Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Private server access
2 views
Skip to first unread message
~BD~
Feb 3, 2012, 6:18:21 AM2/3/12
to
One of my ex-army friends, now a long-time professional computer
business owner has told me this:
"When your computer is connected to a private server, you are at risk
from someone with a higher access code (eg Administrator) who can bypass
your firewall on port 3389 which is the main port used for remote desktop.
The problem here is that an ex member of staff or someone who hacks the
server will not let anyone know they have Administrator rights until
they are caught."
*
Does anyone here dispute this fact?
*
If it *is* true (and I have no reason to doubt it) that presumably means
that if anyone subscribes to Annexcafe newsgroups or to the Aumha 'help'
server they are, indeed, putting themselves at risk.
Comments welcomed.
--
Dave - "It is much better to be hated for what you are, than to be loved
for what you definitely are not." "Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you."
business owner has told me this:
"When your computer is connected to a private server, you are at risk
from someone with a higher access code (eg Administrator) who can bypass
your firewall on port 3389 which is the main port used for remote desktop.
The problem here is that an ex member of staff or someone who hacks the
server will not let anyone know they have Administrator rights until
they are caught."
*
Does anyone here dispute this fact?
*
If it *is* true (and I have no reason to doubt it) that presumably means
that if anyone subscribes to Annexcafe newsgroups or to the Aumha 'help'
server they are, indeed, putting themselves at risk.
Comments welcomed.
--
Dave - "It is much better to be hated for what you are, than to be loved
for what you definitely are not." "Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you."
Bullwinkle.
Feb 3, 2012, 6:46:23 AM2/3/12
to
Grumpy
Feb 3, 2012, 7:34:32 AM2/3/12
to
On 02/03/2012 06:18 AM, ~BD~ wrote:
> One of my ex-army friends, now a long-time professional computer
> business owner has told me this:
>
> "When your computer is connected to a private server, you are at risk
> from someone with a higher access code (eg Administrator) who can bypass
> your firewall on port 3389 which is the main port used for remote desktop.
>
> The problem here is that an ex member of staff or someone who hacks the
> server will not let anyone know they have Administrator rights until
> they are caught."
>
> *
> Does anyone here dispute this fact?
> *
>
> If it *is* true (and I have no reason to doubt it) that presumably means
> that if anyone subscribes to Annexcafe newsgroups or to the Aumha 'help'
> server they are, indeed, putting themselves at risk.
>
> Comments welcomed.
>
see:a.p.s-e
> One of my ex-army friends, now a long-time professional computer
> business owner has told me this:
>
> "When your computer is connected to a private server, you are at risk
> from someone with a higher access code (eg Administrator) who can bypass
> your firewall on port 3389 which is the main port used for remote desktop.
>
> The problem here is that an ex member of staff or someone who hacks the
> server will not let anyone know they have Administrator rights until
> they are caught."
>
> *
> Does anyone here dispute this fact?
> *
>
> If it *is* true (and I have no reason to doubt it) that presumably means
> that if anyone subscribes to Annexcafe newsgroups or to the Aumha 'help'
> server they are, indeed, putting themselves at risk.
>
> Comments welcomed.
>
--
Registered Linux User #393236
FromTheRafters
Feb 3, 2012, 8:33:30 AM2/3/12
to
~BD~ wrote:
> One of my ex-army friends, now a long-time professional computer
> business owner has told me this:
>
> "When your computer is connected to a private server, you are at risk
> from someone with a higher access code (eg Administrator) who can bypass
> your firewall on port 3389 which is the main port used for remote desktop.
>
> The problem here is that an ex member of staff or someone who hacks the
> server will not let anyone know they have Administrator rights until
> they are caught."
>
> *
> Does anyone here dispute this fact?
> *
>
> If it *is* true (and I have no reason to doubt it) that presumably means
> that if anyone subscribes to Annexcafe newsgroups or to the Aumha 'help'
> server they are, indeed, putting themselves at risk.
>
> Comments welcomed.
>
Are *you* listening on port 3389?
> One of my ex-army friends, now a long-time professional computer
> business owner has told me this:
>
> "When your computer is connected to a private server, you are at risk
> from someone with a higher access code (eg Administrator) who can bypass
> your firewall on port 3389 which is the main port used for remote desktop.
>
> The problem here is that an ex member of staff or someone who hacks the
> server will not let anyone know they have Administrator rights until
> they are caught."
>
> *
> Does anyone here dispute this fact?
> *
>
> If it *is* true (and I have no reason to doubt it) that presumably means
> that if anyone subscribes to Annexcafe newsgroups or to the Aumha 'help'
> server they are, indeed, putting themselves at risk.
>
> Comments welcomed.
>
Virus Guy
Feb 3, 2012, 8:53:08 AM2/3/12
to
~BD~ wrote:
> If it *is* true (and I have no reason to doubt it) that presumably
> means that if anyone subscribes to Annexcafe newsgroups or to the
> Aumha 'help' server they are, indeed, putting themselves at risk.
Not if they're running Windows 98.
> If it *is* true (and I have no reason to doubt it) that presumably
> means that if anyone subscribes to Annexcafe newsgroups or to the
> Aumha 'help' server they are, indeed, putting themselves at risk.
~BD~
Feb 3, 2012, 9:16:00 AM2/3/12
to
FromTheRafters
Feb 3, 2012, 9:47:55 AM2/3/12
to
~BD~ wrote:
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>> ~BD~ wrote:
>>> One of my ex-army friends, now a long-time professional computer
>>> business owner has told me this:
>>>
>>> "When your computer is connected to a private server, you are at risk
>>> from someone with a higher access code (eg Administrator) who can bypass
>>> your firewall on port 3389 which is the main port used for remote
>>> desktop.
>>>
>>> The problem here is that an ex member of staff or someone who hacks the
>>> server will not let anyone know they have Administrator rights until
>>> they are caught."
>>>
>>> *
>>> Does anyone here dispute this fact?
>>> *
>>>
>>> If it *is* true (and I have no reason to doubt it) that presumably means
>>> that if anyone subscribes to Annexcafe newsgroups or to the Aumha 'help'
>>> server they are, indeed, putting themselves at risk.
>>>
>>> Comments welcomed.
>>>
>> Are *you* listening on port 3389?
>
> To whom?
>
Any clients.
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>> ~BD~ wrote:
>>> One of my ex-army friends, now a long-time professional computer
>>> business owner has told me this:
>>>
>>> "When your computer is connected to a private server, you are at risk
>>> from someone with a higher access code (eg Administrator) who can bypass
>>> your firewall on port 3389 which is the main port used for remote
>>> desktop.
>>>
>>> The problem here is that an ex member of staff or someone who hacks the
>>> server will not let anyone know they have Administrator rights until
>>> they are caught."
>>>
>>> *
>>> Does anyone here dispute this fact?
>>> *
>>>
>>> If it *is* true (and I have no reason to doubt it) that presumably means
>>> that if anyone subscribes to Annexcafe newsgroups or to the Aumha 'help'
>>> server they are, indeed, putting themselves at risk.
>>>
>>> Comments welcomed.
>>>
>> Are *you* listening on port 3389?
>
> To whom?
>
How will the 'private server' get local administrator rights to make
your localmachine a server? Is he talking about within a domain?
Dustin
Feb 3, 2012, 10:46:37 AM2/3/12
to
~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
news:0a6dnXDpUrTjX7bS...@bt.com:
> One of my ex-army friends, now a long-time professional computer
> business owner has told me this:
>
> "When your computer is connected to a private server, you are at risk
> from someone with a higher access code (eg Administrator) who can
> bypass your firewall on port 3389 which is the main port used for
> remote desktop.
Horse shit.
> Does anyone here dispute this fact?
It's as factual as the movie hackers.
--
Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too
many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and
the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. - J.C. Watts
news:0a6dnXDpUrTjX7bS...@bt.com:
> One of my ex-army friends, now a long-time professional computer
> business owner has told me this:
>
> "When your computer is connected to a private server, you are at risk
> from someone with a higher access code (eg Administrator) who can
> bypass your firewall on port 3389 which is the main port used for
> remote desktop.
> Does anyone here dispute this fact?
--
Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too
many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and
the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. - J.C. Watts
Peter Foldes
Feb 3, 2012, 12:01:24 PM2/3/12
to
> One of my ex-army friends, now a long-time professional computer business owner
> has told me this:
>
> "When your computer is connected to a private server, you are at risk
<rest of your bullshit snipped>
> has told me this:
>
> "When your computer is connected to a private server, you are at risk
Bullshit. You been listening or most probably reading from dummies. Aside from that
you are again attacking Auhma and Annex because they banned you. Shows your
intelligence very clearly. Now go and do what I been telling you for a while so as
the whole NET community will be rid of your Trolling
JS
~BD~
Feb 3, 2012, 12:32:04 PM2/3/12
to
Bucky Breeder wrote:
> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> blah-blah-blah'ed
> news:0a6dnXPpUrSaXrbS...@bt.com:
> Do you both use the same hemorroid plugs for your BUTTOCKS?
>
> IOW : TMI!
Sorry! ;-)
>> "When your computer is connected to a private server,
>
> It *IS* true!
So I understand. Not many believe me!
>> If it *is* true (and I have no reason to doubt it) that
>> presumably means that if anyone subscribes to Annexcafe
>> newsgroups or to the Aumha 'help' server they are, indeed,
>> putting themselves at risk.
>
> It rolls down to how much you trust the server's [proprietor& admin]
> to protect subscribers' privacy/rights...
>
> You can always monitor port/ports... and you SHOULD be if you're
> using these type services...
>
> Here's the real deal, on ANY VPN; the server admin can EASILY
> get behind your firewalls and change almost anything they want
> to, especially with Windows PCs... You can still monitor the
> throughput and cut your station off-line using your firewall[s]
> or just unplug it, if things get really whack...
>
> Here's the main protocol: ALWAYS make a backup image of your
> current system BEFORE you subsribe to a VPN service, and
> you'll only have to wonder a little bit less...
>
> HEY, AT&T had a big ole mess like that up in the Atlanta area
> a few years ago... IOW, your ISP can get behind most conventional
> firewalls and wreck havocs on subscribers too... It's harder
> to do with a NAT firewall in place; but, it's still doable, and
> done-able on occasion. They cleaned out all the techs that were
> involved in the debacle; however, they NEVER admitted it outright,
> even though they had their tech-support services helping out the
> effected customers who called in with similar identifiable issues...
>
> Yep, it's the Wild-Wild-Web out there alright, and as long as
> there are dishonest peeples there will be a need for you to be
> vigilent and cautious.
>
>>
>> Comments welcomed.
>
> On the usernets... blah-blah-blah... wattR-U, retarded?
Of course - I'm on the Usenets! [g] Thanks for your input, BB.
Would you class Aumha.com. Dogagent.com and Malwarebytes.com as VPN's?
*
Cross-posted to alt.privacy.spyware so that Dustin Cook can comment on
your view - *he* says this is "Horse shit" and he's 'da man'!
> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> blah-blah-blah'ed
> news:0a6dnXPpUrSaXrbS...@bt.com:
>
>> One of my ex-army friends, now a long-time
>> professional computer business owner has told me this:
>
> Were you both on the "Don't Ask; Don't Tell" program together?
>> One of my ex-army friends, now a long-time
>> professional computer business owner has told me this:
>
> Do you both use the same hemorroid plugs for your BUTTOCKS?
>
> IOW : TMI!
Sorry! ;-)
>> "When your computer is connected to a private server,
>> you are at risk from someone with a higher access code
>> (eg Administrator) who can bypass your firewall on port
>> 3389 which is the main port used for remote desktop.
>>
>> (eg Administrator) who can bypass your firewall on port
>> 3389 which is the main port used for remote desktop.
>>
>> The problem here is that an ex member of staff or someone
>> who hacks the server will not let anyone know they have
>> Administrator rights until they are caught."
>>
>> *
>> who hacks the server will not let anyone know they have
>> Administrator rights until they are caught."
>>
>> *
>> Does anyone here dispute this fact?
>> *
>
> It *IS* true!
So I understand. Not many believe me!
>> If it *is* true (and I have no reason to doubt it) that
>> presumably means that if anyone subscribes to Annexcafe
>> newsgroups or to the Aumha 'help' server they are, indeed,
>> putting themselves at risk.
>
> to protect subscribers' privacy/rights...
>
> You can always monitor port/ports... and you SHOULD be if you're
> using these type services...
>
> Here's the real deal, on ANY VPN; the server admin can EASILY
> get behind your firewalls and change almost anything they want
> to, especially with Windows PCs... You can still monitor the
> throughput and cut your station off-line using your firewall[s]
> or just unplug it, if things get really whack...
>
> Here's the main protocol: ALWAYS make a backup image of your
> current system BEFORE you subsribe to a VPN service, and
> you'll only have to wonder a little bit less...
>
> HEY, AT&T had a big ole mess like that up in the Atlanta area
> a few years ago... IOW, your ISP can get behind most conventional
> firewalls and wreck havocs on subscribers too... It's harder
> to do with a NAT firewall in place; but, it's still doable, and
> done-able on occasion. They cleaned out all the techs that were
> involved in the debacle; however, they NEVER admitted it outright,
> even though they had their tech-support services helping out the
> effected customers who called in with similar identifiable issues...
>
> Yep, it's the Wild-Wild-Web out there alright, and as long as
> there are dishonest peeples there will be a need for you to be
> vigilent and cautious.
>
>>
>> Comments welcomed.
>
> On the usernets... blah-blah-blah... wattR-U, retarded?
Of course - I'm on the Usenets! [g] Thanks for your input, BB.
Would you class Aumha.com. Dogagent.com and Malwarebytes.com as VPN's?
*
Cross-posted to alt.privacy.spyware so that Dustin Cook can comment on
your view - *he* says this is "Horse shit" and he's 'da man'!
Dustin
Feb 3, 2012, 3:20:53 PM2/3/12
to
~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
news:05KdnWNkP_iJh7HS...@bt.com:
> Cross-posted to alt.privacy.spyware so that Dustin Cook can comment
on
> your view - *he* says this is "Horse shit" and he's 'da man'!
In the context provided, it very much is. What does the OP mean by get
behind your firewall? That's gibberish.
Anyone who has remote desktop access and sufficient rights can change
the configuration of the workstation (read: your computer, dumbarse
punk). This isn't new or newsworthy and I never stated otherwise, as
you've tried to infer.
By configuration I mean more than software firewall settings, but those
would then be up for grabs too. Of course, this doesnt help with a
hardware firewall. Youd still have to have valid login details then. A
remote admin isnt required, you already opened the door by sitting them
in front of your desktop. they can do whatever you can do then.
However, in the dimwitted context you provided, it reaks of horse-shit.
As far as your da man comment, I found your punkass didn't I? :)
I've removed your trollish crossposting garbage. I wont provide you the
attention you so desperatly seek. I'm done playing games with you.
news:05KdnWNkP_iJh7HS...@bt.com:
> Cross-posted to alt.privacy.spyware so that Dustin Cook can comment
on
> your view - *he* says this is "Horse shit" and he's 'da man'!
behind your firewall? That's gibberish.
Anyone who has remote desktop access and sufficient rights can change
the configuration of the workstation (read: your computer, dumbarse
punk). This isn't new or newsworthy and I never stated otherwise, as
you've tried to infer.
By configuration I mean more than software firewall settings, but those
would then be up for grabs too. Of course, this doesnt help with a
hardware firewall. Youd still have to have valid login details then. A
remote admin isnt required, you already opened the door by sitting them
in front of your desktop. they can do whatever you can do then.
However, in the dimwitted context you provided, it reaks of horse-shit.
As far as your da man comment, I found your punkass didn't I? :)
I've removed your trollish crossposting garbage. I wont provide you the
attention you so desperatly seek. I'm done playing games with you.
Timmy
Feb 5, 2012, 6:04:59 PM2/5/12
to
~BD~ wrote...
>
> One of my ex-army friends, now a long-time professional computer
> business owner has told me this:
>
> "When your computer is connected to a private server, you are at risk
> from someone with a higher access code (eg Administrator) who can bypass
> your firewall on port 3389 which is the main port used for remote desktop.
>
> The problem here is that an ex member of staff or someone who hacks the
> server will not let anyone know they have Administrator rights until
> they are caught."
>
> *
> Does anyone here dispute this fact?
> *
>
> If it *is* true (and I have no reason to doubt it) that presumably means
> that if anyone subscribes to Annexcafe newsgroups or to the Aumha 'help'
> server they are, indeed, putting themselves at risk.
>
> Comments welcomed.
http://www.limmy.com/playthings/xylophone/
>
> One of my ex-army friends, now a long-time professional computer
> business owner has told me this:
>
> "When your computer is connected to a private server, you are at risk
> from someone with a higher access code (eg Administrator) who can bypass
> your firewall on port 3389 which is the main port used for remote desktop.
>
> The problem here is that an ex member of staff or someone who hacks the
> server will not let anyone know they have Administrator rights until
> they are caught."
>
> *
> Does anyone here dispute this fact?
> *
>
> If it *is* true (and I have no reason to doubt it) that presumably means
> that if anyone subscribes to Annexcafe newsgroups or to the Aumha 'help'
> server they are, indeed, putting themselves at risk.
>
> Comments welcomed.
~BD~
Feb 5, 2012, 6:25:13 PM2/5/12
to
Bullwinkle.
Feb 6, 2012, 4:16:46 AM2/6/12
to
"~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
news:Dt2dnVp4Uffcs73S...@bt.com...
bd is a Thief:
----- Original Message -----
From: "~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.scorched-earth
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: Brat Girl ... Meditating In The Chinaberry Tree
Mike Easter wrote:
> ~BD~ wrote:
>> http://i39.tinypic.com/ortto7.gif
>>
>> I hope this isn't copyright material!
>
> It is.
>
> There's a copyright symbol on Pat Crowley's (and Betty's)
> Brisbee-related and other page/s.
>
>
>
Good job I didn't steal it then!
It's 'open source' here on Usenet!
bd lies:
"~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
news:iv-dnSBgl77Q84DS...@bt.com...
Mike Easter wrote:
> ~BD~ wrote:
> A person could claim to tell the truth (for the most part) but sometimes
> lie or tell an 'untruth' or be mistaken or fail to tell the 'whole truth
> and nothing but the truth' by omission.
OK - I'll admit to "fail to tell the 'whole truth and nothing but the
truth' by omission."
bd tries to bully women:
----- Original Message -----
From: "~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.scorched-earth
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: An old friend passes on
I've been more than fair to you, S*******. If you really don't wish to
start afresh in 2012 then be prepared for pain - *real* pain! Your call.
~BD~
Feb 7, 2012, 7:54:09 AM2/7/12
to
Dustin wrote:
> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
> news:05KdnWNkP_iJh7HS...@bt.com:
>
>> Cross-posted to alt.privacy.spyware so that Dustin Cook can comment
> on
>> your view - *he* says this is "Horse shit" and he's 'da man'!
>
> In the context provided, it very much is. What does the OP mean by get
> behind your firewall? That's gibberish.
>
> Anyone who has remote desktop access and sufficient rights can change
> the configuration of the workstation (read: your computer, dumbarse
> punk). This isn't new or newsworthy and I never stated otherwise, as
> you've tried to infer.
>
> By configuration I mean more than software firewall settings, but those
> would then be up for grabs too. Of course, this doesnt help with a
> hardware firewall. Youd still have to have valid login details then. A
> remote admin isnt required, you already opened the door by sitting them
> in front of your desktop. they can do whatever you can do then.
>
>
> However, in the dimwitted context you provided, it reaks of horse-shit.
> As far as your da man comment, I found your punkass didn't I? :)
>
> I've removed your trollish crossposting garbage. I wont provide you the
> attention you so desperately seek. I'm done playing games with you.
> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
> news:05KdnWNkP_iJh7HS...@bt.com:
>
>> Cross-posted to alt.privacy.spyware so that Dustin Cook can comment
> on
>> your view - *he* says this is "Horse shit" and he's 'da man'!
>
> In the context provided, it very much is. What does the OP mean by get
> behind your firewall? That's gibberish.
>
> Anyone who has remote desktop access and sufficient rights can change
> the configuration of the workstation (read: your computer, dumbarse
> punk). This isn't new or newsworthy and I never stated otherwise, as
> you've tried to infer.
>
> By configuration I mean more than software firewall settings, but those
> would then be up for grabs too. Of course, this doesnt help with a
> hardware firewall. Youd still have to have valid login details then. A
> remote admin isnt required, you already opened the door by sitting them
> in front of your desktop. they can do whatever you can do then.
>
>
> However, in the dimwitted context you provided, it reaks of horse-shit.
> As far as your da man comment, I found your punkass didn't I? :)
>
> I've removed your trollish crossposting garbage. I wont provide you the
I'm not seeking to play games with you Dustin, I simply seek the truth.
I'm confident that 99%+ of Windows users have no clue that this can
happen and that all their anti-malware precautions will be for naught.
Am I wrong in thinking that a workstation/client can, indeed, be "owned"
as you put it and the operator be completely unaware of it?
This is serious stuff, Dustin - it's no joke.
Eagle
Feb 7, 2012, 11:58:52 AM2/7/12
to
~BD~ formulated on Tuesday :
I thought Dustin took a vacation from this NG?
~BD~
Feb 7, 2012, 12:42:25 PM2/7/12
to
Peter Foldes
Feb 7, 2012, 12:49:32 PM2/7/12
to
"Eagle" <no...@thanx.wecum> wrote in message news:jgrl8f$tnk$1...@dont-email.me...
> I thought Dustin took a vacation from this NG?
LOL. Your bud crossposted like a crazy nut as usual and for what reasononly he
knows.
> I thought Dustin took a vacation from this NG?
knows.
Dustin
Feb 7, 2012, 12:51:43 PM2/7/12
to
~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
news:i8WdnTPUCtoY_6zS...@bt.com:
> Surely not, Dave? ;-)
Didn't tell the poor bastard that you're trolling and trying to force
participation in a group I no longer subscribe to.. How, ehh, "honest" of
you, David.
news:i8WdnTPUCtoY_6zS...@bt.com:
> Surely not, Dave? ;-)
Didn't tell the poor bastard that you're trolling and trying to force
participation in a group I no longer subscribe to.. How, ehh, "honest" of
you, David.
Dustin
Feb 7, 2012, 12:53:24 PM2/7/12
to
"Peter Foldes" <ok...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:jgro6n$cn9$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
The two of them together dont have enough working brain cells to do
anything for themselves.
news:jgro6n$cn9$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
anything for themselves.
~BD~
Feb 7, 2012, 1:02:36 PM2/7/12
to
Dustin wrote:
> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
> news:i8WdnTPUCtoY_6zS...@bt.com:
>
>> Surely not, Dave? ;-)
>
> Didn't tell the poor bastard that you're trolling and trying to force
> participation in a group I no longer subscribe to.. How, ehh, "honest" of
> you, David.
He is my friend, Dustin. *And* he has far more experience of newsgroups
> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
> news:i8WdnTPUCtoY_6zS...@bt.com:
>
>> Surely not, Dave? ;-)
>
> Didn't tell the poor bastard that you're trolling and trying to force
> participation in a group I no longer subscribe to.. How, ehh, "honest" of
> you, David.
than do I.
I'm simply trying to get at the truth, Dustin. As a 'white hat' you must
surely believe that the truth *will* out?
Aardvark
Feb 7, 2012, 1:25:57 PM2/7/12
to
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:51:43 +0000, Dustin wrote:
> ~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
> news:i8WdnTPUCtoY_6zS...@bt.com:
>
>> Surely not, Dave? ;-)
>
> Didn't tell the poor bastard that you're trolling and trying to force
> participation in a group I no longer subscribe to.. How, ehh, "honest"
> of you, David.
It's because he's a slimy scumbag cunt, Dustin. Surely you knew that.
> ~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
> news:i8WdnTPUCtoY_6zS...@bt.com:
>
>> Surely not, Dave? ;-)
>
> Didn't tell the poor bastard that you're trolling and trying to force
> participation in a group I no longer subscribe to.. How, ehh, "honest"
> of you, David.
:-)
--
"Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved
in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee".
-John Donne (1572-1631)
Eagle
Feb 7, 2012, 1:49:46 PM2/7/12
to
Peter Foldes explained on 2/7/2012 :
So when are we going to meet on band? Can you do HF? I am on 17 meters
every morning, so let me know and I'll meet you.
73...
every morning, so let me know and I'll meet you.
73...
Dustin
Feb 7, 2012, 6:38:24 PM2/7/12
to
~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
news:RbGdnTx6bpmj-qzS...@bt.com:
> Dustin wrote:
>> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
>> news:i8WdnTPUCtoY_6zS...@bt.com:
>>
>>> Surely not, Dave? ;-)
>>
>> Didn't tell the poor bastard that you're trolling and trying to
>> force participation in a group I no longer subscribe to.. How, ehh,
>> "honest" of you, David.
>
> He is my friend, Dustin. *And* he has far more experience of
> newsgroups than do I.
He's a fool then. Understood.
> I'm simply trying to get at the truth, Dustin. As a 'white hat' you
> must surely believe that the truth *will* out?
Who told you I was a whitehat?
news:RbGdnTx6bpmj-qzS...@bt.com:
> Dustin wrote:
>> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
>> news:i8WdnTPUCtoY_6zS...@bt.com:
>>
>>> Surely not, Dave? ;-)
>>
>> Didn't tell the poor bastard that you're trolling and trying to
>> force participation in a group I no longer subscribe to.. How, ehh,
>> "honest" of you, David.
>
> He is my friend, Dustin. *And* he has far more experience of
> newsgroups than do I.
> I'm simply trying to get at the truth, Dustin. As a 'white hat' you
> must surely believe that the truth *will* out?
~BD~
Feb 8, 2012, 6:01:33 AM2/8/12
to
Dustin wrote:
> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
> news:RbGdnTx6bpmj-qzS...@bt.com:
>
>> Dustin wrote:
>>> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
>>> news:i8WdnTPUCtoY_6zS...@bt.com:
>>>
>>>> Surely not, Dave? ;-)
>>>
>>> Didn't tell the poor bastard that you're trolling and trying to
>>> force participation in a group I no longer subscribe to.. How, ehh,
>>> "honest" of you, David.
>>
>> He is my friend, Dustin. *And* he has far more experience of
>> newsgroups than do I.
>
> He's a fool then. Understood.
There was no need for that! <smile>
> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
> news:RbGdnTx6bpmj-qzS...@bt.com:
>
>> Dustin wrote:
>>> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
>>> news:i8WdnTPUCtoY_6zS...@bt.com:
>>>
>>>> Surely not, Dave? ;-)
>>>
>>> Didn't tell the poor bastard that you're trolling and trying to
>>> force participation in a group I no longer subscribe to.. How, ehh,
>>> "honest" of you, David.
>>
>> He is my friend, Dustin. *And* he has far more experience of
>> newsgroups than do I.
>
> He's a fool then. Understood.
>> I'm simply trying to get at the truth, Dustin. As a 'white hat' you
>> must surely believe that the truth *will* out?
>
> Who told you I was a whitehat?
"He's a whitehat now, the anonymous character assassination posts
should be ignored."
*
He *was* telling the truth, wasn't he?
Bullwinkle.
Feb 8, 2012, 6:46:30 AM2/8/12
to
Dustin
Feb 8, 2012, 1:10:39 PM2/8/12
to
~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in news:9IOdnUaFGJmSy6_SnZ2dnUVZ8k-
dn...@bt.com:
> He *was* telling the truth, wasn't he?
To the best of his ability. Im not a blackhat, but claiming for myself to
be a whitehat with the few vices I have left only insults those who are.
This is entirely offtopic now; Enjoy the silence.
dn...@bt.com:
> He *was* telling the truth, wasn't he?
be a whitehat with the few vices I have left only insults those who are.
This is entirely offtopic now; Enjoy the silence.
~BD~
Feb 8, 2012, 1:27:33 PM2/8/12
to
Dustin wrote:
> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in news:9IOdnUaFGJmSy6_SnZ2dnUVZ8k-
> dn...@bt.com:
>
>> He *was* telling the truth, wasn't he?
>
> To the best of his ability. Im not a blackhat, but claiming for myself to
> be a whitehat with the few vices I have left only insults those who are.
>
> This is entirely off topic now; Enjoy the silence.
I note that you failed to address the question, Dustin .....
> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in news:9IOdnUaFGJmSy6_SnZ2dnUVZ8k-
> dn...@bt.com:
>
>> He *was* telling the truth, wasn't he?
>
> To the best of his ability. Im not a blackhat, but claiming for myself to
> be a whitehat with the few vices I have left only insults those who are.
>
> This is entirely off topic now; Enjoy the silence.
"Am I wrong in thinking that a workstation/client can, indeed, be
"owned" as you put it and the operator be completely unaware of it?"
This is serious stuff, Dustin - it's no joke.
Aardvark
Feb 8, 2012, 2:02:16 PM2/8/12
to
STO0PID CROSS-POSTING REMOVED. NO REPLY.
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:27:33 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
> Dustin wrote:
>> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in news:9IOdnUaFGJmSy6_SnZ2dnUVZ8k-
>> dn...@bt.com:
>>
>>> He *was* telling the truth, wasn't he?
>>
>> To the best of his ability. Im not a blackhat, but claiming for myself
>> to be a whitehat with the few vices I have left only insults those who
>> are.
>>
>> This is entirely off topic now; Enjoy the silence.
>
>
> I note that you failed to address the question, Dustin .....
>
> "Am I wrong in thinking that a workstation/client can, indeed, be
> "owned" as you put it and the operator be completely unaware of it?"
>
> This is serious stuff, Dustin - it's no joke.
--
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:27:33 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
> Dustin wrote:
>> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in news:9IOdnUaFGJmSy6_SnZ2dnUVZ8k-
>> dn...@bt.com:
>>
>>> He *was* telling the truth, wasn't he?
>>
>> To the best of his ability. Im not a blackhat, but claiming for myself
>> to be a whitehat with the few vices I have left only insults those who
>> are.
>>
>> This is entirely off topic now; Enjoy the silence.
>
>
> I note that you failed to address the question, Dustin .....
>
> "Am I wrong in thinking that a workstation/client can, indeed, be
> "owned" as you put it and the operator be completely unaware of it?"
>
> This is serious stuff, Dustin - it's no joke.
--
Bullwinkle.
Feb 8, 2012, 3:40:59 PM2/8/12
to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZGWQauQOAQ
"~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
news:XaednShaEOAII6_S...@bt.com...
0 new messages