Privacy.li was a sting
Nomen Nescio
This message ID is interesting. Now seems like the same pedos that were
praising privacy.li are thinking it was all a sting. Duh, no shit. The
info was even posted here about how their servers were in locations that
did not require a subpoena for access. Then a post about MLATs and how
the FBI set up offices in, guess where, same places as privacy.li
servers. Ooh, the FBI having access to the servers without any
paperwork at all? Nah, they wouldn't do that, would they? This also
explains privacy.li's need for anonymity, TLA took over privacy.li.
And the final coupe de grace, the name, what a pun to play on those they
were targeting. Caught with a privacy lie. LE likes to play these
puns, makes them laugh even more at those they catch.
Non scrivetemi
Heh! So much for their "80 billion customers, been operating for
years without.." bullshit, huh?
The "APAS Trolls" are vindicated big time. The battle was well worth
it.
/me gloats
Ari
If a TLA is using or captured Privacy.Lie, they need to sell some more
cocaine and fund something worth a shit.
--
An Explanation Of The Need To Be "Anonymous"
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
No One
> If a TLA is using or captured Privacy.Lie, they need to sell some more
> cocaine and fund something worth a shit.
Sounds to me like you've had a little experience in that field, Gimpy.
Could it be that's the type of business you are affiliated with, where
you also claim to be an "employer" ?
Anonymous
If privacy.li was a sting operation, that makes sense of all the
anti-privacy.li comments that have been posted here over the last few
years.
I never could quite understand why people were apparently so pissed off at
it, but if the posts were by cops hoping to convince the pedophiles that
the outfit was pedo-friendly, then they make more sense.
A good job in catching some of the creeps, but it is probably like pissing
in the wind; if they would forget about the sick bastards that just view
the stuff and concentrate their efforts on catching the producers, it
would be a better use of time and money.
Anonymous
Nah, barcode-boi works at some Captain Crunch decoder ring secret
government agency where he cracks strong encryption so he can find out
everything about anonymous remailer users. Names, descriptions, medical
history, everything.
Isn't that right barcode-boi? You're just waiting for the perfect time
to demolish the remailer network by proving you know who everyone is.
Right?
We're all laughing at you and your limp little Sliverdick, barcode-boi.
Anonymous
> I never could quite understand why people were apparently so
> pissed off at it, but if the posts were by cops hoping to
> convince the pedophiles that the outfit was pedo-friendly, then
> they make more sense.
What utter nonsense! The reason everyone despises privacy.LIE is
because they're a band of known criminals, pedophiles, and
antisemitic assholes selling a scam service using bald faced lies.
It has nothing at all to do with anyone being LE, they're quite
literally a billboard example of the scummiest form of sub-life
inhabiting our rock today, and the rest of us are reacting
naturally to the nausea and watering eyes their foul odors
effectuate.
> A good job in catching some of the creeps, but it is probably
> like pissing in the wind; if they would forget about the sick
> bastards that just view the stuff and concentrate their efforts
> on catching the producers, it would be a better use of time and
> money.
>
Problem is, almost all of your innocent "art collectors" are
actively raping children or will in the very near future. It's not
about, and never was about, the images. It's about the very REAL
damage done to innocent children by the dregs of our society. The
pics are just the visible byproduct that leads to their doorsteps.
Non scrivetemi
Heh! I'll bet ol' "Sliverdick" sure wishes he hadn't run off at the
mouth so much.
Or not. Maybe he likes having his nose rubbed in shit. ;)
Ari
> Ari wrote:
>
>> If a TLA is using or captured Privacy.Lie, they need to sell some more
>> cocaine and fund something worth a shit.
>
> Sounds to me like you've had a little experience in that field, Gimpy.
Mena is my home town, Mr. Anonymousie.
> Could it be that's the type of business you are affiliated with, where
> you also claim to be an "employer" ?
Of course. now go knock your anonymous brains out researching it,
CheckTaker.
Ari
> We're all laughing at you and your limp little Sliverdick, barcode-boi.
All, what. one of you? lol
No One
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:01:56 -0400 (EDT), Anonymous wrote:
>
>> We're all laughing at you and your limp little Sliverdick, barcode-boi.
>
> All, what. one of you? lol
No, Gimpy. That's how many fingers I'm holding up. LOL!!
No One
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:24:08 -0400, No One wrote:
>
>> Ari wrote:
>>
>>> If a TLA is using or captured Privacy.Lie, they need to sell some more
>>> cocaine and fund something worth a shit.
>> Sounds to me like you've had a little experience in that field, Gimpy.
>
> Mena is my home town, Mr. Anonymousie.
Nah, that's just another lie, from the Mother-of-liars himself.
It's way too obvious. I think you're losing the skill you used to have
at lying so well.
>> Could it be that's the type of business you are affiliated with, where
>> you also claim to be an "employer" ?
>
> Of course. now go knock your anonymous brains out researching it,
> CheckTaker.
I've got a better idea, Gimpy. How about this?
*You* tell *us* the name of this "company" where you are supposedly an
"employer" at.
That way you prove that you have right all along, and that you haven't
been lying about it the whole time.
Now doesn't that sound like a good idea to you?
And, we won't be thinking that you're a stay-at-home, good-for-nothing
lazy bum,
just taking checks from Public Assistance, i.e. Welfare Checks.
There's absolutely *no* reason for you *not* to give us the name of the
company where you claim to be an "employer" at.
Unless....this has all been One Big Lie....
Nomen Nescio
> Heh! So much for their "80 billion customers, been operating for
> years without.." bullshit, huh?
>
> The "APAS Trolls" are vindicated big time. The battle was well worth
> it.
>
It wasn't a battle, it was Traveler, Eggplant, and Adem against common
sense and everyone else, with occasional celebrity appearances from
findnot, metropipe, and another admin also then chanting the "no logs"
"Fully Anonymous" mantra. Slowly the other admins smartened up,
realizing some of those they were arguing with knew the subject better
than they did, so they changed their claims. Not so privacy.li.
This left Traveler and Adem standing alone screaming how "it was so
possible and anyone claiming otherwise simply didn't know as much as
they did...so there". It causes a laugh now reading those words and it
did then as well. I admit that it's nice to rub their faces in their
wrongness after the mess they turned this group into, but it still
wasn't a battle. It was a baby throwing a temper tantrum with his
fingers stuck in his ears refusing to listen to reason.
I also don't believe privacy.li to be a sting. I believe them to be a
second rate wannabe offering vulnerability ridden out of the box ssh
servers with their real money coming from some kind of financial scam
they have going. They seem to install and configure everything,
including forums, as out of the box operations, not knowing what should
be changed, removed, or tightened. They have been proven liars about
logging by their own admin's actions and now liars about "perfectly
anonymous" by the busts.
I believe that the police just called their data center and asked for
access and got it because it was in a jurisdiction where no paperwork
was required for access. We've been told by the police that they didn't
bother with jurisdictional issues, that they all just worked together
under whatever their local constraints were. No constraints for access
to any of privacy.li's servers, targets of a very high profile operation
use that service, of course they asked for and got access.
Why they stuck by these asinine lies when every other legit service
realized they had better drop the bullshit, I do not know, but they did.
Big mistake, makes them look even worse than they actually are. They
are either incredibly dumb or shady, I haven't decided which. Dumb, at
best, because they didn't know that their claims were impossible and
that they really did place their users in more jeopardy because of their
choice of server location (hard to believe), or shady because they knew
and didn't care.
Nomen Nescio
the one spamming all over the pedo groups for customers, UA. Any
service doing this guaranteed themselves a close investigation in this
bust. The fact they continue doing it speaks volumes. However, back to
the subject at had, Privacy.li's only involvement in this was putting
their servers in a place where the police are give free access for the
asking. They actually removed protection for their users instead of
adding it. They are ignorant of what they profess to offer, yes.
Committing some kind of online fraud, probably. But they are no sting.
Non scrivetemi
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:01:56 -0400 (EDT), Anonymous wrote:
>
> > We're all laughing at you and your limp little Sliverdick, barcode-boi.
>
> All, what. one of you? lol
Well hell Sliverdick, if everyone who mocks you is just one person you
must know who that person is. Your little Sliverdick self even said so
if I recall correctly.
So what's the holdup Sliverdick? Out with it. Prove once and for all
you have something in your arsenal besides your big mouth Sliverdick.
Stand up like a man and crush that one person like a grape. End all the
torment, Sliverdick.
<sound of crickets with Sliverdick whimpering in the background>
traveler 66
That does it, I'm using cotse.
George Orwell
<FLUSH!>
** Bye bye, Privacy.LIE pedophile! **
http://www.theheraldbulletin.com/breakingnews/local_story_065230523.html
Even to those who should have been closest to him, an Anderson man
arrested in a child pornography investigation that stretched across the
globe seems to be a something of an enigma.
“I didn’t know a lot about him other than he got in trouble with drugs
and now this, which is a complete surprise to me,” Bob Lakey,
Covington, Tenn., said of his stepbrother Gary W. Lakey.
Gary Lakey, 54, was arrested without incident by FBI special agents at
his Anderson home Friday morning, said Special Agent Wendy Osbourne.
Osbourne couldn’t immediately provide his Anderson address, but he
lived in the 2400 block of East Seventh Street when he was arrested in
2002 on a misdemeanor marijuana possession charge.
Lakey faces several federal charges involving child pornography,
including engaging in a child exploitation enterprise, advertisement
and transportation of child pornography, receiving child pornography,
and obstruction of justice.
He made an initial court appearance in U.S. District Court in
Indianapolis on Monday, but was expected to be taken to Pensacola, Fla.,
where the indictment was unsealed in federal court Friday. Dixie Morrow,
managing assistant U.S. attorney, said a court date hasn’t been set for
Lakey there.
If convicted, Lakey faces at least 20 years imprisonment and up to life
behind bars.
Lakey was one 12 American men arrested in the worldwide investigation
into child pornography that originated in Australia.
Lakey went by the screen name “Eggplant,” and was one of two Indiana
residents named in the 30-page indictment. Marvin Lambert, 33, of
Indianapolis, went by the screen name “Methuselah.”
The 12 men formed an organization that used Internet news groups to
trade in images and videos of child pornography over a two-year period,
beginning in August 2006, according to a news release from the U.S.
Department of Justice.
The images and videos depicted “prepubescent children, including
toddlers, engaged in various sexual and sadistic acts,” according to
the release. “The group utilized sophisticated encryption methods to
avoid detection and traded over 400,000 images and videos of child
sexual abuse.”
According to the justice department, the charges were developed after
a law enforcement official was able to gain membership into the group.
On May 8, Lakey allegedly posted on the news group a list of videos
showing child pornography and directions on how fellow members could
download them.
“Hi Gang, More Oldies found,” he wrote, according to the indictment.
“This time a few misc vids...”
Bob Lakey, a Madison Heights High School graduate, said he was
surprised to learn that his stepbrother had been arrested on the child
pornography charges. He knew Gary Lakey was arrested in 2002 for
marijuana possession, but thought that was the extent of his criminal
activity.
“Apparently, this was an elaborate scheme,” Bob Lakey said. “I really
didn’t think he’s that bright, honestly.”
The last time Bob Lakey spoke to his stepbrother was in 1994, at his
stepmother’s funeral. Their conversation then was brief, he said. Bob
Lakey hasn’t lived in Anderson since 1960, and said he didn’t speak
with his stepbrother very often due to the geographic distance between
them.
“I really don’t know a lot about him,” Bob Lakey said.
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it
Anonymous
<FLUSH!>
** Famous traveler 66 AKA Eggplant Quotes **
Message-ID: <Xns98DF85604...@63.218.45.252>
"Yeah, I've forgotten to change nics on my Xnews."
Message-ID: <Xns980C4455F...@66.250.146.167>
"I confessed to enjoying child erotic art."
"No babies in my posts. Young and adolescent girls showing off for the
camera knowing exactly what they're doing are not babies."
Message-ID: <Xns98CB6BDA7...@63.218.45.252>
"As for your insult, most know my prefered age for pics to view are
budding 12 - 14 year olds."
Anonymous
<FLUSH!>
Can anyone explain how these headers "don't match up"?
-------------------------
From: Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com>
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
Subject: Any Phone Safe?
References:
X-No-Archive: Yes
Message-ID: <b61949089c833bed...@dizum.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 01:30:08 +0100 (CET)
Mail-To-News-Contact: a...@dizum.com
Organization: mail2n...@dizum.com
Xref: authen.puce.readfreenews.net alt.privacy:217848
Other than having crypto phones on each end what's the safest, most
anonymous phone you can own nowadays? Is cell safer than landline? Why or
why not. Anyone who believes that the government only listens to
terrorists I think is really taking a big risk especially if they are on
Bush's black list (I am sure he has one).
-------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
Subject: Re: Any Phone Safe?
From: "Eggplant©" <vegetab...@theguarden.com>
References: <b61949089c833bed...@dizum.com>
Organization: 60's Burnout
Message-ID: <Xns98D83ADFD...@63.218.45.252>
User-Agent: Xnews/5.03.24
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: 15 Feb 2007 13:46:37 GMT
Lines: 17
X-Complaints-To: ab...@newshosting.com
Xref: authen.puce.readfreenews.net alt.privacy:217882
Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in
news:b61949089c833bed...@dizum.com:A vortex formed within the
smokey haze of my alledged mind and became this:
> Other than having crypto phones on each end what's the safest, most
> anonymous phone you can own nowadays? Is cell safer than landline? Why or
> why not. Anyone who believes that the government only listens to
> terrorists I think is really taking a big risk especially if they are on
> Bush's black list (I am sure he has one).
The problem with cell phones is the "implied consent" laws. You are
knowingly using a portable transmitter/reciever. Anything done on a cell
phone can be used in court without any privacy protection laws that would
apply to landlines. No warrant necessary because it was sent openly over
the airwaves.
--------------------------------
From: traveler 66 <nore...@nym.alias.net>
Subject: Re: Any Phone Safe?
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.14.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Reply-To: nore...@nym.alias.net
Organization: Anonymous
References: <b61949089c833bede77f7815a3296...@dizum.com>
<Xns98D83ADFDB7DCEggpl...@63.218.45.252>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:12:39 -0800
Message-ID: <gzxeevjdr3jk.1udn2x095zaia$....@40tude.net>
Lines: 21
X-Complaints-To: admi...@privacy.li
Xref: authen.puce.readfreenews.net alt.privacy:217907
On 15 Feb 2007 13:46:37 GMT, Eggplant© wrote:
> Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in
> news:b61949089c833bed...@dizum.com:A vortex formed within the
> smokey haze of my alledged mind and became this:
>> Other than having crypto phones on each end what's the safest, most
>> anonymous phone you can own nowadays? Is cell safer than landline? Why or
>> why not. Anyone who believes that the government only listens to
>> terrorists I think is really taking a big risk especially if they are on
>> Bush's black list (I am sure he has one).
> The problem with cell phones is the "implied consent" laws. You are
> knowingly using a portable transmitter/reciever. Anything done on a cell
> phone can be used in court without any privacy protection laws that would
> apply to landlines. No warrant necessary because it was sent openly over
> the airwaves.
Why don't you post your address here, I'll look up the law in your area for
you.
---------------------------------------
From: Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com>
Subject: Re: Any Phone Safe?
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
References: <b61949089c833bede77f7815a3296...@dizum.com>
<Xns98D83ADFDB7DCEggpl...@63.218.45.252>
<gzxeevjdr3jk.1udn2x095zaia$....@40tude.net>
Message-ID: <1af100c765b949c399bfc6d598ce0...@dizum.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:00:04 +0100 (CET)
Mail-To-News-Contact: a...@dizum.com
Organization: mail2n...@dizum.com
Xref: authen.puce.readfreenews.net alt.privacy:217912
traveler 66 wrote:
> On 15 Feb 2007 13:46:37 GMT, Eggplant=C2=A9 wrote:
>=20
> > Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in=20
> > news:b61949089c833bed...@dizum.com:A vortex formed
> > within the smokey haze of my alledged mind and became this:
> >=20
> >> Other than having crypto phones on each end what's the safest, most
> >> anonymous phone you can own nowadays? Is cell safer than landline?
> >> Why or why not. Anyone who believes that the government only
> >> listens to terrorists I think is really taking a big risk
> >> especially if they are on Bush's black list (I am sure he has one).
> >>=20
> >=20
> > The problem with cell phones is the "implied consent" laws. You are=20
> > knowingly using a portable transmitter/reciever. Anything done on a
> > cell phone can be used in court without any privacy protection laws
> > that would apply to landlines. No warrant necessary because it was
> > sent openly over the airwaves.
>=20
> Why don't you post your address here, I'll look up the law in your
> area for you.
Do you mean "look up" as in the way you ignore and deny the laws in all
the cheap hosting privacy SHIT HOLES where you rent server space just
so you can swindle people with your off-shore lies?
Slimy asslickers like you offering legal research assistance is BEYOND
ironic. How many times have you tried to tell us local laws and MLATS
don't matter now? A couple dozen?=20
How's it feel to have your bullshit come back to haunt you? Hmmmmm?
LOL!
-------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
Subject: Re: Any Phone Safe?
From: "Eggplant©" <vegetab...@theguarden.com>
References: <b61949089c833bede77f7815a3296...@dizum.com>
<Xns98D83ADFDB7DCEggpl...@63.218.45.252>
<gzxeevjdr3jk.1udn2x095zaia$....@40tude.net>
<1af100c765b949c399bfc6d598ce0...@dizum.com>
Organization: 60's Burnout
Message-ID: <Xns98DF50B8F10BAEggpl...@63.218.45.254>
User-Agent: Xnews/5.03.24
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: 22 Feb 2007 16:46:13 GMT
Lines: 49
X-Complaints-To: a...@newshosting.com
Xref: authen.puce.readfreenews.net alt.privacy:218035
Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in
news:1af100c765b949c3...@dizum.com:A vortex formed within
the smokey haze of my alledged mind and became this:
> traveler 66 wrote:
>> On 15 Feb 2007 13:46:37 GMT, Eggplant=C2=A9 wrote:
>>=20
>> > Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in=20
>> > news:b61949089c833bed...@dizum.com:A vortex formed
>> > within the smokey haze of my alledged mind and became this:
>> >=20
>> >> Other than having crypto phones on each end what's the safest, most
>> >> anonymous phone you can own nowadays? Is cell safer than landline?
>> >> Why or why not. Anyone who believes that the government only
>> >> listens to terrorists I think is really taking a big risk
>> >> especially if they are on Bush's black list (I am sure he has one).
>> >>=20
>> >=20
>> > The problem with cell phones is the "implied consent" laws. You are=
20
>> > knowingly using a portable transmitter/reciever. Anything done on a
>> > cell phone can be used in court without any privacy protection laws
>> > that would apply to landlines. No warrant necessary because it was
>> > sent openly over the airwaves.
>>=20
>> Why don't you post your address here, I'll look up the law in your
>> area for you.
> Do you mean "look up" as in the way you ignore and deny the laws in all
> the cheap hosting privacy SHIT HOLES where you rent server space just
> so you can swindle people with your off-shore lies?
> Slimy asslickers like you offering legal research assistance is BEYOND
> ironic. How many times have you tried to tell us local laws and MLATS
> don't matter now? A couple dozen?=20
> How's it feel to have your bullshit come back to haunt you? Hmmmmm?
> LOL!
WTF are you talking about (in your further attempts to confuse issues).
I don't have a server, nor am I connected to anyone who does beyond being
a very satified customer with prili. Nothing has come back to haunt me at
all. Who ever said the laws don't matter? Having to put words in peoples
mouths to try to look wise again I see. When do you offer anything to
help anyone? You're just a troll.
------------------------------------
From: Anonyma <anon-boun...@deuxpi.ca>
X-Anonymous: yes
X-Anon-Help: <http://www.deuxpi.ca/>
<mailto:deuxpi-ad...@deuxpi.ca>
Subject: Re: Any Phone Safe?
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
References: <b61949089c833bede77f7815a3296...@dizum.com>
<Xns98D83ADFDB7DCEggpl...@63.218.45.252>
<gzxeevjdr3jk.1udn2x095zaia$....@40tude.net>
<1af100c765b949c399bfc6d598ce0...@dizum.com>
<Xns98DF50B8F10BAEggpl...@63.218.45.254>
Message-ID: <29162e230034491ac10bfc386356a...@deuxpi.ca>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:23:00 -0500 (EST)
Mail-To-News-Contact: a...@dizum.com
Organization: mail2n...@dizum.com
Xref: authen.puce.readfreenews.net alt.privacy:218044
Eggplant=C2=A9 wrote:
> Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in=20
> news:1af100c765b949c3...@dizum.com:A vortex formed
> within the smokey haze of my alledged mind and became this:
>=20
> > traveler 66 wrote:
<CLIP>
> WTF are you talking about (in your further attempts to confuse
> issues).
>=20
> I don't have a server, nor am I connected to anyone who does beyond
ROTFLMAO!!!!!
Forget to change socks there, asslicker?
So it turns out the "traveler" puppet is also a pedofuck pervert called
Eggfart. That explains a lot. You were always "both" just a couple of
fucktarded asslickers. It's good to know Privacy.LIE and its twin
sister scam services have such a distinguished customer base.
Owned by perverted racists..... patronized by racist perverts.=20
LOL! Outstanding. Thank you. LOL!!
-------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
Subject: Re: Any Phone Safe?
From: "Eggplant©" <vegetab...@theguarden.com>
References: <b61949089c833bede77f7815a3296...@dizum.com>
<Xns98D83ADFDB7DCEggpl...@63.218.45.252>
<gzxeevjdr3jk.1udn2x095zaia$....@40tude.net>
<1af100c765b949c399bfc6d598ce0...@dizum.com>
<Xns98DF50B8F10BAEggpl...@63.218.45.254>
<29162e230034491ac10bfc386356a...@deuxpi.ca>
Organization: 60's Burnout
Message-ID: <Xns98DF8560483E1Eggpl...@63.218.45.252>
User-Agent: Xnews/5.03.24
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: 22 Feb 2007 21:57:02 GMT
Lines: 36
X-Complaints-To: a...@newshosting.com
Xref: authen.puce.readfreenews.net alt.privacy:218045
Anonyma <anon-boun...@deuxpi.ca> wrote in
news:29162e230034491a...@deuxpi.ca:A vortex formed within
the smokey haze of my alledged mind and became this:
> Eggplant=C2=A9 wrote:
>> Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in=20
>> news:1af100c765b949c3...@dizum.com:A vortex formed
>> within the smokey haze of my alledged mind and became this:
>>=20
>> > traveler 66 wrote:
> <CLIP>
>> WTF are you talking about (in your further attempts to confuse
>> issues).
>>=20
>> I don't have a server, nor am I connected to anyone who does beyond
> ROTFLMAO!!!!!
> Forget to change socks there, asslicker?
> So it turns out the "traveler" puppet is also a pedofuck pervert called
> Eggfart. That explains a lot. You were always "both" just a couple of
> fucktarded asslickers. It's good to know Privacy.LIE and its twin
> sister scam services have such a distinguished customer base.
> Owned by perverted racists..... patronized by racist perverts.=20
> LOL! Outstanding. Thank you. LOL!!
Boy are you a moron. I'd use remailers for everything and stay anonymous
if I were going to be 2 people. Yeah, I've forgotten to change nics on my
Xnews. But I don't use remailers. You're way off base as usual.
-------------------------------------
Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
<much snippage of excellent commentary>
> Why they stuck by these asinine lies when every other legit
> service realized they had better drop the bullshit, I do not
> know,
I'd say the whys of that are pretty clear also, and you even eluded
to them yourself when you mentioned alternate funding.
Theses criminals don't give a damned about a domain or any
recognizable business name, they have other agendas. And when one
name is in ruination they simply reappear under another.
Privacy.LIE isn't dead, they've already begun scamming under
another name.
> but they did. Big mistake, makes them look even worse than
> they actually are. They are either incredibly dumb or shady, I
What makes you think "dumb" and "shady" are mutually exclusive
terms. ;) I'd suggest that it's a marked lack of intelligence that
leads most people to do shady things. Bright people make a name for
themselves in other ways. ;)
Solo
Stupid...@gmail.com wrote:
> they SPAM EVERY adult or sexual newsgroup and they have for 10 or more
> years now. Seems thats where they get their business and if it works, so be
> it. You cant even post a binary through UA's remailer (web based or
> software version) probably for good reason. They do offer some really cool
> file encryption and secured chat/P2P software but CP? No way. Privacy.lie
> on the other hand was a haven for CP lovers and its clearly documented. Now
> some Privacy.lie scumnut is going to start bad mouthing all the other
> privacy services (gee, is anyone really surprised) to get the attention off
> them. Wakeup people.
Spam enabler. Flush!
George Orwell
> That does it, I'm using cotse.
Everything is not cotse. You use this inter-service rivalry thing you
made up as some kind of smokescreen. Cotse is recommended quite a bit
because they offer a lot more than others for a lot less than those
others, they have proven themselves reliable, and because they've been
straight shooters about what they provide from the get go. That is the
only reason they are recommended so much. This is not a cotse ganging
up on poor little privacy.li thing you desperately want to make it seem
like. That is pure smokescreen you use to try to hide behind.
Lets clear away the bullshit. Lets look at the very things you
supposedly stood behind privacy.li for: Safer because of off shore;
knowing some way to make a single hop SSH tunnel truly anonymous that no
other service knew how to do; not having any logs; and being very
secure. These are your stated reasons for so rabidly supporting
privacy.li. Lets look at each.
Safer because of off shore, does not matter what local law is, off shore
adds red tape - Well, here we have an actual international investigation
and the results. The police, themselves, say that jurisdiction didn't
matter, they all just worked together and helped each other. Didn't add
red tape, removed it because local law didn't even require subpoena.
Secret method of making a single hop SSH tunnel truly anonymous - This
one is just laughable, at the same time you criticize Tor as being
flawed because of a paper written about an attack that a single hop
proxy is even more vulnerable to, yes single hop proxies cannot be
anonymous.
No logs - You trumpeted this one enough. Used Findnot as an example,
even had Findnot admin in here for a little while trying to convince
others that what was said was true, absolutely no logs. argued up and
down about how some secret method allowed ironclad security without any
logs at all anywhere. Well the admins you brought in here slowly faded
out of that argument. Findnot even put a notice on their page about how
they do indeed have logs (a complete 180 degree turn for them). Other
services just quietly removed the claims. Not privacy.li, even after
their admin admitted looking through the logs to see that recent
visitors had all come from Schneier's site they still claim it.
It's very secure - We saw that it was configured to defaults and was
using outdated software versions, versions with known remote
vulnerabilities. This was easy to do, query the versions, run the
versions against the vulnerability databases. Not only that but we saw
that default installs had been left, not even removing test pages that
the setup instructions say to remove after setup. That's not security.
Everything, absolutely everything you fought about has seen privacy.li
demonstrated wrong. Yet still you persist. You simply have to have
some kind of monetary stake in privacy.li. Nobody can be that blindly dumb.
Non scrivetemi
No you're not. Scumbags like you aren't allowed to use Cotse.
Non scrivetemi
<FLUSH!>
** Privacy.LIE - KiddiePorn2News Gateway **
Path: news.privacy.li!not-for-mail
From: Argus <bo...@innominate.com>
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.ll-series
Subject: aLL the other LLs I have....(for MoreOrLess) - "ll-n4-33.jpg" 35.0 kBytes yEnc
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 04:53:45 +1200
Message-ID: <aom9i0dqsmo80dsdc...@4ax.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
Lines: 289
Organization: news.privacy.li
X-Complaints-To: adm...@privacy.li
Path: news.privacy.li!not-for-mail
From: Argus <bo...@innominate.com>
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.ll-series
Subject: aLL the other LLs I have....(for MoreOrLess) - "ll-n4-39 (1).jpg" 38.5 kBytes yEnc
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 04:53:56 +1200
Message-ID: <eom9i0p9qs4k3u3vv...@4ax.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
Lines: 318
Organization: news.privacy.li
X-Complaints-To: adm...@privacy.li
Subject: A Flavor of Bunny set 60 (005,107), "kleenxBuMod60095.jpg" yEnc (1/1)
From: 23...@vishnu.hk (Dr. Hu)
Date: 09 Feb 2007 22:26:20 GMT
Message-ID: <45ccf4fa$0$9308$450c...@news.privacy.li>
Bytes: 186644
Lines: 1434
Organization: Privacy.li- Anonymous news through SSH2-Tunnels, www.privacy.li
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.webeweb
Sender: 23...@vishnu.hk
X-Newsposter: YENC-POWER-POST-A&A-v11b (Modified POWER-POST www.CosmicWolf.com)
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Complaints-To: adm...@privacy.li
Anonymous
<FLUSH!>
** Privacy.LIE Number 6 on Abuse List **
Rank Top 25 rejected by Path origin Count SBI (Rank)
1 news.bt.com.POSTED 11726 11732.16 1
2 postnews3.readnews.com 4710 4744.38 3
3 news.usenethost.com 3050 3050.00 4
4 shaw.ca 2030 5544.03 2
5 newshub.netvisao.pt 1440 1440.00 7
6 news.privacy.li 1324 1324.00 9
http://www.cquest.toronto.edu/usenet/abuse/2006-06-10-src.txt
traveler 66
> traveler 66 wrote:
>
>> That does it, I'm using cotse.
>
> Everything is not cotse. You use this inter-service rivalry thing you
> made up as some kind of smokescreen. Cotse is recommended quite a bit
> because they offer a lot more than others for a lot less than those
> others, they have proven themselves reliable, and because they've been
> straight shooters about what they provide from the get go. That is the
> only reason they are recommended so much. This is not a cotse ganging
> up on poor little privacy.li thing you desperately want to make it seem
> like. That is pure smokescreen you use to try to hide behind.
>
> Lets clear away the bullshit. Lets look at the very things you
> supposedly stood behind privacy.li for: Safer because of off shore;
> knowing some way to make a single hop SSH tunnel truly anonymous that no
> other service knew how to do; not having any logs; and being very
> secure. These are your stated reasons for so rabidly supporting
> privacy.li. Lets look at each.
I've only said I have a news account with them, anything else is made up
trolls among other flames in here.
>
> Safer because of off shore, does not matter what local law is, off shore
> adds red tape - Well, here we have an actual international investigation
> and the results. The police, themselves, say that jurisdiction didn't
> matter, they all just worked together and helped each other. Didn't add
> red tape, removed it because local law didn't even require subpoena.
Findnot says it best when they tell you there is no user identifiable
information on the secured servers. Somehow, (and I don't know because I
haven't read anything official that mentions any privacy service, only
trolls in here), I don't think any privacy outfit is going to run
interference for creeps like the ones that got busted.
>
> Secret method of making a single hop SSH tunnel truly anonymous - This
> one is just laughable, at the same time you criticize Tor as being
> flawed because of a paper written about an attack that a single hop
> proxy is even more vulnerable to, yes single hop proxies cannot be
> anonymous.
Metropipe, privacy.li, trilight, privacyoffshore all offer non identifiable
proxie tunnels (don't show they are proxies), as well as full Tor access
points. Not bad actually.
>
> No logs - You trumpeted this one enough. Used Findnot as an example,
> even had Findnot admin in here for a little while trying to convince
> others that what was said was true, absolutely no logs. argued up and
> down about how some secret method allowed ironclad security without any
> logs at all anywhere. Well the admins you brought in here slowly faded
> out of that argument. Findnot even put a notice on their page about how
> they do indeed have logs (a complete 180 degree turn for them). Other
> services just quietly removed the claims. Not privacy.li, even after
> their admin admitted looking through the logs to see that recent
> visitors had all come from Schneier's site they still claim it.
No logs as I've read in here means surfing logs on the various policy
abiding customers. I don't ever remember anyone saying no security or
maintenance logs. You're right about findnot, at first they had no logs of
surfing at all, but I guess they had abuse to the extent they had to keep
them for up to 5 days.
>
> It's very secure - We saw that it was configured to defaults and was
> using outdated software versions, versions with known remote
> vulnerabilities. This was easy to do, query the versions, run the
> versions against the vulnerability databases. Not only that but we saw
> that default installs had been left, not even removing test pages that
> the setup instructions say to remove after setup. That's not security.
I don't know all the tech aspects, but I've seen what's probably 2 people
attacking every privacy service in here except one with nothing but FUD.
>
> Everything, absolutely everything you fought about has seen privacy.li
> demonstrated wrong. Yet still you persist. You simply have to have
> some kind of monetary stake in privacy.li. Nobody can be that blindly dumb.
Believe what you want, all I have is a news account. I just don't like the
way everyone in here is flamed, trolled and attacked unless they're from
one particular privacy provider who is the only one that is "honest".
>
> Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
> non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
> reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
> di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
> Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
> https://www.mixmaster.it
Good Day.
Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
<FLUSH!>
** The Truth About Privacy.li **
Privacy.LIE sock puppet "traveller 66" exposes himself as a pedophile.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.privacy/browse_thread/thread/5782f0f6f5552152/385119af1d32a5ae
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.privacy/msg/385119af1d32a5ae?dmode=source
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.privacy/msg/67741086f2ff3eb4 (reposted admission)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.privacy/msg/7f706a505f078bec (threaded admission)
Privacy.LIE sock puppet traveller/Eggplant confesses to pedophilia.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.privacy/msg/21d4c408a0409dc5
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.privacy/msg/a02efcc71c44c767
Privacy.LIE sock puppet traveller/Eggplant pretends to argue with himself.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.privacy/msg/31216dc836c9b7f6
Privacy.LIE outs one of their customers. Sort of.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.privacy.anon-server/msg/558546787dbea60b?dmode=source
Privacy.LIE fails to ID yet another Tor node, about a week later.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.privacy/msg/ea548e09d2de8558?dmode=source
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.privacy/msg/31fc61d49f980a06?dmode=source
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.privacy/msg/4dc7f83685450adb?dmode=source
Privacy.LIE's "security" is exposed.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.privacy/browse_thread/thread/b79bfb855c3cdf10/570b6341770f8a78
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.privacy/msg/c61ababa5bf5f746?dmode=source
Privacy.LIE "fixes" their security issues.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.privacy/browse_thread/thread/357ace4cfc6fe976/56cd101c25c5830b
The world's most recognized security expert dissects Privacy.LIE,
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/07/the_doghouse_pr.html
Privacy.LIE engages in nymhopping to defend themselves.
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2005/07/09/privacyli-not-to-be-trusted/
Historical Privacy.LIE theft.
http://www.appleby.net/privacy.html
Privacy.LIE theft today.
http://forums.truecrypt.org/viewtopic.php?t=5893
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=981542
More informative Privacy.LIE links
http://www.maildropnet.com/scams.htm
http://www.appleby.net/netscam/currentscam.html
http://www.ptshamrock.com/shame.htm
http://www.privacyworld.com/scams.htm
http://www.gatago.com/alt/privacy/5568908.html
http://archive.mail-list.com/privacyworld/msg00212.html
http://www.newsbackup.com/about1061381.html
http://www.hyipdiscussion.com/due-diligence/7805-venture-resources-group-interesting.html
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t366184-securstar-pimping-for-privacylie.html
http://www.privacy-consultants.com/ and then...
http://www.appleby.net/netscam/FPCscam.html
Nomen Nescio
<FLUSH!>
** Privacy.LIE Pedophile Speaks Out **
Path: s03-b20.iad01!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!post01.iad01!news.privacy.li!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
Subject: Re: Privacy.li - From someone with more at stake than these morons.
From: Eggplant <vegetab...@theguarden.com>
References: <Xns980B9A0BE...@63.218.45.254>
<a92c46ee84bf92e7...@deuxpi.ca>
<44c6c9c5$0$15913$450c...@news.privacy.li>
<de83075caa713472...@dizum.com>
Organization: 60's Burnout
Message-ID: <Xns980C4455F...@66.250.146.167>
User-Agent: Xnews/5.03.24
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: 26 Jul 2006 12:46:52 GMT
Lines: 34
X-Complaints-To: adm...@privacy.li
Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in
news:de83075caa713472...@dizum.com:A vortex formed within
the smokey haze of my alledged mind and became this:
> nos...@trilightzone.org wrote:
>> can't take it if a happy customer writes in defense of privacy.li
> Your happy customer is a confessed child molester.
Wrong idiot. I confessed to enjoying child erotic art. That has nothing
to do with either sex nor molestation except in the perverted minds of
those so conditioned they can't see anything in nudity beyond sex. The
problem is in your own mind. Don't put words in my mouth.
> Please don't let that stop you from rushing to a perverts' defense.
> It's better bad press than anyone else could ever come up with.
The perversion is in your own outlook.
> Everyone take note of what privacy.lie sock puppets stand up for.
> Baby rapers.
Never raped anyone. And define babies. You know nothing but cliches. No
babies in my posts. Young and adolescent girls showing off for the camera
knowing exactly what they're doing are not babies.
And you're so far off topic it's obvious you're grasping at straws. The
topic is privacy and anonimity.
---cut---
Anonymous
> Bullshit. Privacy.li is not a sting, if any service is a sting
> it is the one spamming all over the pedo groups for customers,
Sting, honeypot, compromised, run by incompetent asshats... all
the same thing from the customer's perspective. It's an as of yet
unflushed toilet regardless.
> UA. Any service doing this guaranteed themselves a close
> investigation in this bust. The fact they continue doing it
> speaks volumes. However, back to the subject at had,
> Privacy.li's only involvement in this was putting their servers
> in a place where the police are give free access for the asking.
> They actually removed protection for their users instead of
> adding it. They are ignorant of what they profess to offer, yes.
> Committing some kind of online fraud, probably. But they are no
> sting.
Maybe not by design, but possibly at this point. It also
compromises any other business they operate under. Some we already
know about, others we may not. So the gross incompetence and
criminal behavior of an individual or small group of miscreants may
have wider ranging implications than we even suspect.
Anonymous
Nomen Nescio
Nomen Nescio
<FLUSH!>
Can anyone explain how these headers "don't match up"?
-------------------------
From: Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com>
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
Subject: Any Phone Safe?
References:
X-No-Archive: Yes
Message-ID: <b61949089c833bed...@dizum.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 01:30:08 +0100 (CET)
Mail-To-News-Contact: a...@dizum.com
Organization: mail2n...@dizum.com
Xref: authen.puce.readfreenews.net alt.privacy:217848
Other than having crypto phones on each end what's the safest, most
anonymous phone you can own nowadays? Is cell safer than landline? Why or
why not. Anyone who believes that the government only listens to
terrorists I think is really taking a big risk especially if they are on
Bush's black list (I am sure he has one).
-------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
Subject: Re: Any Phone Safe?
From: "Eggplant©" <vegetab...@theguarden.com>
References: <b61949089c833bed...@dizum.com>
Organization: 60's Burnout
Message-ID: <Xns98D83ADFD...@63.218.45.252>
User-Agent: Xnews/5.03.24
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: 15 Feb 2007 13:46:37 GMT
Lines: 17
X-Complaints-To: ab...@newshosting.com
Xref: authen.puce.readfreenews.net alt.privacy:217882
Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in
news:b61949089c833bed...@dizum.com:A vortex formed within the
smokey haze of my alledged mind and became this:
> Other than having crypto phones on each end what's the safest, most
--------------------------------
> Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in
> news:b61949089c833bed...@dizum.com:A vortex formed within the
> smokey haze of my alledged mind and became this:
>> Other than having crypto phones on each end what's the safest, most
---------------------------------------
> > news:b61949089c833bed...@dizum.com:A vortex formed
> > within the smokey haze of my alledged mind and became this:
LOL!
-------------------------------------
Organization: 60's Burnout
Message-ID: <Xns98DF50B8F10BAEggpl...@63.218.45.254>
User-Agent: Xnews/5.03.24
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: 22 Feb 2007 16:46:13 GMT
Lines: 49
X-Complaints-To: a...@newshosting.com
Xref: authen.puce.readfreenews.net alt.privacy:218035
Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in
news:1af100c765b949c3...@dizum.com:A vortex formed within
the smokey haze of my alledged mind and became this:
> traveler 66 wrote:
>> On 15 Feb 2007 13:46:37 GMT, Eggplant=C2=A9 wrote:
>>=20
>> > Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in=20
>> > news:b61949089c833bed...@dizum.com:A vortex formed
>> > within the smokey haze of my alledged mind and became this:
> LOL!
------------------------------------
> news:1af100c765b949c3...@dizum.com:A vortex formed
> within the smokey haze of my alledged mind and became this:
>=20
> > traveler 66 wrote:
<CLIP>
ROTFLMAO!!!!!
-------------------------------------
Organization: 60's Burnout
Message-ID: <Xns98DF8560483E1Eggpl...@63.218.45.252>
User-Agent: Xnews/5.03.24
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: 22 Feb 2007 21:57:02 GMT
Lines: 36
X-Complaints-To: a...@newshosting.com
Xref: authen.puce.readfreenews.net alt.privacy:218045
Anonyma <anon-boun...@deuxpi.ca> wrote in
news:29162e230034491a...@deuxpi.ca:A vortex formed within
the smokey haze of my alledged mind and became this:
> Eggplant=C2=A9 wrote:
>> Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in=20
>> news:1af100c765b949c3...@dizum.com:A vortex formed
>> within the smokey haze of my alledged mind and became this:
Non scrivetemi
Ari
>> Mena is my home town, Mr. Anonymousie.
>
> Nah, that's just another lie, from the Mother-of-liars himself.
> It's way too obvious. I think you're losing the skill you used to have
> at lying so well.
I can't even begin to believe you thought I was serious.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Stupid fuck.
Ari
>> Of course. now go knock your anonymous brains out researching it,
>> CheckTaker.
>
> I've got a better idea, Gimpy. How about this?
>
> *You* tell *us* the name of this "company" where you are supposedly an
> "employer" at.
> That way you prove that you have right all along, and that you haven't
> been lying about it the whole time.
> Now doesn't that sound like a good idea to you?
> And, we won't be thinking that you're a stay-at-home, good-for-nothing
> lazy bum,
> just taking checks from Public Assistance, i.e. Welfare Checks.
>
> There's absolutely *no* reason for you *not* to give us the name of the
> company where you claim to be an "employer" at.
>
> Unless....this has all been One Big Lie....
I fess up, you win, CHECKTAKER. lol
Anonymous
> I've only said I have a news account with them, anything else is
> made up trolls among other flames in here.
You're the biggest, most immature Privacy.LIE shill-puppet on
Usenet motherfucker. You lie for them, repeat their lies, and
disrupt discussions of them and/or legitimate services as best you
can now that you've been recognized for the shitstain that you are
and mostly ignored and taunted.
> Findnot says it best when they tell you there is no user
> identifiable information on the secured servers. Somehow, (and I
Except that there is. Privacy.LIE, FindSnot, PrivacyOutTheDoor, et
al, are nothing but a collection of bald faced liars. Every one of
yoru servers have standard logs complete with IP addresses at the
VERY least, or they're horribly insecure. And even if you slimy
bastards did manage to run for a time with no logs, any Tom, Dick,
or Harry law enforcement official can waltz in and force the
companies you cheap bastards rent space from to do it because you
don't give a damn about anything but margins. Consequently your
servers are in privacy shitholes.
> don't know because I haven't read anything official that mentions
> any privacy service, only trolls in here), I don't think any
> privacy outfit is going to run interference for creeps like the
> ones that got busted.
So how much was your bail, and are you going to kill yourself
before you have to go back to court.
> Metropipe, privacy.li, trilight, privacyoffshore all offer non
> identifiable proxie tunnels (don't show they are proxies), as
> well as full Tor access points. Not bad actually.
What a total load of horse shit! You can't RUN a proxy that can't
be trivially identified as such you ignorant buddoon, either
directly my merely scanning the IP, or indirectly by researchign
who owns it.
More Privacy.LIE bullshit parroted by the A#1 Privacy.LIE
shill-puppet. And just a few paragraphs ago you were blubbering
about "only having a news account". What a piss poor liar you are.
> No logs as I've read
Nobody really gives a flying fuck what your spin on the subject is.
You're a congenital liar. You told 6 or 8 in this message alone
already. The FACT of the matter is you and everyone like you keeps
logs, or you're so worthless and insecure nobody wants to deal with
you anyway.
Not that you're secure to begin with mind you, as we've seen from
several scans of your shithole servers, you wouldn't know a secure
server if it crawled up your ass and set fire to your spleen.
> I don't know all the tech aspects, but I've seen what's probably
> 2 people attacking every privacy service in here except one with
> nothing but FUD.
EVERYONE kicks your ass here liar. You only wish it were one or two
poeple, but the fact is you and your reputation are so far down the
crapper you command no respect from anyone. And let's not forget
that it's you, personally, who has been caught red handed playing
your juvenile little sock puppet games.
No liar, it's exactly the opposite of your fish story. It's DOZENS
of people hammering away at you, and probably you alone.
> Believe what you want,
We believe what we see. You're a fuckwit no matter what you spend
money on. You spew lies and nonsense, disrupt, and haven't backed
up any of your bullshit with anything but more of the same since
you got here. And now we have absolute proof that you and your
snake oil scam service are not only a bunch of child molesting
scumbags, but every bit as insecure ans easy to compromise as
everyone has been saying all along.
It really was only a matter of time motherfucker. It all crumbled,
just like everyone predicted. Now even the pedophile trash you built
the service to protect doesn't trust you.
And that's taking pathetic to an all new level, loser.
traveler 66
> traveler 66 wrote:
>
>> I've only said I have a news account with them, anything else is
>> made up trolls among other flames in here.
>
> You're the biggest, most immature Privacy.LIE shill-puppet on
<snipped>
Flush/Flamer/Troll and your agenda with you.
No One
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:37:10 -0400, No One wrote:
>
>>> Mena is my home town, Mr. Anonymousie.
>> Nah, that's just another lie, from the Mother-of-liars himself.
>> It's way too obvious. I think you're losing the skill you used to have
>> at lying so well.
>
> I can't even begin to believe you thought I was serious.
All I can do is feel sorry for you and your idiocy if you are unable to
equate
calling someone a liar with knowing they are not serious about what they
say.
Does the term "It's way too obvious." mean anything to you?
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Stupid fuck.
Only someone with the mental age of a twelve-year-old would use an
expression like that.
With every post you expose more and more that you're nothing but a
simple-minded illiterate,
and nothing that anyone here should be concerned with. You're like a
recurring childhood nightmare.
But you can instantly rectify all of that by simply giving us the *name*
of the "company or business"
where you claim to be an "employer". Otherwise, it's more than obvious
that you can do nothing but lie.
Everything you think, or say, or write is a blatant lie. And everybody
knows that about you.
You cannot hide that fact. You can't cover it up with more lies.
Everybody knows everything you say is a lie.
You are the Mother-of-liars.
You are *not* to be taken seriously.
Did you get it that time?
No One
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:37:10 -0400, No One wrote:
>
>>> Of course. now go knock your anonymous brains out researching it,
>>> CheckTaker.
>> I've got a better idea, Gimpy. How about this?
>>
>> *You* tell *us* the name of this "company" where you are supposedly an
>> "employer" at.
>> That way you prove that you have right all along, and that you haven't
>> been lying about it the whole time.
>> Now doesn't that sound like a good idea to you?
>> And, we won't be thinking that you're a stay-at-home, good-for-nothing
>> lazy bum,
>> just taking checks from Public Assistance, i.e. Welfare Checks.
>>
>> There's absolutely *no* reason for you *not* to give us the name of the
>> company where you claim to be an "employer" at.
>>
>> Unless....this has all been One Big Lie....
>
> I fess up, you win, CHECKTAKER. lol
Well, finally you admit to being a liar!!
Now don't you feel better? It must be a load off your back.
But I wouldn't exactly call it a "win". I mean, defeating you was easy.
I was using the age-old tactic "Persistence overcomes resistance." It
works every time.
And, I don't really "take" my check. In fact, I don't ever see it.
It's automatically deposited into my bank account each month.
But I understand why you would use that word, when you have to go down
to the Public Assistance
Office and "take" your welfare check each week. ;)
Non scrivetemi
Nomen Nescio
<FLUSH!>
** The Truth About Privacy.li **
Nomen Nescio
<FLUSH!>
** Privacy.LIE Pedophile Speaks Out **
Path: s03-b20.iad01!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!post01.iad01!news.privacy.li!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
Subject: Re: Privacy.li - From someone with more at stake than these morons.
From: Eggplant <vegetab...@theguarden.com>
References: <Xns980B9A0BE...@63.218.45.254>
<a92c46ee84bf92e7...@deuxpi.ca>
<44c6c9c5$0$15913$450c...@news.privacy.li>
<de83075caa713472...@dizum.com>
Organization: 60's Burnout
Message-ID: <Xns980C4455F...@66.250.146.167>
User-Agent: Xnews/5.03.24
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: 26 Jul 2006 12:46:52 GMT
Lines: 34
X-Complaints-To: adm...@privacy.li
Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in
news:de83075caa713472...@dizum.com:A vortex formed within
the smokey haze of my alledged mind and became this:
> nos...@trilightzone.org wrote:
Nomen Nescio
<FLUSH!>
** Famous traveler 66 AKA Eggplant Quotes **
Message-ID: <Xns98DF85604...@63.218.45.252>
"Yeah, I've forgotten to change nics on my Xnews."
Message-ID: <Xns980C4455F...@66.250.146.167>
"I confessed to enjoying child erotic art."
"No babies in my posts. Young and adolescent girls showing off for the
camera knowing exactly what they're doing are not babies."
Message-ID: <Xns98CB6BDA7...@63.218.45.252>
Nomen Nescio
Non scrivetemi
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:27:05 -0400 (EDT), Anonymous wrote:
>
> > traveler 66 wrote:
> >
> >> I've only said I have a news account with them, anything else is
> >> made up trolls among other flames in here.
> >
> > You're the biggest, most immature Privacy.LIE shill-puppet on
>
> Hey shit for brains, anyone who's pained through reading your posts
> trying to set him and others up with fud can see what a fucked up
> pedophile liar you are
The only people setting anyone up are you
pedophiles setting yourselves up. Don't blame
everyone else if they point that out.
>
Anonymous Sender
> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
> > > You're the biggest, most immature Privacy.LIE shill-puppet on
> >
> > Hey shit for brains, anyone who's pained through reading your posts
> > trying to set him and others up with fud can see what a fucked up
> > pedophile liar you are
>
> The only people setting anyone up are you
> pedophiles setting yourselves up. Don't blame
> everyone else if they point that out.
Funny. The AI experiment has a defect and is now attacking itself. How long
will it take to notice its mistake and learn?