick! everyone must bath in cheap American beer! Cover yourselves in
|soggy pork rinds! Make yourselves as unappetizing as possible! Save
|yourselves from BC's cannibal holocaust!

Hey, not all American beer is cheap.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brother...@earthcorp.com
http://home.fia.net/~cadfael/
ICQ: 6474437

[Leonora the KittenLady]

In The Year Of Our Lord Wed, 14 Jan 1998 10:28:40 -0500, Marcus Pan
<p...@idt.net> Dared To Write:

>Mixy wrote:
>> Showing your true colours. I used to have a lot of respect for you. Now I'm
>> thinking about going to C4 just to see the fallout from this.
>

>There will be no fallout at C4.

right because he won't be going. and if i find out he is, please tell
me how it went because i will not be there. i have a bad temper but i
refuse to ruin the event for the lovely people who organized it.

-Leonora (Mistress of All Evil & Goddess Material :)
--
OfficialCDWhorePigCarryingKittenLadyWenchGoth |Don't Hate Me |
oftheNYRangers & the Alt.Gothic.Crown.Princess | Just Because |
http://www.geocities.com/~tonygirl/goffhockey/ | *You're* |
Be Aware Of The Choices Within Your Grasp-Covenant| Flammable |

[ka...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca]

Mixy (Mi...@gte.net) wrote:

: Ron Cecchini wrote in message ...
(Snip)
: >Learn The Lesson of the Lily Tree:

: >
: >To let the "healing begin", it is better to just be silent and let the
: >storm blow over. A boisterous defensive posture gets you nowhere.

Full agreement there.

: Sadly there won't be any healing as the list is now defunct.

The healing is for AGSF-entire, not the list.
I repeat: AGSF was not the list. AGSF was what it always claimed to be.

: There will just

: be a mass of spamming. I for one am not going to bother wasting my time
: protecting AG any more, rather concentrating my efforts on groups that
: actually appreciate it.

I think they appreciate the spam-protection, but not so much the
cloak-and-dagger routine.

[ka...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca]

Leonora the KittenLady (tonyg...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: In The Year Of Our Lord Tue, 13 Jan 1998 18:49:14 GMT,
: Brother...@earthcorp.com (Brother Cadfael) Dared To Write:

: >Does this not make you uncomfortable? A group who effects the
: >environment in which we post and gather, yet does not want to 'exist'?

(Snip)

: We never discussed you in full, because you weren't a threat to the
: newsgroup. EXCEPT for when you suggested taking illegal actions
: against spammers, trolls etc.

Which falls under the domain of AGSF anyway - it clearly speaks against
it's own members using those tactics. The "unorganized" sector of AGSF
(or whatever) should have been speaking out publicly anyway.

While you (B.C.) never actually said you did, you used pretty much the
same language Terri used when she was mailbombing her detractors.

: >And it seems that a handful of its members have become upset with the

: >turn that AGSF has taken. Once a group of do-gooders who kept us free
: >of spam and trolls, it has taken the form of thought-police and their
: >mailing list has become less of a 'spam killer' discussion and more a
: >discussion of many of us who *they* find annoying. Am I the only one
: >being discussed? Certainly not. Oh no, not by a long shot.

Thought-police? No.
No action was ever taken against *anyone* privately, save discussion and
info-gathering.

At most, there was minor discussion (inappropriate, IMO) of which newbie
was acting like a troll. It was pretty much along the same lines of what
was being said here.

: >"I think it's high time we shut down the list, as per previous
: >discussions..."

: You are a complete and total newbie to alt.gothic comapred to the
: people who were on the list. You don't know anything about its purpose
: and what we discussed except what you were fowarded. You are making
: stupid assumptions based on heresay.

Based on half-complete information, anyway.
I don't fault BC for that, I fault the person or people who informed him
of the list without bothering to give complete information.

It looks worse than it was.

: if i drop out of the newsgroup, it's because of dumbfucks like you who
: think they own everything. You thought I was snobbish? you're one to
: talk.

He's not talking like someone who thinks he owns everything; he's talking
like someone who feels betrayed by those he considered friends and allies.

[Mixy]

tee...@spamtrap.com wrote in message <69jqck$fsk$2...@news.jumpnet.com>...
>Mixy <Mi...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>: tee...@spamtrap.com wrote in message <69hrmu$q5k$1...@news.jumpnet.com>...

>:>Mixy <Mi...@gte.net> wrote:
>:>
>:>: None taken. By the way, the list was never kept secret as there have
been
>:>: multiple majordomo and cc: lists (it even says so on the a.g.s-f pages,
>: if
>:>: anyone cares to look), and really it would be a surprise if there
>: weren't.
>:>
>:>Eh? Okay, everybody who wasn't on the list but knew about it anyway,
raise
>:>your hands....
>:>
>: Several people judging by the responses to this thread. Egg meet Teekem's
>: face. teekem's face meet egg.
>

>I'm sorry, I did say everybody who was NOT on the list, Einstein.

Quite a few judging by the responses so far both on the group and via email.

>
>I count three responses that I don't recognize from the list. One simply
>said 'many knew about it' without confirming knowledge of his or her own,
>one didn't say either way, and one was surprised to find that a list did
>in fact exist.
>
>So, Einstein.... Did YOU know about it before being invited on?

Actually yes but I was on the list long before you were.

>
>I'm betting not.

Wrong. You lose.

>
>:>And I guess those who are upset with me for confirming its existence can

>:>just lay off now, eh?
>

>: No, you did wrong. You deserve a good flaming (I'd say spanking but you'd

>: probably enjoy it too much).
>

>Go to it, then. Don't be surprised, though, if I just brush you off as
>another pathetic little geek who's had his favorite playhouse burned down.

I would but you're not worth the effort.

>
>Grow up.

Read your own words and think about that last statement.

>
>:>: Sadly there won't be any healing as the list is now defunct. There will

>: just
>:>: be a mass of spamming. I for one am not going to bother wasting my time
>:>: protecting AG any more, rather concentrating my efforts on groups that
>:>: actually appreciate it.

>:>
>:>Ah, well. You know where the door is.

>
>: I didn't say I was leaving, just that I'll be devoting my time spent
>: spamfighting to the other gothic groups.
>

>Ah. Alt.gothic is no longer worthy of your efforts.

I do not see why I should waste my time protecting assholes like yourself
and Brother Clueless. Sorry to all the decent members of the group but you
know who to blame (clue - it begins with T, ends with M and has eeke in the
middle).

>
>How egotistical. Grow up.
>

Again take heed of your own words. After your abuse of trust do you, Tim or
Brother Codpiece ever expect anyone on this group to take you seriously or
place any trust whatsover in you again?

>:>It's good to find out now that you don't care unless you have a secret

>:>club. Sure would have hated to wait until we actually needed you to find
>:>out.
>
>: Oh I do care. I'd just rather spend the 3 hours or so a day I do on the
net
>: protecting people who aren't gonna throw it back in my face. Sorry to all
>: those on ag who mailed me and said they do appreciate it but it's the few
>: bad apples that have spoiled it for the whole bunch.
>

>Oooooh.
>
>I really don't know HOW we're going to get along without you.

Simple, the good people of AGSF will continue their work although at a much
reduced strength due to the actions of some individuals whose IQ's seem to
match their shoe size.

>
>
>Now, if we're finished jacking off here?... Wanna kleenex, now that you're
>done?

Talking to yourself again are we?

[Marcus Pan]

tee...@spamtrap.com wrote:
> Did you know the list existed? Cos I didn't, until I was invited on.

Everyone makes mistakes. :)

[Marcus Pan]

tee...@spamtrap.com wrote:
> Oooooh.
>
> I really don't know HOW we're going to get along without you.

Oh, you did plenty, did you? <snicker>

[Marcus Pan]

tee...@spamtrap.com wrote:
> One solitary warning.
>
> Grow up. And do it fast.

Eh, maybe. You're no fun anyway. Kind of like a fly that after a short
while just blends in annoyingly, yet still buzzes incessantly.

[Mixy]

tee...@spamtrap.com wrote in message <69jsdi$goc$1...@news.jumpnet.com>...
>Mixy <Mi...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>: Brother Cadfael wrote in message <69hn0l$1v8...@news.ipns.com>...
>: Everybody knew of the existance of the list. They just didn't know who
was
>
>:>of AGSF said: "Why wasn't this something that was discussed previous to

>:>telling the world the list exists? I thought we all agreed this was
>:>supposed to NOT exist in other a.g'ers eyes in the first place?"
>
>: That was more for the eyes of spammers than the group.
>

>The clue train whistles forlornly as it chugs it's way over the horizon
>and disappears from the view of Mixytown.....
>
>Yeah, it was meant only for the eyes of AGSFers. It happened to be TRUE.
>
>It also happens to contradict earlier statements to the effect that
>'everybody knew about the list'.

To quote JVs previous post (which makes your arguements look like the pile
of yak dung they are):

<begin Quote>

This is going to be my only say on this matter.

>"AGSF is no secret! Everyone knew about the list forever!" and then
>continues later to say "Thanks! Because you had to blab to all of AG
>about us, our list was shut down!"

If you are going to quote personal email <big no no> at least quote it
correctly. I stated:
"everyone knew about the fucking list. The list owner sent out an open
invitation to nearly every mailing list from SF to NYC"
I also sent out invites personally to dozens of people. It was openly
discussed at CIII.
So, sorry about your evil Cabal theory. It just doesn't hold water.
WHY THE LIST WAS CREATED:
1). So a.g. wouldn't be bombarded with up to 150 posts/day dealing with tech
head talk, trollspotting, ISP info. We used the off a.g. list to
coalate
our info.
2). So we could relay ISP info quickly to everyone.
3). So we could share info. The more we could communicate, the more
effective
we were. Certain people kept an eye out for other groups like UPG,
or
ABG. When there was trouble we would all help. We pooled our
resoources.
WHY THE LIST WAS DESTROYED:
1) The blue list. If you knew what a fucking blue list was, you'd know why
the
list should be destroyed. Not for some of us, b/c we have enough filters,
but
for those of us who do not have good filters or keep a low profile.
2). Since the list owner did not have access to the majordomo server, he
could
not change config options in the software that would prevent off list people
from mailbombing the list. Anyone who knew the list address could
mailbomb the list.
3). A mailbomb to the list would wipe out his account just with bounces
from
others accounts and would most likely take down the server. The owners
of
the server would yank the list just b/c it would be high risk.
The
MD server holds 3500+ lists and cannot afford for the server to go down, b/c
of
mailbombs.
The list was not advertised to a.g. b/c of this. We wanted to keep spmmers
from
mailbombing us and keep the list secret from super-egotistical sell outs who
would easily give the list address away for a pentium II to any tickle-slut
who
wanted the info.
Yes, I am talking about you Bro. Cad and Tim. You have shown you don't give
a
fuck about anyone but yourselves. It isn't much of a strech to think you
would
betray someones trust for your own selfishness.
ABOUT BRO CAD.
We discussed his allusion to mailbombing. We emailed him both personally and
privately. There was no "thought police" or secret discussion.
We discussed how we should talk with him. It was diplomacy not "social
engineering" We never even hinted on enforcing our opinions on him or
attempt
to get his account yanked. I hardly consider the list a threat to individual
thinking.
He thinks himself way to important.
ABOUT TIM:
Tim never mentioned he had a problem with anything. He went behind our
backs
and disclosed info that was suppose to be held confidential, as
confidential
as personal email.
The list had disagreements in the past. We've discussed them and came to
resolutions. Tim was the *only* person on the list, *ever*,who decided to
discard everyones opinions and do whatever he wanted regardless of what we
thought.
He *never* addressed his discontent with our discussing Bro Cad and Bro
Cad's
advocation of mailbombing.
The info message clearly states not to forward the mail. Anyone with any
sense
of decency would either abide by it or quit the list.
The List was created for one simple reason:
WE FUCKING CARE.
We're not an Evil CaBal We're just a bunch of people who care about the goth
scene and it's perpetuation to do *something*, even if it is as little as
keepiing a.g* readable so people interested in goth can find a place to call
home, wherever they may be.
jv
.
<end quote>
>
>: We will deal with them in time. You were the one that chose to announce

the
>: existance of the list though and it is ultimately you who brought around
its
>: demise. Therefore any increase in spam on ag due to the reduction in
>: effectiveness of AGSF is totally down to you. If I was in your position I
>

>Bullshit. The list need only set up again, minus me, again out of public
>knowledge. There is in fact a chance that this has already been done.

It may well have but you will never be trusted with anything again so will
never know.

>
>Any increase due to the loss of the list is down to the members of the
>list, who chose to abuse it and lost it as a result.

No, it is down to the idiocy and egoitistical actions of 3 people, you being
one of them.

>
>: would leave (as you already said you were doing) and never come back but

you
>: see that is part of how usenet works. I (or any other member of AGSF)
cannot
>: stop you posting here. If you suggest mailbombing as a tactic we could of
>: course forward that to your ISP but instead AGSF chose to warn you first
to
>: stop you making that mistake. Next time your account is toast as you do
not
>: deserve any such consideration given your recent actions.
>

>Watch your step, yourself. You are on shaky ground with these threats.

Threats to report illegal actions to ISPs is not illegal. If that was shaky
ground then I would have run out of local dialups by now. I will report any
illegal abuses of usenet whether mailbombing, binary posting or spamming.

>
>:>And face it, had you not become so cocky and sure of yourselves, your

>:>precious little list would still be a secret. Else, how did I find out
>:>about it?
>
>: You found out about it because certain people who were untrustworthy
enough
>

>You want my trust, pal, you have to earn it.

You were trusted by some people enough to be allowed onto the list. You
betrayed that trust so will never be trusted again. Since I never want to
have anything to do with you then why should I need to gain your trust? You
were the one to fuck up.

>
>I'd never have told him if I didn't feel a bit dismayed about what I'd
>joined.

Then you should have discussed it with the members of the list before going
off the deep end and making enemies on the board and a fool of yourself.

>
>: You were the one who chose to post it to usenet therefore you are VERY

>: responsible. Your last statement smacks of the nazi defence of "I was
only
>: following orders".
>

>I gave the information to him, therefore >I< and two others were
>responsible. Carrie brought the subject up, and made us uncomfortable
>about it, therefore SHE's responsible. NOBODY on the entire frigging list
>felt like discussing the problem, therefore WE ALL are responsible.

No, you, Tim and Brother Clueless are responsible. Fact.

>
>:>AGSF is supposed to be everyone. The list was simply for secure

>:>communication about spammers. Somewhere, it deviated and became the
>:>forum for discussion of 'problem children'. I was not the only one
>:>being discussed in this manner.
>
>: No, there was one other (Emptyeyes) who also posted saying mailbombing
was a
>: good idea. "Problem child" is a very apt description in light of your
recent
>: tantrums.
>

>And yours. "You deserve to be flamed", indeed.

Flaming is not illegal and can be fun at times. Mailbombing is but of course
you do not have the intelligence to see the difference.

>
>:>And as further proof of their egalitarianism, they have harshly attacked

>:>one of their own for talking behind their back to me, about them.
>:>However, they seemed quite eager to talk about me to each other, behind
>:>my back. Quite a display of hypocricy
>
>: Yes and they deserved it for breaking the security of the list. We
discussed
>: how best to help you by stopping you getting yourself into trouble. We
could
>: quite easily have got your account nuked but we didn't instead choosing
to
>: try and help you. Certain members had their own problems with you but
then
>: so do a lot of the newsgroup.
>

>Those problems intruded into the list business. They had no place there.

They had every reason being there for reasons stated many times previously.

>
>: Too late. The list is defunct and it's all your fault.
>
>Uh-huh. Ironic, isn't it, that we have only your word that the list hasn't
>been resurrected? Ironic, isn't it, that the possibility that it will in
>the future is actually pretty high?

Again you will never be trusted so will never know.

>
>You forget that I was there. You forget the discussions about moving the
>list, and that the list is really only officially down until the current
>owner gets in touch with another who was thinking about taking it on for
>himself.

Yes you were there and passing it on to your buddy Clodful without even
having the decency to keep to the agreement you made when you first joined
the list or even discuss the problem you had with the other list members.
You instead decided to jump into bed with Brother Codpiece and rat on those
who trusted you. Wow, what a hero that makes you. I bet you're SO proud of
yourself right now.

>
>And you know what? You forget that the list was only taken down because
>the list owner didn't want a flame war in his mailbox.

Yes, following BCs posts and your and Tims abuses of trust there was to be
a flamewar (mostly by Tim who made more posts than the rest of the 100 or so
list members put together).
>
>Who was responsible for that flame war, Chucky? Did Cadfael participate in
>it?
>
>Nope. He wasn't even on the list.

It was his actions and his posts to the newsgroup that caused it (as well as
yours and tims betrayals). He doesn't have to be on the list to cause the
flamewar.

>
>
>The full truth of it is that AGSF went down because of petty squabbling
>over a decision I made. NOT the actual decision, NOT the repercussions of
>such.
>

A decision YOU made? Taking credit for someone else's actions now. Fact it
was Tim who did most of the leaking. You only jumped on the bandwagon. AGSF
went down as a direct result of the breaking of trust by yourself and Tim.

Don't expect a reply to any further posts. Public opinion is obviously way
against you and I have decided you are not worthy of any more of my time.
PLONK

[Mixy]

tee...@spamtrap.com wrote in message <69k8q2$k58$4...@news.jumpnet.com>...

<SNIP>

Methinks he doth protest too much.

He talks about people that trust him yet he has proved himself unworthy of
any trust.

It's a pity I can't read his ramblings any more but that's the drawbacks of
having to put idiots in your killfile.

Should we include him in the new list ? <snigger>

Mixy

[tee...@spamtrap.com]

Marcus Pan <p...@idt.net> wrote:
: tee...@spamtrap.com wrote:
:> Actually, given the chance to blackmail, he threw it away, making the
:> list's presence known when he could have jerked it around instead.

: Awwwww...lost your ammo dear boy. <snicker>

I was pretty much done with it anyway. <yawn>

[Imnoyup]

[tee...@spamtrap.com]

Raven <swes...@online.no> wrote:

: Brother Cadfael <Brother...@earthcorp.com> wrote in article
: <69hn0l$1v8...@news.ipns.com>...

:> "AGSF is no secret! Everyone knew about the list forever!" and then

:> continues later to say "Thanks! Because you had to blab to all of AG
:> about us, our list was shut down!"

:>
:> Why? If it wasn't a secret and everybody knew?

: Everybody knew that AGSF existed and many people knew that a mailing list
: existed, what they didn't want was the entire population of a.g subscribing
: to it, thus the semi secrecy. Or so I would guess, as I'm not a member

Did you know the list existed? Cos I didn't, until I was invited on.

:> Maybe they'll weed the bad out from
:> the good and get back to the task of spam-killer instead of
:> social-engineer.
: Again where is this social-engineering aspect? I have been contacted once
: by the AGSF after doing something very silly (I fed a troll), two people
: sent me e-mails, which where short and polite telling me not to to do that,
: I responded by sending back an appology. Is this social engineering? Where

Read some of the responses to Cadfael. See if you can spot the AGSF
replies.

Here's a clue. They were the IMPOLITE replies.

: they trying to controll my mind? That's not the way I see it, they were
: simply keeping the newsgroup clean of trolls.

Recently, they graduated to keeping the newsgroup free of people who annoy
them. That's when I gave up on them.

: I know that I personally salute the work of the regular AGSF'ers and I'm
: sure just about everybody else on the group does as well. Thanks to their
: homepage I have started to learn the fine art of spam hunting, and Have
: thanks to them racked up a few heads of my own.

All very well. Those who worked on the page and have actually worked
hardest to keep this newsgroup spam-free had little or nothing to do with
the discussion about Brother Cadfael.

[Imnoyup]

BTW,

Unlike Bro Codpiece, I have *complete* information, and really do not need to
do creative cut & pasting to make it appear there were more people on my side
or that there was general dissent in the group.

Tim was the only person who sent Bro Codpiece mail. He was the only person who
forwarded private email without consulting anyone.

Tim is the only person who was uncomforable with the content. Rather than
discuss his grievence maturely he took matters into his own hands, without
regard for anyone else.

Tim is the only one Bro Codpiece is quoting in his defense.

jv

[tee...@spamtrap.com]

Mixy <Mi...@gte.net> wrote:

: tee...@spamtrap.com wrote in message <69hrmu$q5k$1...@news.jumpnet.com>...
:>Mixy <Mi...@gte.net> wrote:
:>
:>: None taken. By the way, the list was never kept secret as there have been
:>: multiple majordomo and cc: lists (it even says so on the a.g.s-f pages,
: if
:>: anyone cares to look), and really it would be a surprise if there
: weren't.
:>
:>Eh? Okay, everybody who wasn't on the list but knew about it anyway, raise
:>your hands....
:>
: Several people judging by the responses to this thread. Egg meet Teekem's
: face. teekem's face meet egg.

I'm sorry, I did say everybody who was NOT on the list, Einstein.

I count three responses that I don't recognize from the list. One simply

said 'many knew about it' without confirming knowledge of his or her own,
one didn't say either way, and one was surprised to find that a list did
in fact exist.

So, Einstein.... Did YOU know about it before being invited on?

I'm betting not.

:>And I guess those who are upset with me for confirming its existence can
:>just lay off now, eh?

: No, you did wrong. You deserve a good flaming (I'd say spanking but you'd
: probably enjoy it too much).

Go to it, then. Don't be surprised, though, if I just brush you off as
another pathetic little geek who's had his favorite playhouse burned down.

Grow up.

:>: Sadly there won't be any healing as the list is now defunct. There will
: just
:>: be a mass of spamming. I for one am not going to bother wasting my time
:>: protecting AG any more, rather concentrating my efforts on groups that
:>: actually appreciate it.
:>
:>Ah, well. You know where the door is.

: I didn't say I was leaving, just that I'll be devoting my time spent
: spamfighting to the other gothic groups.

Ah. Alt.gothic is no longer worthy of your efforts.

How egotistical. Grow up.

:>It's good to find out now that you don't care unless you have a secret
:>club. Sure would have hated to wait until we actually needed you to find
:>out.

: Oh I do care. I'd just rather spend the 3 hours or so a day I do on the net
: protecting people who aren't gonna throw it back in my face. Sorry to all
: those on ag who mailed me and said they do appreciate it but it's the few
: bad apples that have spoiled it for the whole bunch.

Oooooh.

I really don't know HOW we're going to get along without you.

[Siobhan]

It was a dark and stormy night, when Brother...@earthcorp.com
(Brother Cadfael) suddenly said:

<lots of paranoid ramblings and accusations snipped>

Somebody needs to look into having their medication adjusted.

Siobhan

...Normal is what cuts off your sixth finger and your tail...
{http://www.interlog.com/~siobhan} sio...@interlog.com
convergence IV site {http://www.interlog.com/~converg4}

[tee...@spamtrap.com]

Mixy <Mi...@gte.net> wrote:

: Brother Cadfael wrote in message <69hn0l$1v8...@news.ipns.com>...
: Everybody knew of the existance of the list. They just didn't know who was

:>of AGSF said: "Why wasn't this something that was discussed previous to
:>telling the world the list exists? I thought we all agreed this was
:>supposed to NOT exist in other a.g'ers eyes in the first place?"

: That was more for the eyes of spammers than the group.

The clue train whistles forlornly as it chugs it's way over the horizon
and disappears from the view of Mixytown.....

Yeah, it was meant only for the eyes of AGSFers. It happened to be TRUE.

It also happens to contradict earlier statements to the effect that
'everybody knew about the list'.

: We will deal with them in time. You were the one that chose to announce the

: existance of the list though and it is ultimately you who brought around its
: demise. Therefore any increase in spam on ag due to the reduction in
: effectiveness of AGSF is totally down to you. If I was in your position I

Bullshit. The list need only set up again, minus me, again out of public
knowledge. There is in fact a chance that this has already been done.

Any increase due to the loss of the list is down to the members of the

list, who chose to abuse it and lost it as a result.

: would leave (as you already said you were doing) and never come back but you

: see that is part of how usenet works. I (or any other member of AGSF) cannot
: stop you posting here. If you suggest mailbombing as a tactic we could of
: course forward that to your ISP but instead AGSF chose to warn you first to
: stop you making that mistake. Next time your account is toast as you do not
: deserve any such consideration given your recent actions.

Watch your step, yourself. You are on shaky ground with these threats.

:>And face it, had you not become so cocky and sure of yourselves, your

:>precious little list would still be a secret. Else, how did I find out
:>about it?

: You found out about it because certain people who were untrustworthy enough

You want my trust, pal, you have to earn it.

I'd never have told him if I didn't feel a bit dismayed about what I'd
joined.

: You were the one who chose to post it to usenet therefore you are VERY

: responsible. Your last statement smacks of the nazi defence of "I was only
: following orders".

I gave the information to him, therefore >I< and two others were
responsible. Carrie brought the subject up, and made us uncomfortable
about it, therefore SHE's responsible. NOBODY on the entire frigging list
felt like discussing the problem, therefore WE ALL are responsible.

:>AGSF is supposed to be everyone. The list was simply for secure

:>communication about spammers. Somewhere, it deviated and became the
:>forum for discussion of 'problem children'. I was not the only one
:>being discussed in this manner.

: No, there was one other (Emptyeyes) who also posted saying mailbombing was a
: good idea. "Problem child" is a very apt description in light of your recent
: tantrums.

And yours. "You deserve to be flamed", indeed.

:>And as further proof of their egalitarianism, they have harshly attacked

:>one of their own for talking behind their back to me, about them.
:>However, they seemed quite eager to talk about me to each other, behind
:>my back. Quite a display of hypocricy

: Yes and they deserved it for breaking the security of the list. We discussed
: how best to help you by stopping you getting yourself into trouble. We could
: quite easily have got your account nuked but we didn't instead choosing to
: try and help you. Certain members had their own problems with you but then
: so do a lot of the newsgroup.

Those problems intruded into the list business. They had no place there.

: Too late. The list is defunct and it's all your fault.

Uh-huh. Ironic, isn't it, that we have only your word that the list hasn't
been resurrected? Ironic, isn't it, that the possibility that it will in
the future is actually pretty high?

You forget that I was there. You forget the discussions about moving the

list, and that the list is really only officially down until the current
owner gets in touch with another who was thinking about taking it on for
himself.

And you know what? You forget that the list was only taken down because

the list owner didn't want a flame war in his mailbox.

Who was responsible for that flame war, Chucky? Did Cadfael participate in
it?

Nope. He wasn't even on the list.

[tee...@spamtrap.com]

Marcus Pan <p...@idt.net> wrote:
: tee...@spamtrap.com wrote:

:> And I guess those who are upset with me for confirming its existence can
:> just lay off now, eh?

: In your dreams, fucker.

[Brother Cadfael]

"Mixy" <Mi...@gteREMOVETOREPLY.net> wrote:

|Who mentioned anything getting physical? I would go just to see BC sitting
|alone in the corner because nobody (except his snitches) will talk to him.

I'm wondering when I altered my statement of NOT going.

[Richard]

In article <69jqck$fsk$2...@news.jumpnet.com>, tee...@spamtrap.com writes

>So, Einstein.... Did YOU know about it before being invited on?

>I'm betting not.

There are those who did know of the list, or that at least worked out
that it should and proly did exist. BTW your atitude to this whole thing
IMNSHO sucks. I could argue the points, but having read the rest of the
thread I doubt it would be worth my time to do so.

--
AxxE(at)drk1<dot>demon.co.uk http://www.drk1.demon.co.uk
-----------------------Interested in fighting spam?---------------------------
AGSF mirror http://www.drk1.demon.co.uk/ags-f/ also see http://www.sputum.com

[tee...@spamtrap.com]

ka...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:

: Leonora the KittenLady (tonyg...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: : In The Year Of Our Lord Tue, 13 Jan 1998 18:49:14 GMT,
: : Brother...@earthcorp.com (Brother Cadfael) Dared To Write:

: : We never discussed you in full, because you weren't a threat to the

: : newsgroup. EXCEPT for when you suggested taking illegal actions
: : against spammers, trolls etc.

: Which falls under the domain of AGSF anyway - it clearly speaks against
: it's own members using those tactics. The "unorganized" sector of AGSF
: (or whatever) should have been speaking out publicly anyway.

The organized sector should not have used the list for this business. Talk
of an act is a bit different from commission of an act.

: While you (B.C.) never actually said you did, you used pretty much the

: same language Terri used when she was mailbombing her detractors.

Not quite. You know better. Terri is used to using threats and blackmail.

: : >And it seems that a handful of its members have become upset with the

: : >turn that AGSF has taken. Once a group of do-gooders who kept us free
: : >of spam and trolls, it has taken the form of thought-police and their
: : >mailing list has become less of a 'spam killer' discussion and more a
: : >discussion of many of us who *they* find annoying. Am I the only one
: : >being discussed? Certainly not. Oh no, not by a long shot.

: Thought-police? No.
: No action was ever taken against *anyone* privately, save discussion and
: info-gathering.

Again, I am very uncomfortable with the idea. Even if no action is taken.
The list was not meant to be used to discuss who is annoying and who is
not.

: At most, there was minor discussion (inappropriate, IMO) of which newbie

: was acting like a troll. It was pretty much along the same lines of what
: was being said here.

The difference being that the victim is not then suddenly blind-sided,
without an explanation for the adverse posts he is recieving.

: : You are a complete and total newbie to alt.gothic comapred to the

: : people who were on the list. You don't know anything about its purpose
: : and what we discussed except what you were fowarded. You are making
: : stupid assumptions based on heresay.

: Based on half-complete information, anyway.
: I don't fault BC for that, I fault the person or people who informed him
: of the list without bothering to give complete information.

Fine. I gave him as complete a backlog of the posts directly concerning
him as I could. If you have access to a more complete archive, send it
along.... I'm sure he will enjoy the read.

: It looks worse than it was.

That's because it happened behind his back. I trust we won't make the same
mistake twice.

: : if i drop out of the newsgroup, it's because of dumbfucks like you who

: : think they own everything. You thought I was snobbish? you're one to
: : talk.

: He's not talking like someone who thinks he owns everything; he's talking
: like someone who feels betrayed by those he considered friends and allies.

Reality check. I change alliances when I see them going sour. I will NOT
stick up for a friend that is wrong.

I will stick up for a friend that admits a mistake and tries to correct
it, but haven't seen much of that here.

[tee...@spamtrap.com]

Imnoyup <imn...@aol.com> wrote:
: This is going to be my only say on this matter.

:>"AGSF is no secret! Everyone knew about the list forever!" and then
:>continues later to say "Thanks! Because you had to blab to all of AG
:>about us, our list was shut down!"

: If you are going to quote personal email <big no no> at least quote it
: correctly. I stated:

: "everyone knew about the fucking list. The list owner sent out an open
: invitation to nearly every mailing list from SF to NYC"

None of the other mailing lists I was on got any notice.

Which is not to say he didn't send invitations, but certainly not to

'nearly every mailing list from SF to NYC'

: I also sent out invites personally to dozens of people. It was openly
: discussed at CIII.

And at some point, the practice of just inviting people began to be
actively discouraged.

Didn't it?

: So, sorry about your evil Cabal theory. It just doesn't hold water.

Nobody looks at it as an evil Cabal. Nice strawman, though.

: The list was not advertised to a.g. b/c of this. We wanted to keep spmmers from

: mailbombing us and keep the list secret from super-egotistical sell outs who
: would easily give the list address away for a pentium II to any tickle-slut who
: wanted the info.

ummm.... Who was it that just finished saying, "Everybody knew about the
fucking list"? Was that you?

And then you go on to confirm that everybody did NOT know about the
fucking list....

: Yes, I am talking about you Bro. Cad and Tim. You have shown you don't give a

: fuck about anyone but yourselves. It isn't much of a strech to think you would
: betray someones trust for your own selfishness.

Yeah, whatever.

You don't know me. Plenty of people can trust me. They have EARNED that
trust, something you haven't done.

: ABOUT BRO CAD.

: We discussed his allusion to mailbombing. We emailed him both personally and
: privately. There was no "thought police" or secret discussion.

: We discussed how we should talk with him. It was diplomacy not "social
: engineering" We never even hinted on enforcing our opinions on him or attempt
: to get his account yanked. I hardly consider the list a threat to individual
: thinking.

He's got access to some of the things that were said. He knows you are
lying.

He knows that diplomacy did not enter into the discussion as far as most
of those discussing him were concerned. He knows that a few had to go out
of their way to let some of the others know that they were having more
friendly discussions.

And yes, for the benefit of those not elite enough to be on the list, the
subject of what to do about him WAS debated.

: He thinks himself way to important.

I think you are guilty of the same.

: ABOUT TIM:

: Tim never mentioned he had a problem with anything. He went behind our backs
: and disclosed info that was suppose to be held confidential, as confidential
: as personal email.

You do not wish to understand my ethical issues. Fine.

But it boils down to the fact that the discussion was already underway by
the time I decided that action should be taken, and I felt that he needed
to know that.

: The list had disagreements in the past. We've discussed them and came to

: resolutions. Tim was the *only* person on the list, *ever*,who decided to
: discard everyones opinions and do whatever he wanted regardless of what we
: thought.
: He *never* addressed his discontent with our discussing Bro Cad and Bro Cad's
: advocation of mailbombing.

Nobody else did, either. But two others took the same action I did, just
not quite so spectacularly.

: The info message clearly states not to forward the mail. Anyone with any sense

: of decency would either abide by it or quit the list.

So I quit. End of dilemma, as far as I'm concerned. Goes back to that
whole Earning of Trust thing again, as I felt the list did not deserve
it.

: The List was created for one simple reason:

: WE FUCKING CARE.

It stepped beyond its bounds. I am not the only one who feels this way.

[tee...@spamtrap.com]

Imnoyup <imn...@aol.com> wrote:
: BTW,

: Unlike Bro Codpiece, I have *complete* information, and really do not need to
: do creative cut & pasting to make it appear there were more people on my side

: or that there was general dissent in the group.

Kaos has agreed publically that it was inappropriate. Lady Greycat, though
our e-mail exchange mostly consisted of a lame attempt at flaming, also
seemed to think Cadfael was handled a bit badly.

That's two so far who just sat and watched it happen.

: Tim was the only person who sent Bro Codpiece mail. He was the only person who

: forwarded private email without consulting anyone.

I know for a fact that this is just a wild guess. I also happen to know
it's a bit inaccurate.

: Tim is the only person who was uncomforable with the content. Rather than

See above. You are either lying or blind.

: discuss his grievence maturely he took matters into his own hands, without
: regard for anyone else.

Except of course Cadfael. Yet again, you are either lying or blind.

: Tim is the only one Bro Codpiece is quoting in his defense.

A lie, far more blatant. I did not write all the things he quotes. True,
most of the material in favor of him is from me, but that's because I'm
the only one who EVER wrote in favor of him to the list, at the point when
I began saving posts.

I didn't have a good record of the conversation... Pretty much all the
stuff I sent him before I clearly and distinctly declared on the list
that I would begin sending records of further discussion of him to him
were posts of mine.

Posts written by others were as far as I recall written AFTER I declared
that all further conversation specifically about him would be forwarded.

If discussion of him had stopped then and there, he would have gotten
nothing, since I waited a day to mail him those posts, and wouldn't have
simply sent my own posts alone.

[tee...@spamtrap.com]

Marcus Pan <p...@idt.net> wrote:
: tee...@spamtrap.com wrote:

:> Oooooh.

:>
:> I really don't know HOW we're going to get along without you.

: Oh, you did plenty, did you? <snicker>

From what I hear, yeah.

How's your little list? <snicker>

See, THAT's how a good jab is delivered.

Go practice.

[tee...@spamtrap.com]

Marcus Pan <p...@idt.net> wrote:
: tee...@spamtrap.com wrote:

:> Did you know the list existed? Cos I didn't, until I was invited on.

: Everyone makes mistakes. :)

Answer the question, Dweezel.

[tee...@spamtrap.com]

Mixy <Mi...@gte.net> wrote:

: tee...@spamtrap.com wrote in message <69jsdi$goc$1...@news.jumpnet.com>...

:>Mixy <Mi...@gte.net> wrote:
:>
:>: Brother Cadfael wrote in message <69hn0l$1v8...@news.ipns.com>...
:>: Everybody knew of the existance of the list. They just didn't know who
: was
:>
:>:>of AGSF said: "Why wasn't this something that was discussed previous to
:>:>telling the world the list exists? I thought we all agreed this was
:>:>supposed to NOT exist in other a.g'ers eyes in the first place?"
:>
:>: That was more for the eyes of spammers than the group.
:>
:>The clue train whistles forlornly as it chugs it's way over the horizon
:>and disappears from the view of Mixytown.....
:>
:>Yeah, it was meant only for the eyes of AGSFers. It happened to be TRUE.
:>
:>It also happens to contradict earlier statements to the effect that
:>'everybody knew about the list'.

: To quote JVs previous post (which makes your arguements look like the pile
: of yak dung they are):

Yeah, yeah. I'll worry about your opinion when you exhibit a bit more
intelligence than the average parrot.

I've answered this post point by point already. I'll not waste time on
some idiot saying "Me too."

[Kirckjerck]

Im just glad Im not responsible for brother C's keyboard warranty. Three
years/thirty million characters?

Matthew

[Marcus Pan]

tee...@spamtrap.com wrote:
>
> Marcus Pan <p...@idt.net> wrote:
> : tee...@spamtrap.com wrote:

> :> Oooooh.
> :>
> :> I really don't know HOW we're going to get along without you.
>
> : Oh, you did plenty, did you? <snicker>
>
> From what I hear, yeah.

Stop talking to yourself... :)

> How's your little list? <snicker>

What list? :)

> See, THAT's how a good jab is delivered.

Yeark, great llama...

> Go practice.

See? At least you're being fun again.

[Marcus Pan]

tee...@spamtrap.com wrote:
>
> Marcus Pan <p...@idt.net> wrote:
> : tee...@spamtrap.com wrote:

> :> Did you know the list existed? Cos I didn't, until I was invited on.
>
> : Everyone makes mistakes. :)
>
> Answer the question, Dweezel.

Sure Zappa.

It seemed quite obvious that something like that was out there, no? It
was to me, anyway. I read the A.G.S-F page...it all points in the
direction that a list or something just as organized was around.

[Lady Greycat]

On 15 Jan 1998 02:37:08 GMT, tee...@spamtrap.com babbled profusely:

>Marcus Pan <p...@idt.net> wrote:
>: tee...@spamtrap.com wrote:

>:> And I guess those who are upset with me for confirming its existence can
>:> just lay off now, eh?
>
>: In your dreams, fucker.
>
>One solitary warning.
>
>
>Grow up. And do it fast.

Ohhh...what are you gonna do? You are scaring me now!!!!

*snicker*

Greycat

******************************************************
Http://members.theglobe.com/ladygreycat
The only people who compain about elists really think
they're better than the elitists. Thereby fullfilling
their own definition of one. -oddlystrange

[clay3young]

Overlord of Darkness wrote:
>
> Quick! everyone must bath in cheap American beer!

"bath" is a noun
"bathe" is a verb

(Welcome back, RB!)

----Clay

[clay3young]

Brother Cadfael wrote:
>
> evan...@wfu.edu (Overlord of Darkness) wrote:
>
> |Quick! everyone must bath in cheap American beer! Cover yourselves in
> |soggy pork rinds! Make yourselves as unappetizing as possible! Save
> |yourselves from BC's cannibal holocaust!
>
> Hey, not all American beer is cheap.
>
It's not all beer, for that matter....

---Clay

[Mixy]

clay3young wrote in message <34BDBE...@mindspring.com>...

What does American beer and having sex in a canoe have in common?

They're both fucking close to water.

Boom Boom

Mixy <AGSF UKPG division>

[Eidolon]

On 15 Jan 1998 tee...@spamtrap.com wrote:

> Marcus Pan <p...@idt.net> wrote:
> : tee...@spamtrap.com wrote:
> :> And I guess those who are upset with me for confirming its existence can
> :> just lay off now, eh?
>
> : In your dreams, fucker.
>
> One solitary warning.
>
>
> Grow up. And do it fast.

or what? will you tell on him?

Will

--

And all I loved, I loved alone.
--E. A. Poe

[ka...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca]

tee...@spamtrap.com wrote:
: Mixy <Mi...@gte.net> wrote:

: : OK BC time to put a few things straight. Yes the AGSF list did exist and I
: : was a part of that list. It was conceived as a low key organisation to
: : protect the gothic newsgroups from spam and bombings. You only became the

: And has degenerated to idle gossip of who we like and don't like.

And was attempting to recover from that degeneration.

: : topic of discussion after you advocated illegal tactics to be used against
: : spammers and since several of the list members worked for ISPs they could
: : not be seen to be associated with you because they could lose their jobs.

: Get real. ISP employees will not be fired unless they do something illegal
: or otherwise unethical.

At the time, there was a discussion that seemed to be commending someone's
use of illegal tactics against Terri's web-page. (Mailbombing and
ping-flooding were mentioned, I believe.)

It had to be made clear that AGSF does not condone mailbombing; the
discussion of how best to do that did include mentioning Brother Caedfel
as one of those (the most vocal one) who appeared to be commending the
person commiting those tactics. In terms very similar to those Terri used
when explaining why her enemies were mailbombed.

Paranoia breeds quite easily within cabals, and we felt that his comments
might create suspicion that AGSF was behind those attacks.

We are not perfect like you are Tim, and we felt that having AGSF
inadvertently associated with those attacks would be a problem.

We also didn't want to risk exposing the list, for fear of this type of
response.

: And if it does, don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to complain when
: someone else advocates that activity?

No more so than someone who commits the same offence he used to justify
commiting an offence.
For example, going behind someone's back in retaliation for them having
done the same.

: : The other reason it was kept secret was that it is simply easier to fight
: : the spam if you are organised. The front was kept up so that spammers would
: : think it was the whole newsgroup (which is how it should be) who were
: : fighting the spam.

: It is never absolutely everyone fighting the spam. And if you don't think
: people like Territickle already have a shit-list, you're sadly mistaken.

Their shit-list would be less focused.
And, as the list was (intended) to be used as a communications vehicle,
nailing the list itself (which could only be done if it's existence was
known) would have significantly disrupted it. We've effectively done that
to ourselves now, and more completely than they ever could have.

My reasons for respecting the secrecy of the list, was to avoid creating
this impression of betrayal. Guess we blew that one too... sorry for not
being as perfect as you, Tim.

: :>And for those who have been so kind as to keep me in touch with the
: :>situations: I'm sorry if I have betrayed your trust in this post, but I
: :>feel that my fellow-posters have a right to know what I know. They are
: :>a part of this group.

I would like to offer an apology myself. We did not intend to betray you,
a.g. or AGSF-regular in the manner we appear to have done.
I apologize unreservedly for not handling it better.

: I handed it off to him. Admittedly, I did it while incredibly pissed off
: at Albatross, but I STILL feel that Cadfael had a right to know he was
: under discussion, and by whom.

Of course, I feel you handled that poorly as well. But then, I don't have
your perfect insight or moral code, so I could be mistaken.

: :>First, AGSF does exist. They proclaim that they wish to keep a low
: :>profile because it's easier to fight spam and trolls. Perhaps.

: : Not prehaps - TRUE. See my statements above.

: That was the stated purpose, and it WAS true. But the list became a gossip
: column.

Somewhat inaccurate; the list was not meant to be AGSF, but rather a
supplementary to AGSF.
And, in it's last few days, it had fallen to petty accusations. It was
starting a recovery.

: : You were discussed because you were acting like a rampant vigilante and
: : bringing everyone else into disrepute. You were discussed simply because we
: : wanted to calm you down, politely warn you of the situation and to stop you

: The posts I saw were far from polite.

Everything I said about that subject, I would have said regardless of the
list. I would have said them sooner, actually.

: : True. There was a list. Now because of your actions and those of someone who
: : should never have been on the list in the first place it is no more and ag
: : is once again at the mercy of the spammers. There is such a thing as the

: This is total bullshit. I am still here, and do not intend to let spammers
: take over the newsgroup. I assume you will still do the same.

He has already stated that the reaction to these revelations has
disillusioned him as to the value of that fight.

Petty, IMO, but I'm not him.

: : common good. The list was there to protect it but certain people are
: : egotistical and selfish enough to put themselves first.

: Such as?

Lesse... taking matters into your own hand - resulting in the destruction
of the list during it's weakest moment, risking the destruction of
AGSF-regular's credibility, betraying one half of the anti-spam contingent
and creating a rift between all of them... to soothe your guilty
conscience.

Had you trusted us enough to recognize our own failings when pointed out,
and made your concerns known, most of that could have been avoided.
But you were too convinced you were so right and we were so flawed that we
would not understand.

: :>"I thought we all agreed this list was supposed to NOT exist in other

: :>a.g'ers eyes in the first place?"

: : That again is true. Why should that be a problem. All the AG readers would
: : ever notice is a dramamtic reduction in the amount of spam.

: MOSTLY bullshit. Again, it is not open season for spammers just yet.

Agreed. Assuming we can repair the rift this has created, and the
credibility of AGSF.

: : OH god, AGSF is the CIA. The only effect we had on the newsgroup was to

: Funny you should mention that.... Some people were most definitely
: treating it as a Star Chamber of sorts.

Again, agreed.

: : real damage. YOU were the one who advocated mailbombing, we only did as much
: : as we could to disassociate ourselves from you since we stay well within the
: : law and bounds of netiquette.

: You do not discuss what to do with a prick on an anti-spam list. You
: discuss what to do with spammers.

It was not an anti-spam list, it was an anti-netabuse list.
Mailbombing has always been (as far as I can recall) against AGSF policy,
(both public and secret "branches.") Therefore, apparent advocating of
mailbombing does qualify as appropriate discussion.

: If you stay well within the law and bounds of netiquette, the ISP
: employees you mentioned earlier have nothing to fear, yes?

Assuming that the employer believes them when they say they had no
connection to it, yes.

Terri said the same thing quite often; did we *ever* believe her?

: : No, there was ONE other who also advocated mailbombing who was discussed.

: I'm sorry, when did EmptyEyes discuss mailbombing? I must have missed
: that.

Discussing EmptyEyes on the list was unjustified. And brief; to
summarize what was said about him: some people found him annoying, one
person thought he was a troll (the idea was dismissed) and the rest were
indifferent save that they thought mentioning him was inappropriate.

BTW Tim, did you inform him as well that we were discussing him, or just
people you respect?

: : That is a long shot? Included in that discussion was points about whether
: : newbies should be sent a copy of the FAQ and a "welcome to ag - points to
: : note" letter to prevent the war zone that ag has become at times due to
: : clueless newbies. Hardly "thought-police".

To be honest, we discussed the idea that we were starting to look like
thought police, and ways to avoid making that the reality.
Too little, too late perhaps.

: I often think lately that the problem is less 'clueless newbies', and more
: 'arrogant old-timers'.

A point which was brought up there, and you apparently missed.

: :>"Talk of this user or that user, simply because they are mildly
: :>disruptive or do not conform to *our* desires and what we should do
: :>about it has been rampant recently. This is not what AGSF and its list
: :>was created for. It is certainly not what I joined them for."
: :>
: :>"And now, there is perhaps a different, much harder, level of damage
: :>control to be done."

Heh... I got quoted.

: :>"I think it's high time we shut down the list, as per previous
: :>discussions..."

: : Quotes taken out of context to suit your meaning.

: One of those quotes is mine, pal. It's in PERFECT context.

Lesse... I see me, someone who's not you, and a quote taken perfectly out
of context.
(The one who's not you is remarkably similar to something you did say,
though, and is in context. Mine was slightly off.)

: : Get things straight - the AGSF list existed to fight spam and to ensure the
: : smooth running of AG.

No offence, Mixy, but you've always seemed a little confused about that.
The list existed to supplement AGSF, not to be AGSF.

And I've always understood AGSF's purpose as being to fight netabuse.
This does not include newbies who annoy cranky old-timers, but does
include AGSF members who participate in mailbombing.

: : We never advocated or took action against any member
: : of the group, only against spammers. The furthest we would ever go was a
: : polite email from one of the list members pointing out to someone the error
: : of their ways. It was a good thing.

This is true.

: : Now because you feel put out it is at an
: : end and you (and your snitches) will be to blame for the rampant rise in
: : spam to hit the newsgroups.

This, I hope, is false.

: : I do not see why I should have to waste my time
: : fighting spam when idiots act the way you do to satisfy their own petty
: : egos.

: You don't want to fight spam, fine. Don't blame us if you don't want to
: put in the effort anymore. But I think you'll probably find that without
: the list, it's pretty much business as usual.

I hope so.

: :>AGSF could be a strong and reliable force if they stick to spam and
: :>trolls and stay out of personal attacks and the interactions of posters
: :>in general.
: :> They are not alt.gothic. They are a group of people who
: :>banded together for what was once a common cause, but that that does not
: :>*make* them the entirety of what alt.gothic stands for, should be, or
: :>was.

This is all true.

: : It never was. It is too late now as through your rash irresponsible actions
: : (and those of a certain list member) it is over. As I said before, you were
: : discussed because you were a troll yourself and were bringing the perceived

Not quite accurate; he wasn't discussed because he was a troll.
Hell, AGSF-list was never intended to discuss trolls anyway - the closest
it should have came was when a troll stepped into bin-bombing or newsgroup
flooding.

: : AGSF (ie the whole newsgroup) into disrepute.

: Blah. What is and isn't a troll is a subjective decision, and I for one
: don't agree with you that he's a troll. He's tried to engage in
: discussions, with a certain amount of success, and that makes him NOT a
: troll in my book.

: As far as I am concerned, the vague definition of 'troll' potentially
: makes trolls an inappropriate discussion for the list as well, since it
: basically began to boil down to troll=people who annoy us.

Full agreement there.

: :>I am contemplating whether or not I should release the names and email
: :>addresses of those who are in AGSF and especially those on its mailing
: :>list.

Everyone who cares is in AGSF, so that's pretty much irrelevant.
Those on the list, though... most of them have done you no harm, except
perhaps by not speaking up when they should have.

: : Go ahead. Some of them may well lose their jobs. After all, they are guilty

: Why?

Possible conflict of interest with their employers.

: : As none of the group ever wanted to damage you, just to inform you that in
: : order for agsf to exist they must stay within the law, something you did not
: : agree with. They could easily have forwarded your posts to your ISP but they
: : chose the right path and instead tried to warn you through email and
: : newsgroup posts.

: His posts held very little legal water. You know that. You'd have stood an
: OUTSIDE chance of getting him bumped off.

The same could be said about the time Terri was making her "I don't
mailbomb, my friends do it for me" comments.

BTW Tim; I would prefer you email me any response you have to this, as I
won't get the chance to read them.
<plonk>
--
Randomness is not hypocrisy, if done with honesty.
In chaos, all is possible.

[The Imaginary Girl]

On 15 Jan 1998 02:31:14 GMT, tee...@spamtrap.com did scribble in crayon:

>
>I gave the information to him, therefore >I< and two others were
>responsible. Carrie brought the subject up, and made us uncomfortable
>about it, therefore SHE's responsible. NOBODY on the entire frigging list
>felt like discussing the problem, therefore WE ALL are responsible.

Whoa there hoss, don't you dare drag me into your mess and blame me for it.

. . . Skerry Carrie Quite Contrary .... s k e r r y @ p o l b o x . c o m . . .
<insert future website here> /\o0/\ Have You Seen BoB Today?
Along came a spider and sat down beside her and then she flamed
his ass away!! UIN: 5159158 IRC: EFnet #altgothic Hug a Boar! ;>

[Mixy]

One last post on the topic. This is the message that was sent to anyone who
joined the list. Some people obviously had trouble comprehending the last
few lines. I hope this clears up any confusion about what the purpose of the
list was.

This list was created to stomp trolls and spammers on alt.gothic* who
persist on alt.gothic* beyond the normal a.g.* procedures for
dealing with said beasts as outlined in the alt.gothic Troll FAQ. And
to relieve some of the traffic that is usually generated as a result of
these persistent trolls and spammers.
The mission of this list is to stomp these trolls and spammers on
alt.gothic* by hook, by crook, by land, by sea, by covert
operation, by teasing, by taunting, by make making funny faces:
whatever will work. Most importantly, by taking advantage of our
numbers and our resources.
There are more of us. We are smarter. We have better computers. We
are more organised. We dress better, We dance better. But even the best
dressed army needs a secure line of communication. Thus, this list was
created.

I would request that this list be used exclusively for exchanging
information of confirmed offenders (trollspotting), planning strategies to
stop the net.abusers, or to ask questions that would relate to such.

Please do not stray off topic too much. The list is not moderated,
as I don't feel the need for it to be.
I understand, by their very nature, Some Goths Wander, so much
flexibility will be granted.
Examples of appropriate topics include:
1). Information on the net.abuser's Internet Service Provider; where to mail
reports of net.abuse, falsified header's etc...
2). Questions concerning strategies to stop net.abuse e.g. what
should be included in a net.abuse letter to the abusers ISP, how
to Identify the abuser's ISP from the headers, or any other
questions regarding strategies and actions required to stop
net.abusers.
3). Planning strategies to stop net.abusers, including
measures that require group effort; Multiple complaint's to
ISP's, strategic Psyops operation, comparing notes as a result
of these operations.
4). Tech-head talk that serves to educate the troops on exploiting
the latest tactics & technologies.

*NONE* of the information on this list should be made public. That
means *NO FORWARDING* of any of the information gathered on this list
without the general consenus of the listmembers.
ALSO please remember *THIS LIST DOES NOT EXIST* to the general
public. The continued success A.G.S-F depends on our secrecy and humility.
This is to protect those here from the retaliation of our enemies.

PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY OF THIS INFORMATION TO ALT.GOTHIC.
==========================================================================

[Haydn Black]

Oh God. How the Hell did I get dragged into this.

On 15 Jan 1998 05:30:29 GMT, tee...@spamtrap.com told the world in no uncertain
terms:

>: The list was not advertised to a.g. b/c of this. We wanted to keep spmmers from
>: mailbombing us and keep the list secret from super-egotistical sell outs who
>: would easily give the list address away for a pentium II to any tickle-slut who
>: wanted the info.
>
>ummm.... Who was it that just finished saying, "Everybody knew about the
>fucking list"? Was that you?
>
>And then you go on to confirm that everybody did NOT know about the
>fucking list....

If you didn't know (or suspect) something was going on you had to be bloody
stupid.

1. It was damn obvious that AGSF was far more effective than posts to this
newsgroup and private e-mails could possibly organise.
2. The conversations with gaping holes in them, and illogical jumps in thought
(or knowledge from nowhere) were also a big indication.
3. If you didn't know about the list, and you'd been a regular on this list for
long enough you certainly should have had suspicions.

Anyway: The fact is it was a *private* mailing list, with it's exact nature
purposefully kept out of plain sight. The list had every right to talk about
whatever it wanted to talk about, within the auspices of the AGSF charter
(including people who threatened to mail bomb or otherwise).

A.G is a public newsgroup, and we can't prevent people from posting here. What
we can do is ensure they learnt the guidelines and ground rules.

You were given a trust and a privilege to join the list, and you betrayed that
trust.

Maybe you were looking to become some big hero 'exposing the mind police' or
the Cabal (there is no cabal), but all you've done is proven that you're about
as trustworthy with a secret as a mouldy plank.

>You don't know me. Plenty of people can trust me. They have EARNED that
>trust, something you haven't done.

I wouldn't at this stage.

>So I quit. End of dilemma, as far as I'm concerned. Goes back to that
>whole Earning of Trust thing again, as I felt the list did not deserve
>it.

Once you leave an organisation you are still bound by it's provisions.
You wouldn't expect a priest to go around spilling the secrets of confession
once he'd left the order, and you don't expect the same from people who were
disenfranchised with the list.

BC is old enough to take care of himself. This group may be run by a bunch of
jack-boot wearing Nazi's but they have morals :)
(outside the bedroom at least)

>: The List was created for one simple reason:
>
>: WE FUCKING CARE.
>
>It stepped beyond its bounds. I am not the only one who feels this way.

I disagree.

ON ANOTHER NOTE:
The Troll FAQ - I've often read it with a *nudge-nudge-wink-wink* approach to
mail bombing. Maybe it needs changing?

Haydn Black - Haydn<AT>goth<DOT>org<CIRCLE>au <> ICQ#6649728
The Aether Sanctum Dark Culture Web-zine http://www.goth.org.au
Invocation: An Aether Sanctum Radio Show on ACR 100.9FM
Today I choose to worship: A wild idea and a big white bed.

[Raistlin Majere]

[posted and mailed]

On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 18:33:19 -0800, "Mixy" <Mi...@gte.net> hath spoken thus:

>be a mass of spamming. I for one am not going to bother wasting my time
>protecting AG any more, rather concentrating my efforts on groups that
>actually appreciate it.

You should reconsider. Sadly, I have neither the tools nor the access level
to do any kind of efficient spamfighting or trollkilling (except for
mailing postmasters or abuse@). And I damn well appreciate the efforts of
those who have and use said resources to keep a.g clean.

Raist

-- Cherish the past. Enjoy the present. FIGHT THE FUTURE. --

[bruce h. nagel]

On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 16:25:46 -0800, "Mixy" <Mi...@gte.net> wrote:
{big snip}

>You were discussed because you were acting like a rampant vigilante and
>bringing everyone else into disrepute. You were discussed simply because we
>wanted to calm you down, politely warn you of the situation and to stop you

>making such rash statements that were only doing damage to the newsgroup as
>a whole. We wanted to prevent you making a total dick of yourself, something
>you've now done in spectacular fashion without any help from us.

Just one question: what did the conversations regarding him come to
(Aside from 'all this', that is)? Did he get a polite email saying
"This isn't the way to fight spam, please calm down."?

Or did his revelations come before anything like that was done?

losthalo

[Lady Greycat]

On Thu, 15 Jan 1998 18:17:11 GMT, lost...@innocent.com (bruce h.
nagel) babbled profusely:

>
>Just one question: what did the conversations regarding him come to
>(Aside from 'all this', that is)?

About two weeks ago a few people emailed him, some politely, some very
rude and asked that he not mention mailbombing, and that we do NOT
advocate mailbombing.

Did he get a polite email saying
>"This isn't the way to fight spam, please calm down."?

Yes, in some cases. Granted there were a couple who were rude, but
that was because of their own personal feelings of him, and not
because of any "elite" feelings on the part of the list.

>
>Or did his revelations come before anything like that was done?

It came after people had emailed him.

[Matthew M Mckeon]

tee...@spamtrap.com writes:
> Marcus Pan <p...@idt.net> wrote:
> : tee...@spamtrap.com wrote:

> :> Oooooh.
> :>
> :> I really don't know HOW we're going to get along without you.
>
> : Oh, you did plenty, did you? <snicker>
>
> From what I hear, yeah.
>

> How's your little list? <snicker>
>

Twat.

I was not on the most recent AGSF list, so I can't
quite enter this argument. However, it's apparent
that your attempts to take the moral high ground
in this particular situation
have failed miserably. While you may have disagreed
with the traffic on that list, voicing your concerns
about its content *within*the*bounds*of*the*list*
(as we did when petro ran it) was the appropriate
action to take, *not* attempting to sabotage
both the list and the reputations of several people
on this newsgroup (most of whom were innocent
of your allegations, I assume).

The more you defend your irresponsible action,
the more you seem petty and mean.

>
> See, THAT's how a good jab is delivered.
>

> Go practice.

Since you seem to be of a rather thick sort,
from this point forward I will respond to every post of yours
on this subject with a criticism appropriate to
its intellectual content.
Hopefully, you may find this a valuable resource.

+
| Xthlc
+--+--+ http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~mmm/
| Meallan muilte De' go mall ach meallan siad go mion
| ___ + Haven Magazine Online +
| \h/ http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~xyd/3-dpub/haven.html
+ V

[Matthew M Mckeon]

tee...@spamtrap.com writes:

> Mixy <Mi...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> : To quote JVs previous post (which makes your arguements look like
> : the pile of yak dung they are):
>
> Yeah, yeah. I'll worry about your opinion when you exhibit a bit
> more intelligence than the average parrot.
>

Tit monkey.

> I've answered this post point by point already. I'll not waste time on
> some idiot saying "Me too."

Slurry-slurping arse bandit.

[Matthew M Mckeon]

tee...@spamtrap.com writes:

> Imnoyup <imn...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> : If you are going to quote personal email <big no no> at least
> : quote it correctly. I stated:
>
> : "everyone knew about the fucking list. The list owner sent out an
> : open invitation to nearly every mailing list from SF to NYC"
>
> None of the other mailing lists I was on got any notice.
>
> Which is not to say he didn't send invitations, but certainly not to
> 'nearly every mailing list from SF to NYC'
>

I wouldn't even have done that, had I been a moderator
for the list. I constructed the first one by initially
inviting people I knew were strong contributors to
the newsgroup, then having them invite people who might
be useful to the cause, e.g. sysadmins, spamfighters, etc.

Sending out random invites was just asking for trouble.

> : I also sent out invites personally to dozens of people. It was openly
> : discussed at CIII.
>
> And at some point, the practice of just inviting people began to be
> actively discouraged.
>
> Didn't it?
>

Which is a good thing.
Like it or not, any organized effort must have a leadership,
a small group of people who direct its actions.
AGSF had the job of keeping the newsgroup spam-free
and with a decent StoN ratio. Since anyone who wanted to
could join, it needed something to give it direction.
Call it a star chamber, whatever, but AGSF _needs_ a
short list staffed with people who are serious about
keeping the newsgroup intact.

When petro's list grew too large, we had a terminal
prob with chatter traffic and silly crap.
All that needs to be reserved for alt.gothic.

> : So, sorry about your evil Cabal theory. It just doesn't hold
> : water.
>
> Nobody looks at it as an evil Cabal. Nice strawman, though.
>

I admire your facility for flip-flopping your argument
just so you can disagree with everything.

> : The list was not advertised to a.g. b/c of this. We wanted to keep spmmers f
> rom
> : mailbombing us and keep the list secret from super-egotistical sell outs who
> : would easily give the list address away for a pentium II to any tickle-slut \
> who
> : wanted the info.
>
> ummm.... Who was it that just finished saying, "Everybody knew about the
> fucking list"? Was that you?
>
> And then you go on to confirm that everybody did NOT know about the
> fucking list....
>

We've never been very good about keeping it secret.
Still, though, the only way one _could_ know about
the list was through picking up hints dropped here
and there. It's a rare troll who devotes that much
time and attention to a newsgroup. However,
your act of petty vindictiveness clued in
even the most casual reader.

> : Yes, I am talking about you Bro. Cad and Tim. You have shown you don't give a

> : fuck about anyone but yourselves. It isn't much of a strech to think you wou\

> ld
> : betray someones trust for your own selfishness.
>
> Yeah, whatever.
>

> You don't know me. Plenty of people can trust me. They have EARNED
> that trust, something you haven't done.
>

Crusty-nosed hydroencephalitic dirt fucker.

[kersnip re: BC]

> And yes, for the benefit of those not elite enough to be on the
> list, the subject of what to do about him WAS debated.
>

Then you should have voiced your concern on the list.

> : He thinks himself way to important.
>
> I think you are guilty of the same.
>

Pig-rimming three-testicled wife beater.

> : ABOUT TIM:
> : Tim never mentioned he had a problem with anything. He went
> : behind our backs and disclosed info that was suppose to be held
> : confidential, as confidential as personal email.
>
> You do not wish to understand my ethical issues. Fine.
>

Keep scrabbling for that high ground, buddy.
You might make it eventually, if the readers of this ng
are really as stupid as you seem to think they are.

> But it boils down to the fact that the discussion was already
> underway by the time I decided that action should be taken, and I
> felt that he needed to know that.
>

So rather than attempt to solve the problem,
you exacerbated it.
BC is looking like more of an idiot than ever,
and is in the process of losing whatever respect
he may have had.

> : The list had disagreements in the past. We've discussed them and
> : came to resolutions. Tim was the *only* person on the list,
> : *ever*,who decided to discard everyones opinions and do whatever
> : he wanted regardless of what we thought. He *never* addressed his
> : discontent with our discussing Bro Cad and Bro Cad's advocation
> : of mailbombing.
>
> Nobody else did, either.

No excuse.
Take responsibility for your opinions, you weasel.

> But two others took the same action I did just not quite so
> spectacularly.
>

Ah, and that's why you did it, isn't it?
The spectacle.
You imagined you'd come out lookin' sweet and tidy,
and the good citizens of this newsgroup would carry you
high on their shoulders parading your ass
through the town square.

Look around you. Without the rose-colored glasses.

> : The info message clearly states not to forward the mail. Anyone
> : with any sense of decency would either abide by it or quit the
> : list.
>

> So I quit. End of dilemma, as far as I'm concerned. Goes back to
> that whole Earning of Trust thing again, as I felt the list did not
> deserve it.
>

If you cannot comprehend precisely why
the above sentence makes you look like
a arrogant twat, you are a lost cause.

> : The List was created for one simple reason:
>
> : WE FUCKING CARE.
>
> It stepped beyond its bounds.
> I am not the only one who feels this way.

Perhaps.
But you have taken a big-ass flying leap beyond yours.

[Matthew M Mckeon]

tee...@spamtrap.com writes:
> I didn't have a good record of the conversation... Pretty much all
> the stuff I sent him before I clearly and distinctly declared on
> the list that I would begin sending records of further discussion of
> him to him were posts of mine.
>
> Posts written by others were as far as I recall written AFTER I
> declared that all further conversation specifically about him would
> be forwarded.
>

People tend to respond badly to threats.
But I think you knew that, and didn't care.
All for the spotlight, eh, Tim?

Twat.

> If discussion of him had stopped then and there, he would have
> gotten nothing, since I waited a day to mail him those posts, and
> wouldn't have simply sent my own posts alone.

Pus-burping soresucker.

[klaatu]

Brother Cadfael wrote:
>
> Since AGSF has decided to make me a prime target for their fucked up
> elitist attitudes, I'm going to be very blunt within this post and not
> afford them the privacy and secrecy their members have requested via
> email.
>
> And although one person threw themselves on the grenade and 'fessed up
> to the mailing list and fellow AGSF members, I assure the entire AGSF
> group-- He is not the only one who has revealed you. There are at least
> two others who have contacted me thus far.

>
> And for those who have been so kind as to keep me in touch with the
> situations: I'm sorry if I have betrayed your trust in this post, but I
> feel that my fellow-posters have a right to know what I know. They are
> a part of this group.
>

> First, AGSF does exist. They proclaim that they wish to keep a low
> profile because it's easier to fight spam and trolls. Perhaps.

And perhaps they wish to restrict a.g to users who have expressed or who have
echoed their own Party Line?

With even open and honest dissent to be rigorously quashed?

>
> But they also have a mailing list. And who has recently been discussed
> on that mailing list? Why me, of course. And not very nice things
> either. Yes, some of the members have defended me for whatever reason
> they saw fit. Some have even risked their membership by doing such and
> letting me in on their little groups activities.
>
> From the mouth of one member:
>
> "AGSF exists...We have an e-mail list and everything."
>
> And another:

>
> "I thought we all agreed this list was supposed to NOT exist in other
> a.g'ers eyes in the first place?"

Sure, can't have a secret-police if they're not secret. Then they're just cops
and everyone knows how most people think of cops.

tho' personally I think cops are okay as long as you know they're cops.

>
> Does this not make you uncomfortable? A group who effects the
> environment in which we post and gather, yet does not want to 'exist'?
> Those who are accountable to the public are not the ones to fear in
> life. It is those who work behind closed doors and on secret budgets
> for their own purposes that should be seen as potentially dangerous. A
> small group having the ability to effect a large one, without being
> responsible or accountable to anyone but themselves.

Especially if yet another unknown non-public force co-opts and turns them.

>
> And it seems that a handful of its members have become upset with the
> turn that AGSF has taken. Once a group of do-gooders who kept us free
> of spam and trolls, it has taken the form of thought-police and their
> mailing list has become less of a 'spam killer' discussion and more a
> discussion of many of us who *they* find annoying. Am I the only one
> being discussed? Certainly not. Oh no, not by a long shot.

I have absolutely no doubt of it. As always, the question comes back to "who
shall oversee the guardians?"

>
> From one other AGSF member:

>
> "Talk of this user or that user, simply because they are mildly
> disruptive or do not conform to *our* desires and what we should do
> about it has been rampant recently. This is not what AGSF and its list
> was created for. It is certainly not what I joined them for."

Thank you whoever you are. I concur. I suspect many other do. Except, of
course, for the sort of person who in other lands and in other times would
have inevitably gravitated to being an "apparatchik" on the sole party allowed
by The State.

>
> And:

>
> "And now, there is perhaps a different, much harder, level of damage
> control to be done."

Damage in whose eyes? Oh, I guess that's not open to discussion.

>
> "I think it's high time we shut down the list, as per previous
> discussions..."
>

> I know that some of the people who have not offered information to me
> and are on the list are _not_ against me or many of the rest of us. I
> do know that at least one has specifically said they like me in general.

Insofar as someone's not spamming or being a huge-asshole troll, what the fuck
diference _should_ it make if you're liked or not? that's like taking race
into consideration if you're hiring someone - it should be the qualifications
that count, or in this case the fact that someone has something to say,
especially if it's remotely original, and in particular if it's not part of
"though permitted by the Party".

> This makes exposing this information a little difficult for me because
> while I feel everyone has a right to know who is really controlling
> things behind the scenes and how, I don't want to alienate those who
> I've grown to like and those who I have not yet pissed off. If I've
> managed to hurt *them* in anyway, I have nothing that will change their
> feelings except, perhaps: I felt that we had a right to know.
>
> To them I can only offer my apology-- not to the rest of the AGSF
> mailing list.

>
> AGSF could be a strong and reliable force if they stick to spam and
> trolls and stay out of personal attacks and the interactions of posters
> in general. They are not alt.gothic.

If not stopped they will be. And of course, since being AGSF, they are the
ones who have the better weapons-systems, they cannot be stopped - except by
public disaffection.

> They are a group of people who
> banded together for what was once a common cause, but that that does not
> *make* them the entirety of what alt.gothic stands for, should be, or
> was.

I do believe that is a good assessment.

>
> I am contemplating whether or not I should release the names and email
> addresses of those who are in AGSF and especially those on its mailing
> list.

Actually, that would possibly be a bad idea, because it would reveal to a lot
of spammers precisely who those spammers would want to target for revenge. It
would also be a good idea, since "distributio nof information as a
prophylactic against despotism is always good".

However we should all be prepared to constantly have to weight these good
points against the bad points. And ideally do it either publicly or through
"trustable" secret ballot.

>
> You and I have a right to know who they are if we're talking to them
> elsewhere in threads. On the other hand, some of them have been very
> civil to me and I don't want to damage them personally, in anyway.
>
> I have some thinking to do: Keep information that you should rightly
> have, or risk turning these few good people against me?

Store it somewhere offline and offmachine. then watch them and see how they
act. If they get out of control, release the information.

BTW, if I disappear and have to start posting from my main ISP, consider that
as evidence that you should release that information, because that will
most-likely mean that I got targeted for having dared to oppose.

contrarily, the continued presence of vocal dissent (where warranted) is the
strongest argument that the "military" remains the servant, and not the
master, of "civil authority" - in this case, the mostly anarchic open-doors
policies of UseNet's unmoderated newsgroups.

As always, AGSF is welcome to create a moderated newsgroup under the
alt.gothic heirarchy.

>

<sigsnip>

--
Be kind to your neighbors, | "When the going gets weird the weird turn pro."
even though they be | http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/home.html
transgenic chimerae. | Now. Chock full of uninteresting links.
--------- Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth ----------------
Each non-Internet re-transmission of this posting will be billed at $10000.
Re-transmission of this e-mail expressly prohibited.
The e-mail addresses for the FCC Commissioners include
rhu...@fcc.gov, jqu...@fcc.gov, sn...@fcc.gov, rch...@fcc.gov

[klaatu]

Mixy wrote:
>
> Brother Cadfael wrote in message <69hn0l$1v8...@news.ipns.com>...

> >My final statements on this matter:
>

<snips>

> >I have received some rather odd email from members who are angry with me

> >about what I have said. One person said:
> >
> >"AGSF is no secret! Everyone knew about the list forever!" and then
> >continues later to say "Thanks! Because you had to blab to all of AG
> >about us, our list was shut down!"
> >

> >Why? If it wasn't a secret and everybody knew?

>
> Everybody knew of the existance of the list. They just didn't know who was

> on it and what the name of it was. It was shut down because certain members
> informed a certain idiot whose actions bordered on the illegal that he was
> being discussed because people might think what he was suggesting was a good
> idea.

_I_ for one, for what it's worth, was never aware, directly, of the existence
of this list.

I am not sure if you worded that right, but was AGSF really discussing a
person because whatever they were saying was being agreed with by others, but
opposed by AGSF? Sorry I evidently missed something (maybe I wasn't on the
mailing list?) but what exactly were these actions bordering on the illegal?

>
> >
> >Also recall in my original declarative post which quoted what a member

> >of AGSF said: "Why wasn't this something that was discussed previous to

> >telling the world the list exists? I thought we all agreed this was

> >supposed to NOT exist in other a.g'ers eyes in the first place?"
>

> That was more for the eyes of spammers than the group.

And trolls I presume. But I've seen so many folks here to are (IMHO) a bit
faster-than-fast when it comes to categorization of _any_ newcomers who asks a
stupid question - said categorization being "troll". Where one might have had
a number of new and welcome friends, one has now got a labelled troll.

Shades of McCarthy.

>
> >
> >And for those in AGSF who have hounded me for my actions in this manner,
> >I can only say: I'm not a part of your defunct group. I'm not bound by
> >obligation to you. Keep tabs on your own members and see that they
> >don't get out of line instead of holding people like myself and
> >X******** more accountable for our statements than your own people who
> >you say "do not speak for the whole of AGSF".
>
> We will deal with them in time. You were the one that chose to announce the
> existance of the list though and it is ultimately you who brought around its
> demise. Therefore any increase in spam on ag due to the reduction in
> effectiveness of AGSF is totally down to you. If I was in your position I
> would leave (as you already said you were doing) and never come back but you
> see that is part of how usenet works. I (or any other member of AGSF) cannot
> stop you posting here. If you suggest mailbombing as a tactic we could of
> course forward that to your ISP but instead AGSF chose to warn you first to
> stop you making that mistake. Next time your account is toast as you do not
> deserve any such consideration given your recent actions.
>
> >
> >And face it, had you not become so cocky and sure of yourselves, your
> >precious little list would still be a secret. Else, how did I find out
> >about it?
>
> You found out about it because certain people who were untrustworthy enough
> never to have been allowed on the list in the first place decided to blab
> straight to you instead of discussing their problems with the list. They got
> on their moral high ground and all it did was reduce the effective fighting
> power of agsf, make themselves look stupid and cause all sorts of bad
> feeling.

If your criteria for "people who were untrustworthy enough never to have been
allowed on the list in the first place" is people who can _find_ much less
_hold_ to the moral high-ground, that in itself is a cause for worry.

>
> >
> >As AGSF is comprised of over 100 people, I will not pretend that they
> >aren't going to always be there. Maybe they'll weed the bad out from
> >the good and get back to the task of spam-killer instead of
> >social-engineer.
>
> They never were social engineers. They did discuss two potential idiots who
> advocated illegal activities and also the possibility of a welcome letter
> for clueless newbies to ease their integration into the group. Hardly
> running the group now is it?

_everybody_ is a social engineer - the act of interacting with society to some
degree is social engineering - but the place for discussing illegal activities
is probably out in the open so that clueless newbies (etc) will quickly know
what will fly (in terms of legality or legalistic repercussions etc) and what
won't.

As for the welcome letter - I heartily support that notion, would tend to slow
down FAQsmacking.

>
> >
> >And I did not 'destroy' your mailing list. Those members of your group
> >who you could not control destroyed your mailing list. I only provided
> >information to the newsgroup as it was provided to me. Once again, I am
> >not accountable for your group. I took no 'oath' and I hold no
> >obligation to anyone.
>
> You were the one who chose to post it to usenet therefore you are VERY
> responsible. Your last statement smacks of the nazi defence of "I was only
> following orders".

Quite the contrary IMHO. In some quarters, the "whistle-blower" is regarded as
essential, in other quarters they're considered traitors. Guess which camp
feels which way, the "innocent" or the "guilty"?

>
> >
> >AGSF is supposed to be everyone. The list was simply for secure
> >communication about spammers. Somewhere, it deviated and became the
> >forum for discussion of 'problem children'. I was not the only one
> >being discussed in this manner.
>
> No, there was one other (Emptyeyes) who also posted saying mailbombing was a
> good idea. "Problem child" is a very apt description in light of your recent
> tantrums.

I definitely am myself opposed to mailbombing, etc - since that's pretty much
what spammers are doing... and legally one of the best approaches to getting
spammers off of the net.

>
> >
> >And as further proof of their egalitarianism, they have harshly attacked
> >one of their own for talking behind their back to me, about them.
> >However, they seemed quite eager to talk about me to each other, behind
> >my back. Quite a display of hypocricy
>
> Yes and they deserved it for breaking the security of the list. We discussed
> how best to help you by stopping you getting yourself into trouble. We could
> quite easily have got your account nuked but we didn't instead choosing to
> try and help you. Certain members had their own problems with you but then
> so do a lot of the newsgroup.

Do you consider nuking people's accounts for disagreement to be acceptible
policy, in any situation? Except of course where the disagreement is actual
spamming-per-se.

<end of my comments, rest of article left as is for historical purposes.>

>
> >
> >For those who think that I am being 'oh so egotistical' to think that a
> >group of people like AGSF have nothing better to do than fuck around
> >with me, I offer another bit from one of their members (contributed with
> >permission):
> >
> >"I felt that Cadfael had a right to know why we were slashing away at
> >him with fangs bared and mouths afoam. Those of you who have done so do
> >not speak for me...I do not feel that we are being fair to him..."
>
> This from the person that said (contributed without permission)
>
> "Unsubscribe me from the fucking list. I'll see you jokers on the
> newsgroup. All further mail to me concerning this matter will be forwarded
> to Usenet.
> I am too pissed off to even want to discuss it."
>
> >
> >And for those who wish documentation on my statements, you are free to
> >email me and make such a request. I will provide my records of contact
> >with AGSF, with headers.
>
> As I will do just to prove he is seeing only what he wants to see.
> >
> >As for email addresses of those involved, I will NOT make those public.
> >My intentions are not to destroy AGSF but to see them weed out those who
> >use it as a tool for solving their personal disagreements and wars in
> >the public domain of AG.
>
> Too late. The list is defunct and it's all your fault.
>
> >
> >I like what AGSF was supposed to be. I dislike what it's become.
>
> You don't know what it's become. You were just upset becuse they said some
> bad things about you (deservedly). You brought it on yourself.
>
> >
> >Feel free to flame me or agree with me. I have made the information
> >available and I am through with this. Arguments are futile except to
> >disturb the usefulness of this group and I've seen enough dissention to
> >last a life-time. I have nothing to defend as my statements are
> >supported by documentation.
>
> Well I have documentation that proves you wrong. You have plenty to defend
> but you are choosing the cowards way out by refusing to discuss it.
>
> >
> >I did not wake up and decided to drive a steak into AGSF. I was brought
> >into this by the attacks of your members
>
> But you had the option of keeping the secrecy of the list intact which you
> chose to ignore.
>
> >
> >Like a dirty old uncle, many of them seem to sodomize you and expect you
> >to see them only in a good light.
> >
>
> AGSF never did anything to hurt you, only to try and stop you making an
> idiot of yourself through polite discussion.
>
> To quote some members of the list:
>
> "I'm already talking to Brother Cadfael, and have been for some time; I had
> words with him regarding the dangers of talking about any illegal activity
> he may be involved in. He is going to be more careful now. I am continuing
> this discussion with him, with regard to details. It should all be taken
> care of soon. "
>
> or:
>
> "Outside of me, and thats strictly personal, who was slashing away at him
> with fangs bared? It certainly was nothing instituted or condoned by this
> list. So far as I know, there has never been a question of this list being
> adversarial with Bro C, or any other poster on a.g. "
>
> or:
>
> "If you're referring to me being nasty, that had nothing to do with this
> list.I just
> don't like the fucker."
>
> >I'm through. I've said my piece. On to what AG is supposed to be
> >about: Anne's Breasts.
> >
> Showing your true colours. I used to have a lot of respect for you. Now I'm
> thinking about going to C4 just to see the fallout from this.

>
> Mixy <AGSF UKPG division>
> <<The views contained herein are strictly my own or those of the voices in
> my head>>
> =====================================================================
> Automated spammers; the current FCC: rhu...@fcc.gov jqu...@fcc.gov
> sn...@fcc.gov rch...@fcc.gov | UPSP too: cust...@email.usps.gov
> =====================================================================

--

[Marcus Pan]

klaatu wrote:
> BTW, if I disappear and have to start posting from my main ISP, consider that
> as evidence that you should release that information, because that will
> most-likely mean that I got targeted for having dared to oppose.

Targeted? For what? Can you show me where this A.G.S-F group has
"targeted" someone in the newsgroup for saying something they might not
agree with? I've never seen it. If you're going to say something of
this magnitude, I'd like more information of your allegations or
suspected future allegations.

> As always, AGSF is welcome to create a moderated newsgroup under the
> alt.gothic heirarchy.

Sure...so they can be the subject of retaliation, no longer be able to
fight the spam/trolls, get bombed off the Net and then alt.gothic can be
overrun. Great idea! <sigh>

P.S. I'd also be interested in knowing why this was x-posted to
alt.config as well. I've removed the x-post.

[Mixy]

klaatu wrote in message <34BE86D9...@clark.net>...

>> Everybody knew of the existance of the list. They just didn't know who
was
>> on it and what the name of it was. It was shut down because certain
members
>> informed a certain idiot whose actions bordered on the illegal that he
was
>> being discussed because people might think what he was suggesting was a
good
>> idea.
>
>_I_ for one, for what it's worth, was never aware, directly, of the
existence
>of this list.

Enough evidence was there. Maybe you need to open your eyes a little more?
From the tone of your posts you seem utterly paranoid so you would have been
one of the first people to notice the inconsistencies.

>
>I am not sure if you worded that right, but was AGSF really discussing a
>person because whatever they were saying was being agreed with by others,
but
>opposed by AGSF? Sorry I evidently missed something (maybe I wasn't on the
>mailing list?) but what exactly were these actions bordering on the
illegal?
>

He suggested mailbombing. AGSF stayed strictly within netiquette and the
law.

>
>And trolls I presume. But I've seen so many folks here to are (IMHO) a bit
>faster-than-fast when it comes to categorization of _any_ newcomers who
asks a
>stupid question - said categorization being "troll". Where one might have
had
>a number of new and welcome friends, one has now got a labelled troll.
>
>Shades of McCarthy.

Shades of McCarthy era paranoia

>
>If your criteria for "people who were untrustworthy enough never to have
been
>allowed on the list in the first place" is people who can _find_ much less
>_hold_ to the moral high-ground, that in itself is a cause for worry.

It is not a case of moral high ground rather than keeping the trust placed
in them.

>_everybody_ is a social engineer - the act of interacting with society to
some
>degree is social engineering - but the place for discussing illegal
activities
>is probably out in the open so that clueless newbies (etc) will quickly
know
>what will fly (in terms of legality or legalistic repercussions etc) and
what
>won't.

What was discussed was how to warn BC that his actions were illegal. Posts
were made on the group to show newbies this was not a good idea. BC was
never discussed as a troll. It was his advocation of mailbombing and
beserker actions that was the problem and was discussed.

>
>As for the welcome letter - I heartily support that notion, would tend to
slow
>down FAQsmacking.

Agreed. Some people thought even that was "the evil cabal dictating the
newsgroup".

>Quite the contrary IMHO. In some quarters, the "whistle-blower" is regarded
as
>essential, in other quarters they're considered traitors. Guess which camp
>feels which way, the "innocent" or the "guilty"?

In this situation the whistle-blower is the traitor lacking even the most
basic common sense and perceptive skills, not to mention a complete lack of
honour and trustworthiness.

>
>I definitely am myself opposed to mailbombing, etc - since that's pretty
much
>what spammers are doing... and legally one of the best approaches to
getting
>spammers off of the net.

As was all of the list. What is your point?

>Do you consider nuking people's accounts for disagreement to be acceptible
>policy, in any situation? Except of course where the disagreement is actual
>spamming-per-se.
>

Not at all. That would make us as bad as the spammers. Nuking for
disagreeing is not acceptable in any form. This is a public forum and anyone
can post anything within the guides of netiquette. Nuking for mailbombing
(or the suggestion and advocation of such activities) is however one of
several possible solutions. Had BC mailbombed anyone he would have had the
full weight of AGSF come down on him. For disagreeing with them he would
have been flamed. No comparison.

[EmptyEyed1]

>and remember gang! Wrapping your head in tinfoil *doesn't* actually
>deflect the OPMCL rays! It just ensures your brain steams to a nice
>doneness. So, no wrapping your head in tinfoil, unless you add some
>garlic and basil first. :)

But tinfoil will mess up my microwave... :)
~Empty

"Well, Damn the man!"
Lucas, _Empire_Records_

[ka...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca]

Mixy (Mi...@gte.net) wrote:

: tee...@spamtrap.com wrote in message <69jqck$fsk$2...@news.jumpnet.com>...
(Snip)
: >So, Einstein.... Did YOU know about it before being invited on?

You missed the discussion by about a month, but at least 3 people on the
list had made active effort to get on it.

: I do not see why I should waste my time protecting assholes like yourself
: and Brother Clueless. Sorry to all the decent members of the group but you
: know who to blame (clue - it begins with T, ends with M and has eeke in the
: middle).

B.C. didn't make the error here. He reacted in precisely the way I would
have in that situation. Don't go blaming him.

: Again take heed of your own words. After your abuse of trust do you, Tim or
: Brother Codpiece ever expect anyone on this group to take you seriously or
: place any trust whatsover in you again?

Again, B.C. was not offered the trust to abuse.
As Tim is in my killfile at the moment, I cannot discuss my opinions on
him.

Kaos.

[Pariah]

klaatu wrote in message <34BE80FD...@clark.net>...

*crosspost to alt.config snipped*

>BTW, if I disappear and have to start posting from my main ISP, consider
that
>as evidence that you should release that information, because that will
>most-likely mean that I got targeted for having dared to oppose.

Congradulations. Despite the fact that, to my knowledge, I have disagreed
with almost every post you have ever mad, I have always harbored some degree
of respect for you.

This respect was due to the fact that, dispite disagreeing with what you
post, I have understood your reasons for doing so. I always felt that your
heart was in the right place. So, again I say congradulations. You got me.

It isn't very often that I am *that* completely taken in.

With the above passage you have destroyed whatever respect I may have had
for you.

There are no innocent
bystanders, only wasted ammo
-Pariah- ICQ: 879171

[Wrought666]

<lots of nastiness snipped>
I think some people are taking themselves WAY too seriously.
Just keep repeating to yourself:
It's only a newsgroup
It's only a newsgroup......

[Leonora the KittenLady]

In The Year Of Our Lord Thu, 15 Jan 1998 15:14:20 GMT,

ha...@dieslowly.goth.org.au (Haydn Black) Dared To Write:

>Oh God. How the Hell did I get dragged into this.

a cat grabbed you by the neck and decided to make you read.

-Leonora(Mistress of All Evil & Goddess Material :)
--
OfficialCDWhorePigCarryingKittenLadyWenchGoth |Don't Hate Me |
oftheNYRangers & the Alt.Gothic.Crown.Princess | Just Because |
http://www.geocities.com/~tonygirl/goffhockey/ | *You're* |
Be Aware Of The Choices Within Your Grasp-Covenant| Flammable |

[Leonora the KittenLady]

In The Year Of Our Lord Thu, 15 Jan 1998 15:45:13 -0500, Matthew M
Mckeon <mm...@andrew.cmu.edu> Dared To Write:

> Pus-burping soresucker.

i'm sorry, that just has to be posted again;P

-Leonora (Mistress of All Evil & Goddess Material :)

[David Gerard]

On 14 Jan 1998 09:45:26 GMT, "Raven" <swes...@online.no> wrote:
:Brother Cadfael <Brother...@earthcorp.com> wrote in article
:<69hn0l$1v8...@news.ipns.com>...

:> I valued AGSF for the help lent in freeing us from spam. However it
:> crossed it's boundaries when it tried to become a puppet-master and
:> deciding for the rest of AG what should or shouldn't be.

:OK hands up everybody who feels that the AGSF have influenced their way of
:thinking and decided what they should be alowed to post. Wow that wasn't
:very many hands was it. Or am I the only person who thinks that AGSF
:doesn't directly control this group? Ah but wait, they are subtel and use
:subliminal messages and mind control so we wouldn't know.

The reality is that a list is going to form because there's need for it. A
number (greater than one) of cc: lists have already sprung up, for example.

The most recent list was a majordomo list (a 'mailing list' proper), but
that was originally a matter of convenience because the original cc: list
was way too unwieldy.

And there's no way people will be convinced that they shouldn't be emailing
each other, or that their cc: list isn't entirely their own business and
no-one else's.

:> "AGSF is no secret! Everyone knew about the list forever!" and then

:> continues later to say "Thanks! Because you had to blab to all of AG
:> about us, our list was shut down!"
:> Why? If it wasn't a secret and everybody knew?

:Everybody knew that AGSF existed and many people knew that a mailing list
:existed, what they didn't want was the entire population of a.g subscribing
:to it, thus the semi secrecy. Or so I would guess, as I'm not a member

That's about it.

Also, some people prefer to keep their heads down, so as not to be the
target for spammer retribution.

e.g. some of us are on servers hardened against mailbombings, hacker
attacks, etc.; some of us are *not*; some don't want to risk spammers
hassling them at work; etc. etc. etc.

Also, there has never been anything stopping anyone from forming their
*own* fuckin' list for anti-net-abuse information! Why do y'all need your
hands held?

:> Maybe they'll weed the bad out from

:> the good and get back to the task of spam-killer instead of
:> social-engineer.

:Again where is this social-engineering aspect? I have been contacted once
:by the AGSF after doing something very silly (I fed a troll), two people
:sent me e-mails, which where short and polite telling me not to to do that,
:I responded by sending back an appology. Is this social engineering? Where
:they trying to controll my mind? That's not the way I see it, they were
:simply keeping the newsgroup clean of trolls.

If that was me, it was just me contacting you.

The 'A.G.S-F'. isn't an organised strike force in the sense of, say,
SPUTUM. No badge numbers or unit numbers handed out.

That's why I have said 'AGSF is YOU, look in the mirror' - 'cos it is. The
list was a list, not 'the' list.

I can appreciate that that's not so clear. (I've gotten quite an earful
about it already.)

If I email someone or complain to a net-abuser's ISP or whatever, it's me
doing it - I don't wear an agsf badge.

I will occasionally have said to someone 'I'll pass that along to a list of
interested people', which may be the mailing list or may be a small cc:
list or may be one or two people.

I will communicate to who I wish to and you can communicate to who you wish
to. It's not intrinsically others' business.

:I know that I personally salute the work of the regular AGSF'ers and I'm
:sure just about everybody else on the group does as well. Thanks to their
:homepage I have started to learn the fine art of spam hunting, and Have
:thanks to them racked up a few heads of my own.

Feels good defending one's home, don't it.

:And BC, I used to enjoy your posts many of them were good and some I even
:found very thought provoking, put on this you have simply gone of the deep
:end, well and truly. You've filliped my friend, try to get yourself the
:right way up.

BroCad's heart is in approximately the right place and I can understand him
getting pissed off. That's why I'm joining in this thread and posting
information.

You wouldn't want to be dealing with my email box right about now.

--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/
Stop JUNK EMAIL Boycott AMAZON.COM http://mickc.home.mindspring.com/index1.htm
"Because you can't cotton to evil. No sir. You have to smack evil on the nose
with the rolled-up newspaper of justice and say, 'Bad evil. Bad, BAD evil.'"

[David Gerard]

OK, my news server is working again. Time to start speaking.

Me: I maintain the a.g.s-f web page and gave it its name. I am not 'the
leader' of a.g.s-f 'cos there isn't one. I am a public face and cheerleader
because I'm stupid enough to stick my head up.

On 14 Jan 1998 04:36:27 GMT, tee...@spamtrap.com wrote:

:And has degenerated to idle gossip of who we like and don't like.

Eh? That's not how I recall it.

Someone posted that BroCad was advocating that 'we' mailbomb. Now, he knows
he didn't mean it and I know he didn't mean it, but nevertheless I didn't
want to be associated with such a 'we'. So I followed up his posts
themselves saying so. And posted to the list that that was how I was
following up.

EmptyEyed1 was mentioned for his stupendous output of posts and suspicion
of being a troll. He isn't. The discussion ended.

(Do you consider that he should not even have been discussed? Perhaps a
post to the list discussing your qualms would have been appropriate?)

:: topic of discussion after you advocated illegal tactics to be used against

:: spammers and since several of the list members worked for ISPs they could
:: not be seen to be associated with you because they could lose their jobs.

:Get real. ISP employees will not be fired unless they do something illegal
:or otherwise unethical.

:Are you suggesting that this sort of thing DOES go on?
:And if it does, don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to complain when

:someone else advocates that activity?

I think that's a position of extreme naivete concerning the world of work.

Have you ever had serious hassle (possibly job-threatening) over something
that wasn't actually something to do with you? A lot of us have.

The point is that it's easy to give someone serious hassle at work if you
know who they are and want to get Revenge on them. The allegations need not
be true. The person's boss may well be an arsehole.

You don't need to have actually done anything illegal or even unethical to
be the revenge target of some shithead. Purity of soul and action does not
actually shield one from that sort of BS.

:: Not prehaps - TRUE. See my statements above.

:That was the stated purpose, and it WAS true. But the list became a gossip
:column.

Again, I disagree.

In the past I've privately mailed people on the list asking them to keep it
on-topic. It wasn't a place for gossip.

:The posts I saw were far from polite.

BroCad pisses people off because he's opinionated and a lot of people
disagree with a lot of what he says. Hell, *I* do. (and do indeed let him
know it.)

But the discussion was of the advocation of mailbombing (not serious though
it might have been).

What bits are you saying were so egregiously impolite as to be a matter for
concern in and of themselves?

(I would look through collected list mail except that I *don't* collect it
- I save some information and trash whatever isn't actually of use.)

:This is total bullshit. I am still here, and do not intend to let spammers

:take over the newsgroup. I assume you will still do the same.

Good.

The agsf web pages are still up BTW. And there's an update coming (no
really) with extra training info and new tools.

Anyone can join in. Don't forget to send me the severed heads.

:This newsgroup is by no means open now to spammers, just because a list
:has died. If it was, it wouldn't deserve to exist, anyway.

I'm thinking that blasting apart all existing agsf lists on an annual basis
is probably a good idea anyway, though the way it happened this time around
is not a good way.

The list is already spontaneously reforming. I'm on a couple of cc: lists
at present and I'm sure there are others I'm not on. Which is fine by me.

Anyone who *was* pissed off at not being on a given anti-net-abuse list
would be in it for their ego in any case, which is a real bad idea.

:: OH god, AGSF is the CIA. The only effect we had on the newsgroup was to

:Funny you should mention that.... Some people were most definitely
:treating it as a Star Chamber of sorts.

Such as? (With in-context quotes.)

:You do not discuss what to do with a prick on an anti-spam list. You

:discuss what to do with spammers.

Anti-net-abuse list.

As for 'prick': read the agsf sample letters page and remember the charming
stuff the One Funk Crew got up to. It does get to be a matter of judgement.

:If you stay well within the law and bounds of netiquette, the ISP

:employees you mentioned earlier have nothing to fear, yes?

See above re: the realities of the workplace.

:I'm sorry, when did EmptyEyes discuss mailbombing? I must have missed
:that.

See above.

:I often think lately that the problem is less 'clueless newbies', and more
:'arrogant old-timers'.
:Lately, it seems that every newbie that drifts in here is 'clueless'. For
:me, that says more about the people applying the label, and their
:inability to make allowances for gradual adjustment to the newsgroup.

It doesn't seem that way to me at all. There's lots of clueful ones.
There's lots of clueless ones. That's because there's lots.

:: And because of your "right to know" some of them stand to lose their jobs.

:Why? What specifically will cause them to lose their jobs?

See above again. I think 'stand to lose their jobs' may be an exaggeration,
but the point stands.

[David Gerard]

On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 14:29:43 -0800, "Mixy" <Mi...@gte.net> wrote:

:Of course if he starts anything
:violent it will quickly be stopped as I have a 3rd Dan blackbelt in Karaoke
:and my rendition of "New York New York" would stop a charging angrygoth at
:40 paces.

We'll set up a firing range and let you rip. I wanna see this.

[David Gerard]

On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 10:28:40 -0500, Marcus Pan <p...@idt.net> wrote:
:Mixy wrote:

:> Showing your true colours. I used to have a lot of respect for you. Now I'm

:> thinking about going to C4 just to see the fallout from this.

:There will be no fallout at C4. If ANYONE wants to get physical and
:harm the event that people such as Leanan, Sheryl, Siobhan, Sue & Gregg
:have worked ALL YEAR and SO HARD on, I will personally stick my size
:twelve military issue tanker bot deep enough up your ass you'll be
:buying stock in Depends underwear for the reast of your fucking life.

Ditto.

[David Gerard]

On Thu, 15 Jan 1998 16:59:53 -0500, klaatu <kla...@clark.net> wrote:

:I am not sure if you worded that right, but was AGSF really discussing a

:person because whatever they were saying was being agreed with by others, but
:opposed by AGSF?

By 'AGSF' here I will assume you mean the particular mailing list in
question.

The answer is 'no'. The discussion was that Brother Cadfael was jokingly
suggesting that mailbombing and other denial-of-service attacks against
TerriTickle would be entirely to be expected - it went to the list as a
matter of concern, and a few people (e.g. me) posted to the newsgroups
saying this was a bad idea indeed.

:And trolls I presume. But I've seen so many folks here to are (IMHO) a bit

:faster-than-fast when it comes to categorization of _any_ newcomers who asks a
:stupid question - said categorization being "troll". Where one might have had
:a number of new and welcome friends, one has now got a labelled troll.
:Shades of McCarthy.

You have more than used your allocation of Godwin's Law for this decade.

Read the Troll FAQ for an idea of what 'troll' means.

:Do you consider nuking people's accounts for disagreement to be acceptible

:policy, in any situation? Except of course where the disagreement is actual
:spamming-per-se.

No. No such thing was advocated.