Rogue Cancels on rec.aviation.student
Robert L Bass
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------63579356BC5D21E9856E9744
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mark Burkley wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> A poster on r.a.s. has become a complete nuisance and has now begun
> canceling other posts. He forges the "from" field to imitate the
> author he disagrees with and then cancels their posts. I tracked down
> one of his cancels, which contains his NNTP-Posting-Host.
> What action can we take to prevent him from canceling genuine on-topic
> posts that he doesn't like?
Before you judge, please consider the totality of the circumstances.
This was an error. At the time I was unaware of the rules against
cancelling a series of hate-posts, most of which were placed by one
person using multiple phony e-mail addresses and posting through
Hotmail.com. There was/is a series of off-topic threads on R.A.S.,
primarily generated by the efforts of this one spammer.
These threads, bearing abusive language and no semblance of discussion
about the topic of R.A.S, were then deliberately cross-posted to
multiple aviation-related news groups by the party(ies) who started the
abuse in the first place.
Please also note that the persons who created this hate-thread did so
because they were angry about a complaint filed by their victim over
prior e-mail abuse. Basically, one popular contributor to that NG had
been sending multiple, abusive e-mails to me via her empoloyer's
computer network. I asked the party to stop. She continued. I ordered
her to stop. The abuse worsened. Finally, I sent e-mail and called the
owners of the network from which the abuse was being sent. Then it
stopped.
Shortly thereafter I received a rather nasty phone call from someone who
claimed to be an MIS director (or some similar title) at the school
where this abuser worked. I had little patience with this person and
dismissed the call as another attempt to annoy me by the original
abuser.
The party who was pestering me then posted a lie in the NG, accusing me
of terrorist tactics and stating she would "post no more" to R.A.S.
Shortly thereafter several of her friends began a campaign of Usenet
harassment against me, including literally hundreds of disparaging
flames. Much of the posts are slanderous. I received several thinly
veiled threats implying physical violence. My e-mail began to fill with
abuse, primarily from the above-mentioned bogus e-mail address.
Replies to the abuse in the NG were met with more and more hate-posts.
There are now several threads which for a while occupied approximately
70% of the new posts to R.A.S. On and on the war has raged. When I
didn't reply the accusations flew. When I did reply the accusations
grew louder and more frequent.
I did not realise at the time that I discovered accidentally that one
could even cancel posts bearing one's own e-mail address. This happened
when I learned that one of these abusers from R.A.S, primarily a guy
using the name Larry Laffer and numerous other fake names and another
guy named Rich Ahrens, had posted provocative flames using my name and
e-mail address in tx.guns in a further attempt to harass yours truly.
When I realised this could be done, I cancelled all my own posts to
R.A.S., intending to simply leave.
However, the thread grew longer and was now being cross-posted to other
NGs. I wondered if one could simply cancel the whole thing. I did not
know at the time that this is unacceptable -- even in the face of such a
vile attack. I guess the perpetrators have more rights to abuse than
their victim does to self-defense.
Anyway, I assume this post will be creatively snipped and edited by the
above party to suit his agenda. Hope the members of this news group are
a bit more understanding than the wolf-pack that seems to think they own
R.A.S. BTW, there are some really decent folks who post on-topic stuff
at R.A.S., and many of them have posted support to me via private e-mail
during this long hate-campaign. Very few have had the nerve to stand up
to the abusers publicly in the NG. Presumably they fear becomming the
next victims.
It's a sad state of affairs when there is virtually nothing that can be
done to stop this kind of vicious attack. The perpetrators, it seems,
have all the rights.
RLB
--------------63579356BC5D21E9856E9744
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Bass, Robert
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: Robert Bass
n: Bass;Robert
org: Bass Home Electronics
adr: 80 Bentwood Rd;;;W Hartford;CT;06107;USA
email;internet: alar...@BassHome.com
title: President
tel;work: 860-561-9542
tel;fax: 860-521-2143
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
version: 2.1
end: vcard
--------------63579356BC5D21E9856E9744--
Robert L Bass
Please note that the accuser is the same individual who has appointed
himself as the scourge of the rec.aviation.* news groups. Unlike
myself, this character does not have the character to even admit
publicly who he is. This "person" has posted literally hundreds of
off-topic flames, he has forged my e-mail address in an attempt to
create problems with other NGs.
He has not just attacked me. He recently attacked a fellow named Jerry
Bransford. He authored scores of off-topic, abusive posts against this
other gentleman. He only stops when he finds another person to abuse.
The same NNTP posting host he uses, <ts01-05.drogheda.indigo.ie> a node
at indigo.ie in Ireland, is present in the posts of about 6 different
fictitious names. All of these names *usually* post with a sig line
from Hotmail.com. Since I complained to Hotmail I notice their sig line
is mysteriously gone. All of these characters: Larry Laffer, Q Salt,
leap frog, Jeff Morris, etc., are really one person.
This same individual has even visited several other NGs where I do
business in an effort to stir up more trouble. He has cross-posted his
flame war to multiple NGs in rec.aviation.* to the annoyance of those in
those NGs as well.
Nothing seems to be able to stop his abuse. He enjoys beind told to
knock it off by more reasonable members of the Usenet community. I have
made it clear in this NG that I made a serious mistake -- I was not
aware at the time about the rule regarding cancels. The claim that I
cancelled on-topic posts of his is bogus. He doesn't make on-topic
posts. There have been literally hundreds of posts from this spammer in
the rec.aviation.* forums. All but perhaps a dozen were personal
attacks -- not discussions of flying skills and techniques -- just Larry
Laffer's wars.
L Laffer wrote:
>
>>
>> Before you judge, please consider the totality of the circumstances.
>>
>> This was an error. At the time I was unaware of the rules against
>> cancelling a series of hate-posts, most of which were placed by one
>> person using multiple phony e-mail addresses and posting through
>> Hotmail.com. There was/is a series of off-topic threads on R.A.S.,
>> primarily generated by the efforts of this one spammer.
>
> This is a lie. He cancelled a large number of on topic posts and left any flames made to him to make himself look like a victim. He also cancelled all of his flames for the same reason. There are about 120 of his own posts cancelled.
How this arrogant spammer thinks he knows what my reasons are for
cancelling *my own* posts I'll never understand. If I understand what
members of this NG have told me, I can cancel a thousnad of my own
posts. What is that to him? There is no right way to walk around this
absurd person. No matter if I say black or white, either will be
flamed.
He had posted statements about flaming in these NGs to the effect, "That
is what I do..." Then he further lies by claiming to be me. Notice I
use my real name, e-mail name and address. He spams. Period.
I don't know enough about Usenet to figure out how to put a stop to this
trash. Perhaps some of the experts from this NG can assist. No one in
the rec.aviation.* forums sems to be able to get him to stop either. He
does have several supporters -- a few other posters (and of course his
multiple personalities). He has even posted a hate-message as Laffer,
agreed with himself as Q Salt and then discussed how terrible the
situation is *because of me* while using still another fake name!
Sorry this post is so long. I wanted to debunk his lies and also ask if
anyone here knows how to help.
Regards,
Robert
==========================>
Robert L Bass >
Bass Home Electronics >
80 Bentwood Road >
W Hartford, CT 06107 >
>
alar...@BassHome.com >
http://www.BassHome.com >
>
860-561-9542 Voice >
860-521-2143 Fax >
==========================>
L Laffer
>
> Before you judge, please consider the totality of the circumstances.
>
> This was an error. At the time I was unaware of the rules against
> cancelling a series of hate-posts, most of which were placed by one
> person using multiple phony e-mail addresses and posting through
> Hotmail.com. There was/is a series of off-topic threads on R.A.S.,
> primarily generated by the efforts of this one spammer.
This is a lie. He cancelled a large number of on topic posts and left any
flames made to him to make himself look like a victim. He also cancelled
all of his flames for the same reason. There are about 120 of his own posts
cancelled.
Larry
L Laffer
Robert L Bass <alar...@BassHome.com> wrote in article
<348E126D...@BassHome.com>...
> Please note that the accuser is the same individual who has appointed
> himself as the scourge of the rec.aviation.* news groups. Unlike
> myself, this character does not have the character to even admit
> publicly who he is. This "person" has posted literally hundreds of
> off-topic flames, he has forged my e-mail address in an attempt to
> create problems with other NGs.
>
First of all, despite being told about 100 times what spam is, he still
thinks confuses them with flames. as to the rest? BFD. I flame him in the
most effective way I can.
> He has not just attacked me. He recently attacked a fellow named Jerry
> Bransford. He authored scores of off-topic, abusive posts against this
> other gentleman. He only stops when he finds another person to abuse.
Nope, not true. You`re the only person I`ve ever flamed in an aviation NG.
Period.
>
> The same NNTP posting host he uses, <ts01-05.drogheda.indigo.ie> a node
> at indigo.ie in Ireland, is present in the posts of about 6 different
> fictitious names. All of these names *usually* post with a sig line
> from Hotmail.com. Since I complained to Hotmail I notice their sig line
> is mysteriously gone. All of these characters: Larry Laffer, Q Salt,
> leap frog, Jeff Morris, etc., are really one person.
>
Nah, you can still get me at Hotmail lusco...@hotmail.com if you want
to.
Robert doesn`t respond to posts, though. He calls up the ISP who promptly
give him a pat "we`ll look into it" and then laugh at him behind his back.
> This same individual has even visited several other NGs where I do
> business in an effort to stir up more trouble. He has cross-posted his
> flame war to multiple NGs in rec.aviation.* to the annoyance of those in
> those NGs as well.
>
Nope, I didn`t initiate a cross post. Anyone who`s interested can verify
this for himself. However Robert has gone to several newsgroups and
cancelled posts by anyone he assumes to be me (He can`t actually read
headers himself, he`s relying on second hand info, and that`s mostly wrong)
These are the same ng`s he cancelled in so in any case, the people there
have a right to know. There were some cases where innocent bystanders posts
were cancelled by Robert because he either made a mistake, or was assuming
the poster was one of his tormentors.
> Nothing seems to be able to stop his abuse.
Well, if you started behaving yourself, I`d stop in a nanosecond. Since
that`s obviously WAAAAY beyond you, then I`ll just have to keep at you
until it`s not.
He enjoys beind told to
> knock it off by more reasonable members of the Usenet community.
Nope, I don`t like that part at all. I stopped posting in those groups
yesterday because there was nothing left to say.
(except to bring back news of the ongoing battle here)
Robert Bass has been proven to be a liar, a forger, a canceller, and a
general moron to everyone`s satisfaction there. Worse yet, these are
aviation newsgroups. Several people there, better qualified than I to
opine, are expressing doubts as to Robert`s suitability to hold a pilot`s
licence.
I have
> made it clear in this NG that I made a serious mistake -- I was not
> aware at the time about the rule regarding cancels. The claim that I
> cancelled on-topic posts of his is bogus. He doesn't make on-topic
> posts. There have been literally hundreds of posts from this spammer in
> the rec.aviation.* forums. All but perhaps a dozen were personal
> attacks -- not discussions of flying skills and techniques -- just Larry
> Laffer's wars.
>
Also lies. It wasn`t just my posts that were cancelled. In fact he
cancelled very few of mine. Go look yourself, once again. Far from
admitting he made a serious mistake, he tried to pass the blame onto
another individual in the groups. Even when he was caught red-handed he
made no admission to the group. He`s admitted it here, but only because he
was trying to con you guys out of some info to save his sorry hide.
all the best,
Larry
Robert L Bass
L Laffer wrote:
>
> Robert L Bass <alar...@BassHome.com> wrote in article
> <348E126D...@BassHome.com>...
> > Please note that the accuser is the same individual who has appointed
> > himself as the scourge of the rec.aviation.* news groups. Unlike
> > myself, this character does not have the character to even admit
> > publicly who he is. This "person" has posted literally hundreds of
> > off-topic flames, he has forged my e-mail address in an attempt to
> > create problems with other NGs.
> >
> First of all, despite being told about 100 times what spam is, he still
> thinks confuses them with flames. as to the rest? BFD. I flame him in the
> most effective way I can.
Posting off-topic messages by the hundreds is SPAM, Larry. Ergo the
guy's a SPAMMER.
> > He has not just attacked me. He recently attacked a fellow named Jerry
> > Bransford. He authored scores of off-topic, abusive posts against this
> > other gentleman. He only stops when he finds another person to abuse.
>
> Nope, not true. You`re the only person I`ve ever flamed in an aviation NG.
> Period.
Laffer is, as pointed out earlier, a fake name. The same guy, using the
bogus name, Jeff Morris, flamed another fellow for weeks on end.
> > The same NNTP posting host he uses, <ts01-05.drogheda.indigo.ie> a node
> > at indigo.ie in Ireland, is present in the posts of about 6 different
> > fictitious names. All of these names *usually* post with a sig line
> > from Hotmail.com. Since I complained to Hotmail I notice their sig line
> > is mysteriously gone. All of these characters: Larry Laffer, Q Salt,
> > leap frog, Jeff Morris, etc., are really one person.
> >
> Nah, you can still get me at Hotmail lusco...@hotmail.com if you want
> to. Robert doesn`t respond to posts, though. He calls up the ISP who promptly
> give him a pat "we`ll look into it" and then laugh at him behind his back.
> > This same individual has even visited several other NGs where I do
> > business in an effort to stir up more trouble. He has cross-posted his
> > flame war to multiple NGs in rec.aviation.* to the annoyance of those in
> > those NGs as well.
> Nope, I didn`t initiate a cross post. Anyone who`s interested can verify
> this for himself. However Robert has gone to several newsgroups and
> cancelled posts by anyone he assumes to be me (He can`t actually read
> headers himself, he`s relying on second hand info, and that`s mostly wrong)
> These are the same ng`s he cancelled in so in any case, the people there
> have a right to know. There were some cases where innocent bystanders posts
> were cancelled by Robert because he either made a mistake, or was assuming
> the poster was one of his tormentors.
This was covered earlier in this thread. The guy's a SPAMMER and a
LIAR. He attacks relentlessly against one person. Then he changes his
name, but not the NNTP Posting host and the rest of the headers, and
goes after someone else.
> > Nothing seems to be able to stop his abuse.
>
> Well, if you started behaving yourself, I`d stop in a nanosecond. Since
> that`s obviously WAAAAY beyond you, then I`ll just have to keep at you
> until it`s not.
He has directly stated in several posts that his entire purpose -- his
very existence -- is to post hate in the NG against those he deems
unworthy. I'm only his most recent victim.
> He enjoys beind told to
> > knock it off by more reasonable members of the Usenet community.
>
> Nope, I don`t like that part at all. I stopped posting in those groups
> yesterday because there was nothing left to say.
> (except to bring back news of the ongoing battle here)
> Robert Bass has been proven to be a liar, a forger, a canceller, and a
> general moron to everyone`s satisfaction there. Worse yet, these are
> aviation newsgroups. Several people there, better qualified than I to
> opine, are expressing doubts as to Robert`s suitability to hold a pilot`s
> licence.
Like I said, the guy can't stop spreading his hatred. The stuff he
posts here is mild by comparison to his trash in the other groups. The
posts with my e-mail forged also had the characteristic headers, the
"left-hand" apostrophe, etc. This guy never stops posting filth in the
NG. He *starts* new threads with the NG nazi accusation. He posts by
the scores -- all filled with hatred.
I know I made a mistake in cancelling. As I said before the guy even
posted here, I didn't about know the rule against this. However, this
guy knows full well what he's been doing for months on end. He just
won't stop for any reason. As soon as he's finished hassling me, he'll
be pouncing on some other victim. That is what he did before he got
around to me because, as he himself has clearly stated, that is what
he's here for. Sad life.
It is probably impossible to stop him. He told me in one of his
numerous e-mail flames that "there are hundreds of places on the Web
like Hotmail. If they shut [him] down, [he'll] just go find another."
Is there really nothing that can be done short of wasting money on
lawyers? Before anyone suggests it, I am NOT inclined to violence.
BTW, this guy made references in e-mail to me about how he had a friend
who was going to "enjoy meeting" me and how I would not like it, etc.
Robert
> I have
> > made it clear in this NG that I made a serious mistake -- I was not
> > aware at the time about the rule regarding cancels. The claim that I
> > cancelled on-topic posts of his is bogus. He doesn't make on-topic
> > posts. There have been literally hundreds of posts from this spammer in
> > the rec.aviation.* forums. All but perhaps a dozen were personal
> > attacks -- not discussions of flying skills and techniques -- just Larry
> > Laffer's wars.
> >
> Also lies. It wasn`t just my posts that were cancelled. In fact he
> cancelled very few of mine. Go look yourself, once again. Far from
> admitting he made a serious mistake, he tried to pass the blame onto
> another individual in the groups. Even when he was caught red-handed he
> made no admission to the group. He`s admitted it here, but only because he
> was trying to con you guys out of some info to save his sorry hide.
>
>
> all the best,
>
> Larry
--
Andrew Gierth
>>>>> "Robert" == Robert L Bass <alar...@BassHome.com> writes:
Robert> Posting off-topic messages by the hundreds is SPAM, Larry.
No, it isn't. Posting *the same thing* too many times is spam.
--
Andrew.
L Laffer
> Posting off-topic messages by the hundreds is SPAM, Larry. Ergo the
> guy's a SPAMMER.
>
Even then, the muggee has to show him how to hold the banana.
YES YES YES I`M A SPAMMER! (Chucking another tin of spam at the granite
like knot on top of Bobo`s shoulders)
>
> Laffer is, as pointed out earlier, a fake name. The same guy, using the
> bogus name, Jeff Morris, flamed another fellow for weeks on end.
>
Bullshit. One night flame war. BFD.
Look, noone here wants to wade through this crap, and anyone who is
masochisitic enough to actually want to can find it at
rec.aviation.student. where this lamer is not welcomed by anyone.
You could also go to alt.security.alarms where mr Bass was the subject of a
thread called "Robert Bass is Arrogant" some months ago.
Or to any of the rec.aviation* newsgroups where flames about him exist in
their thousands. (many by moi)
Larry
David Hyde
Nauga steps in...
Robert Bass writes:
>All of these characters: Larry Laffer, Q Salt,
>leap frog, Jeff Morris, etc., are really one person.
>The claim that I cancelled on-topic posts of his is bogus.
>He doesn't make on-topic posts.
You don't know me but(tm)...
(1) I'm a regular participant on the rec.aviation.* newsgroups.
(2) I've participated in rational on-topic discussions with some of the
names that Bass lists.
(3) It took me less than 5 mins on DejaNews to find an on-topic Q Salt
post that had a cancellation bearing BassMarks.
Later in the post:
>There have been literally hundreds of posts from this spammer in
>the rec.aviation.* forums. All but perhaps a dozen were personal
>attacks -- not discussions of flying skills and techniques -- just Larry
>Laffer's wars.
The poster considered it appropriate to cancel other people's posts,
on-topic and otherwise. His own ideas of what are valid 'discussions of
flying skills and techniques' are easily reviewed in rec.aviation.student.
A search for "AIDS", "midol", "moron", and "sneaky-boy" should be
enlightening.
Dave 'on-topic here' Hyde
na...@glue.umd.edu
Robert L Bass
Lionel Lauer wrote:
>
> In the meantime, you've just publicly admitted to comitting net-abuse
> in a group that is dedicated to doing *bad* *things* to people who
> abuse the net. Is that clear enough for you?
I believe I made it clear the action I took was a mistake. I didn't
realise at the time there was a rule about this. In fact, I had only
just discovered it was even possible to cancel a post (one's own or
otherwise) while reading the forged posts Laffer placed using my e-mail
address.
BTW, isn't posting under a forged e-mail address abuse?
Rich Ahrens
Robert L Bass (alar...@BassHome.com) spilled onto his/her news spool:
: BTW, isn't posting under a forged e-mail address abuse?
One of which you are guilty, asshole. You posted several articles using
my name, email address and server name. Of course, you're such an idiot
you signed your own name to them. But tell us, since you're such an
expert on abuse, how do you justify your actions in those instances? Or
are you going to invent another fanciful version of how you did it
accidentally?
Face it folks, this clown is a confirmed repeat abuser of Usenet and
email and a pathological liar to boot. For confirmation of his forging
habit, just check out the following posts:
Date Message-id
12/04 34877831...@visi.com
12/04 348778B2...@visi.com
12/04 34877E15...@visi.com
12/04 34877A22...@visi.com
You'll find all were posted from his domain. The posting host, in fact,
is one I would be willing to bet is the cable/internet interface in his
home or place of business.
These are the ones I've found so far which he posted under my identity.
He has probably done more under others as well.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Rich Ahrens | Homepage: http://www.visi.com/~rma/ |
|r...@visi.com |----------------------------------------------|
|"In a world full of people only some want to fly - isn't that crazy?"|
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rich Ahrens
Robert L Bass (alar...@BassHome.com) spilled onto his/her news spool:
: guy's a SPAMMER.
No, you flaming idiot, it isn't. Go do some reading and come back when
you have a clue. And the number Laffer has posted, while high, is in no
way "hundreds."
: Laffer is, as pointed out earlier, a fake name. The same guy, using the
: bogus name, Jeff Morris, flamed another fellow for weeks on end.
Another example of this luser's lunacy. Jeff Morris is not a bogus name.
He is a real person, a training captain for an airline. I know his FAA
certificate number and the registration of an airplane he owns. Yet Bass
insists he does not exist. What a maroon.
Oh, and Bass complained to my ISP about my misspelling the word "luser"
- does that give you an idea of his level of knowledge?
Captain UseNet Phil Oliver
On Wed, 10 Dec 1997 10:54:45 -0500, Robert L Bass
<alar...@BassHome.com> typed:
>BTW, isn't posting under a forged e-mail address abuse?
Yes.
-Phil Oliver
--
On December 8, 1997, in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet in article
<Pine.SUN.3.96L-rev3_1-10....@crl4.crl.com>
Stan Kalisch meowed again.
Captain UseNet Phil Oliver
On 10 Dec 1997 16:49:00 GMT, r...@visi.com (Rich Ahrens) typed:
>Robert L Bass (alar...@BassHome.com) spilled onto his/her news spool:
>: Posting off-topic messages by the hundreds is SPAM, Larry. Ergo the
>: guy's a SPAMMER.
>
>No, you flaming idiot, it isn't.
Agreed, the topicality of a message in no way affects whether or not
its spam. If they were substantively identical, they might be spam.
If they were in the "hundreds" in a very short amount of time, they
might be spew. If Robert wishes to make such a claim, he should post
proof.
>: Laffer is, as pointed out earlier, a fake name. The same guy, using the
>: bogus name, Jeff Morris, flamed another fellow for weeks on end.
>
>Another example of this luser's lunacy. Jeff Morris is not a bogus name.
And there's nothing net-abusive about using a "bogus name" or flaming
in the first place.
>Oh, and Bass complained to my ISP about my misspelling the word "luser"
>- does that give you an idea of his level of knowledge?
More accurately, the level of kookiness. Many kooks are quite
intelligent, surprisingly.
Kathy Pascoe
Robert L Bass wrote:
>
> In fact, I had only just discovered it was even possible to cancel a
> post (one's own or otherwise) while reading the forged posts Laffer
> placed using my e-mail address.
I have real difficulty accepting that you didn't realize you were doing
something wrong when you put someone else's name & email address in
place of your information, for the sole purpose of cancelling someone
else's postings. But I'll leave that alone, especially since I
understand you've been chastised by your ISP.
>
> BTW, isn't posting under a forged e-mail address abuse?
Are you defining forged as posting using the name and email address of
another real person? Yes, it's abuse, which you can certainly cancel
if you're the forgee. It is not, however, usually considered abuse of
the net. Rather, it's abuse *on* the net, which is generally a matter
for you to take up with your ISP, the offender and the offender's ISP.
That's been my understanding, though I'm sure if I've got the
distinction wrong, I'll be corrected.
>
> ==========================>
> Robert L Bass >
> Bass Home Electronics >
> 80 Bentwood Road >
> W Hartford, CT 06107 >
> >
> alar...@BassHome.com >
> http://www.BassHome.com >
> >
> 860-561-9542 Voice >
> 860-521-2143 Fax >
> ==========================>
Could you split this up please? Netiquette says sigs are no bigger than
4x80. If you'd put the mailto, web site and phone numbers to the right
of other stuff, your sig would be less intrusive.
BTW, thank you for discarding the vcard. I and others appreciate it.
--
Kathy Pascoe ~ kpa...@ford.com (work) ~ kpa...@sprintmail.com (home)
.. a backup moderator of <news:news.newusers.questions>
L Laffer
> >Oh, and Bass complained to my ISP about my misspelling the word "luser"
> >- does that give you an idea of his level of knowledge?
>
> More accurately, the level of kookiness. Many kooks are quite
> intelligent, surprisingly.
>
> -Phil Oliver
>
I seen such a combination of stupidity, paranoia, and plain old wierdness.
Hi posts in the rec.aviation.* groups are surreal. Almost Abbot and
Costello like.
Larry
Robert L Bass
Kathy Pascoe wrote:
>
> Robert L Bass wrote:
> >
> > In fact, I had only just discovered it was even possible to cancel a
> > post (one's own or otherwise) while reading the forged posts Laffer
> > placed using my e-mail address.
>
> I have real difficulty accepting that you didn't realize you were doing
> something wrong when you put someone else's name & email address in
> place of your information, for the sole purpose of cancelling someone
> else's postings. But I'll leave that alone, especially since I
> understand you've been chastised by your ISP.
> >
> > BTW, isn't posting under a forged e-mail address abuse?
>
> Are you defining forged as posting using the name and email address of
> another real person? Yes, it's abuse, which you can certainly cancel
> if you're the forgee. It is not, however, usually considered abuse of
> the net. Rather, it's abuse *on* the net, which is generally a matter
> for you to take up with your ISP, the offender and the offender's ISP.
>
> That's been my understanding, though I'm sure if I've got the
> distinction wrong, I'll be corrected.
>
> 4x80. If you'd put the mailto, web site and phone numbers to the right
> of other stuff, your sig would be less intrusive.
>
> BTW, thank you for discarding the vcard. I and others appreciate it.
> --
> Kathy Pascoe ~ kpa...@ford.com (work) ~ kpa...@sprintmail.com (home)
> .. a backup moderator of <news:news.newusers.questions>
The distinction between abuse on the Net and abuse of the Net is
something I was unaware of. The person complaining has been lying
through his teeth for months, BTW. I realise I made a mistake. I
thought at the time I could legally cancel off-topic abusive posts.
Obviously I assumed wrongly. Others in this NG have informed me.
Apparently there is almost nothing I can (legally) do about this
fellow. Oh well.
I'm sure the members of this NG are used to people making a mistake now
and then. Hopefully, a bit of understanding will flow in light of the
massive attack I was (and still am) under from the above-named poster.
Thanks for the comments, Nancy. I'm not looking to continue warring
with that guy (or his multiple alter-egos either, for that matter). I
sure do wish someone could tell me of a lawful means to cause a large
noise to happen deep within his hard-drive, thouogh (only kidding,
folks).
BTW, can someone kindly tell me where I may read the rules of Usenet?
It might help if I knew what the precise limitations are for my own
posts. Thanks in advance.
Robert L Bass
Bass Home Electronics
80 Bentwood Rd, W Hartford, CT 06107
Captain UseNet Phil Oliver
On Wed, 10 Dec 1997 14:26:38 -0500, Kathy Pascoe <kpa...@ford.com>
typed:
>Robert L Bass wrote:
>
>> BTW, isn't posting under a forged e-mail address abuse?
>
>Are you defining forged as posting using the name and email address of
>another real person? Yes, it's abuse, which you can certainly cancel
>if you're the forgee. It is not, however, usually considered abuse of
>the net. Rather, it's abuse *on* the net, which is generally a matter
>for you to take up with your ISP, the offender and the offender's ISP.
Forgery is abuse *of* the net. See:
ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/control/news/news.admin.net-abuse.Z
>Could you split this up please? Netiquette says sigs are no bigger than
>4x80.
Here's my turn to play "someone will correct me if I'm wrong", but I
thought 72 chars per line was a more accepted standard? I'm probably
posting with 80 myself, but I don't claim to follow any sort of
"Netiquette" anyway.
The 4 line sig limit is also a bit outdated, especially when hundreds
of lines of HTML garbage appended to a post is common.
Long .sigs are generally a bigger problem on digested mailing lists.
Captain UseNet Phil Oliver
On Wed, 10 Dec 1997 15:26:02 -0500, Robert L Bass
<alar...@BassHome.com> typed:
>The distinction between abuse on the Net and abuse of the Net is
>something I was unaware of.
There's a distinction, but the distinction made in the post you
replied to was incorrect.
>I realise I made a mistake. I thought at the time I could legally cancel
>off-topic abusive posts.
You're now not being consistent. Previously you said the posts were
forged in your name, a poster has every right to cancel articles
forged their name. Are you referring to cancelling forged posts or
cancelling "off-topic abusive" posts? Forgery aside, a post can't be
cancelled merely because it's off-topic, and only a few select types
of "abuse of the net" make a post cancellable by a 3rd party,
specifically misplaced binaries, spam with BI>20, etc.
Robert L Bass
Captain UseNet Phil Oliver wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Dec 1997 15:26:02 -0500, Robert L Bass
> <alar...@BassHome.com> typed:
>
> >The distinction between abuse on the Net and abuse of the Net is
> >something I was unaware of.
>
> There's a distinction, but the distinction made in the post you
> replied to was incorrect.
>
> >I realise I made a mistake. I thought at the time I could legally cancel
> >off-topic abusive posts.
>
> You're now not being consistent. Previously you said the posts were
> forged in your name, a poster has every right to cancel articles
> forged their name. Are you referring to cancelling forged posts or
> cancelling "off-topic abusive" posts? Forgery aside, a post can't be
> cancelled merely because it's off-topic, and only a few select types
> of "abuse of the net" make a post cancellable by a 3rd party,
> specifically misplaced binaries, spam with BI>20, etc.
These were two entirely separate matters -- albeit separated by a
relatively short time period. The first was when I found posts from the
guy who's now complaing about me in tx.guns. These had my e-mail forged
to them and resulted in several nasty e-mails from people in that
group. I actually hit [delete] instead of [end] by accident while
reading the first of those. That was how I discovered that cancelling a
post was even feasible. Up to then I didn't even know that. Sorry, but
I don't have much experience in these matters. When I realised I could
cancel the forged posts bearing my e-mail address, I then saw that
cancels are relatively simple to accomplish.
It was shortly after that when I realised that all you needed was to
change the [reply to] or something like that in Netscape to cancel a
post. As I mentioned earlier, I had only then realised that cancelling
was feasible. It wasn't until someone from here clued me in that I
learned there are rules about canceling abusive stuff.
What I discovered: (1) It's easy to cancel anyone's posts. (2) If
they're not posted with my e-mail (i.e., forged) I'm not allowed to do
so. OK, so I won't.
It leaves me with no recourse but to ignore the dolts. Oh, well.
Robert
Kathy Pascoe
Captain UseNet Phil Oliver wrote:
>
>
> Forgery is abuse *of* the net. See:
>
> ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/control/news/news.admin.net-abuse.Z
Thanks, will do.
>
> >Could you split this up please? Netiquette says sigs are no bigger
> >than 4x80.
>
> Here's my turn to play "someone will correct me if I'm wrong", but I
> thought 72 chars per line was a more accepted standard? I'm probably
> posting with 80 myself, but I don't claim to follow any sort of
> "Netiquette" anyway.
I've heard variations 72-80. The 12 lines long strung along one side of
the screen was just bugging me.
>
> The 4 line sig limit is also a bit outdated, especially when hundreds
> of lines of HTML garbage appended to a post is common.
> Long .sigs are generally a bigger problem on digested mailing lists.
Four's cool, six is ok, you get much past that (especially for someone
consistently posting one to two line followups) and it gets annoying.
Possibly that's just me.
--
Kathy Pascoe ~ kpa...@sprintmail.com (at home)
L Laffer
Hmm,
Mr Bass seems to have disappeared.
Larry
Rich Ahrens
Robert L Bass (alar...@BassHome.com) spilled onto his/her news spool:
: relatively short time period. The first was when I found posts from the
: guy who's now complaing about me in tx.guns. These had my e-mail forged
: to them and resulted in several nasty e-mails from people in that
: group. I actually hit [delete] instead of [end] by accident while
: reading the first of those. That was how I discovered that cancelling a
: post was even feasible. Up to then I didn't even know that. Sorry, but
: I don't have much experience in these matters. When I realised I could
: cancel the forged posts bearing my e-mail address, I then saw that
: cancels are relatively simple to accomplish.
:
: It was shortly after that when I realised that all you needed was to
: change the [reply to] or something like that in Netscape to cancel a
: post. As I mentioned earlier, I had only then realised that cancelling
: was feasible. It wasn't until someone from here clued me in that I
: learned there are rules about canceling abusive stuff.
Bobo, you're once again proving that you are lying pondscum. You
wouldn't know the truth if it walked up and bit you on the rump. You
specifically changed your name, email address, and the rest of your
identity to that of at least a half dozen people to cancel their posts.
Over at least three or four days. In multiple newsgroups. And many of
the messages were not only on topic and not abusive in any way but had
absolutely nothing to do with you (not that you would have any right to
cancel them in any case). You also used the same forged identity to post
new messages under your victims' names (mine among them). Your invented
scenario is simply an attempt to persuade your own provider that you're
so clueless they shouldn't terminate your sorry ass.
: What I discovered: (1) It's easy to cancel anyone's posts. (2) If
: they're not posted with my e-mail (i.e., forged) I'm not allowed to do
: so. OK, so I won't.
What this newsgroup is discovering, like the others you have terrorized,
is that you're beyond a clue. A LART-proof dolt.
: It leaves me with no recourse but to ignore the dolts. Oh, well.
Hardly. Your primary recourses are (1) grow up, take responsibility for
your intentional abuses of the net and act like a respectable netizen
or (2) go away and play with yourself.
L Laffer
Lionel Lauer <longword@!spam.super.zippo.com> wrote in article
<34969e01...@snews.zippo.com>...
> I'm inclined to agree with you, but you should still take it out of
> nan-au regardless, given that there is no issue of Usenet abuse
> happening here that I can see.
Lionel,
Robert Bass has had the crap frightened out of him already here (By the
locals, not us) and has decided to go back to rec.aviation.student of his
own volition, so we`re following.
Sorry about all of the crap, gang. But Bass drug it over here. In any case,
we`re very grateful to all of you for the help.
Larry Laffer
Rich Ahrens
Lionel Lauer (longword@!spam.super.zippo.com) spilled onto his/her news spool:
: I'm inclined to agree with you, but you should still take it out of
: nan-au regardless, given that there is no issue of Usenet abuse
: happening here that I can see.
Excuse me? Cancelling the posts of other people and forging posts under
their names isn't Usenet abuse in your opinion?
wer...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
after reading all articles posted in nana.usenet in this
thread, and after looking into tx.guns and the aviation
group, my conclusion is that not only Mr. Bass deserves
some spanking. My KILL-files grew by more than just one
line.
I do have the distinct impression that Mr. Bass has been
hounded into making some of his "mistakes" by a relentless
foul-mouthed bunch of net-scum. Fellows, it's OK to call
Bass into the spotlight here to have the errors of his ways
pointed out to him, but, quite frankly, from your display
of abuse and arrogance HERE, I can't blame him for not being
inclined to listen to your "advice".
As Mr. Bass seems to have learned something from the visit
to nana.usenet, I just thought I'd like to give you guys
a parting lesson also: you are no "Miss Netiquette"
(and have made my KILL-file for your "fireworks display"
in nana.usenet
--
"Free Advice and Opinions -- Refunds Available"
---> ( I believe in emailing courtesy copies of follow-up articles ) <---
Outlaw junk email * Support CAUCE http://www.cauce.org/
Tim Brown
No mention of Mullin, who has been harassing me since October 1996.
wer...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu writes:
--
bath...@iglou.com http://members.iglou.com/bathroom Tantrum 95.7 FM
"A capitalist is eager to sell a rope for himself to hang with" --Abe Lincoln
Read The Last Word -- It's your road atlas to freedom!
Conservatives prove: Stupid is as fascist does...
Rich Ahrens
: it was old news, & had been dealt with successfully.
: The guy got a serious LARTing & ran away, seems like a fair result to
: me. ;)
If there is one thing the past has shown when it comes to Bass, it is
that he *won't* go away. Like a bad burrito, he keeps coming back, one
way or another.
Captain UseNet Phil Oliver
On 13 Dec 1997 05:32:39 GMT, r...@visi.com (Rich Ahrens) typed:
>Lionel Lauer (longword@!spam.super.zippo.com) spilled onto his/her news spool:
>: Of course it is, but I understood (from the information presented) that
>: it was old news, & had been dealt with successfully.
>: The guy got a serious LARTing & ran away, seems like a fair result to
>: me. ;)
>
>If there is one thing the past has shown when it comes to Bass, it is
>that he *won't* go away. Like a bad burrito, he keeps coming back, one
>way or another.
Pretty hypocritical coming from someone who just created a joke group
for the guy. You've now sunken below his level. Congratulations!
Rich Ahrens
Captain UseNet" Phil Oliver (felon...@AHJSPAMBLOCKrocketmail.com) spilled onto his/her news spool:
: Pretty hypocritical coming from someone who just created a joke group
: for the guy. You've now sunken below his level. Congratulations!
Hardly. My action is well within the bounds of acceptable practice in
alt.* (as is that of those who immediately rmgrouped it). And as you
know, I made no attempt to disguise my identity in doing so. In no way
could it be compared to his third party cancellations and forged
postings. I won't even go into the months of abusive posts aimed at a
wide variety of valued regulars in r.a.s - you won't be able to confirm
much of that because he cancelled those to cover up. If you can't see
the difference in malevolence, I'm not going to attempt to persuade you.
And don't join Bass in blaming me for anything done by Laffer. I
challenge you to find *any* evidence that we are the same person. There
simply is none because we are not.
wer...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
quoting Lionel
| Quoth :
|
|> to nana.usenet, I just thought I'd like to give you guys
|> a parting lesson also: you are no "Miss Netiquette"
|> (and have made my KILL-file for your "fireworks display"
|> in nana.usenet
|
you're just being silly again, Lionel. You still care too much... :-)
now if you REALLY disagree with me that some of the accusers made a
sorry spectacle of themselves here, feel free to reread this thread,
take note of the foul-mouths. I KILL-file such people, will take no
notice of any other gripes they might have (take note, bathroom?).
That said, I also think that termination of posting privileges should
be the standard reaction of any admin to unjustifiable forgeries (i.e.
cancelation of news articles), but account termination would be
preferable. but that's neither here nor there, isn't the issue...
Captain UseNet Phil Oliver
On 13 Dec 1997 07:58:44 GMT, r...@visi.com (Rich Ahrens) typed:
>Captain UseNet" Phil Oliver (felon...@AHJSPAMBLOCKrocketmail.com) spilled onto his/her news spool:
>: Pretty hypocritical coming from someone who just created a joke group
>: for the guy. You've now sunken below his level. Congratulations!
>
>Hardly. My action is well within the bounds of acceptable practice in
>alt.* (as is that of those who immediately rmgrouped it).
No, it's not "acceptable" to create joke groups. It's not a violation
of any protocol to do so, but it's also not "acceptable". You're well
within your rights as an American citizen to fart in public, but I
wouldn't recommend it, nor would I call it "acceptable". Joke groups
are the farts of alt.*
>And as you know, I made no attempt to disguise my identity in doing so.
How's that relevant? You can disguise your identity in any way you
want as long as you don't forge in someone else's name.
>In no way could it be compared to his third party cancellations and forged
>postings.
Sure it can. The two things are not "equally bad", but both are bad.
Captain UseNet Phil Oliver
On Sun, 14 Dec 1997 13:50:46 GMT,
felon...@AHISPAMBLOCKrocketmail.com ("Captain UseNet" Phil Oliver)
typed:
>On 13 Dec 1997 07:58:44 GMT, r...@visi.com (Rich Ahrens) typed:
>
>>Captain UseNet" Phil Oliver (felon...@AHJSPAMBLOCKrocketmail.com) spilled onto his/her news spool:
>>: Pretty hypocritical coming from someone who just created a joke group
>>: for the guy. You've now sunken below his level. Congratulations!
>>
>>Hardly. My action is well within the bounds of acceptable practice in
>>alt.* (as is that of those who immediately rmgrouped it).
I just noticed your joke group's name again and it most certainly is
*not* within any bounds of acceptable practice. It contains a > 14
character hierarchy, and as such, it not acceptable regardless of the
"joke" content.
-Phil Oliver
--
"If we beat the issue senseless a few more times, it might be
funny again. Sort of like a cascade." -Stan Kalisch III, in
<Pine.SUN.3.96L-rev3_1-10....@crl3.crl.com>
Rich Ahrens
Captain UseNet" Phil Oliver (felon...@AHISPAMBLOCKrocketmail.com) spilled onto his/her news spool:
: No, it's not "acceptable" to create joke groups. It's not a violation
: of any protocol to do so, but it's also not "acceptable". You're well
: within your rights as an American citizen to fart in public, but I
: wouldn't recommend it, nor would I call it "acceptable". Joke groups
: are the farts of alt.*
Your argument is moot, because it was not created as a joke. It was in
fact going to be a place to which to move all of the discordance in
r.a.s. It is precedented for other kooks - see alt.fan.stephen-boursy
and alt.depew, for instance. (Yes, I'm aware that Depew's image has
changed, but there is no doubt he was considered a kook when his groups
were created.)
: Sure it can. The two things are not "equally bad", but both are bad.
That is not the position you took in your previous statement. You
clearly described my creation of an alt.* newsgroup, done completely by
the book and in accordance with my provider's AUP, as a worse offense
than the Connecticut Kook's third-party cancellations and forgeries.
That is an unsupportable position. Give it up, Captain.
Captain UseNet Phil Oliver
On 14 Dec 1997 17:22:36 GMT, r...@visi.com (Rich Ahrens) typed:
>Captain UseNet" Phil Oliver (felon...@AHISPAMBLOCKrocketmail.com) spilled onto his/her news spool:
>: No, it's not "acceptable" to create joke groups. It's not a violation
>: of any protocol to do so, but it's also not "acceptable". You're well
>: within your rights as an American citizen to fart in public, but I
>: wouldn't recommend it, nor would I call it "acceptable". Joke groups
>: are the farts of alt.*
>
>Your argument is moot, because it was not created as a joke. It was in
>fact going to be a place to which to move all of the discordance in
>r.a.s.
If it wasn't created as a joke, you wouldn't have put it in the
"alt.fan.*" hierarchy, and you wouldn't have included "basshole" in
its title.
>It is precedented for other kooks - see alt.fan.stephen-boursy
>and alt.depew, for instance.
There is no such thing as a precendent in alt.*. If you were literate
enough to read the FAQs on newsgroup creation, you'd see that "because
one silly group exists is no excuse to create another silly group".
>: Sure it can. The two things are not "equally bad", but both are bad.
>
>That is not the position you took in your previous statement.
Yes it is. I said "You've lowered yourself to his level". That
doesn't mean "You did something just as bad" it means "You're no
better than he is." Because one person's actions may be worse than
anothers does not mean they're not equal on the bozo scale.
>You clearly described my creation of an alt.* newsgroup, done
>completely by the book
Wrong. You included a hierarchy with > 14 characters. That is not
within the book.
>and in accordance with my provider's AUP,
Your provider's AUP is completely irrelevant. Many providers allow
their users to spam in their AUPs, but that doesn't make it
acceptable.
>as a worse offense than the Connecticut Kook's third-party cancellations
>and forgeries.
Wrong. I said "You lowered yourself to his level". Although you
didn't do something "as bad", you did something completely moronic, so
you've lowered yourself to the level of "moron". Again,
congratulations.
>That is an unsupportable position.
Not really. I did so fairly handily above with a minimum of effort
(1.5 minutes).
>Give it up, Captain.
Give up arguing with fuckheads like you? Never. I've always loved
shooting fish in a barrel.
L Laffer
"Captain UseNet" Phil Oliver <felon...@AIFSPAMBLOCKrocketmail.com> wrote
in article <34a663c9...@news.enter.net>...
> On 14 Dec 1997 17:22:36 GMT, r...@visi.com (Rich Ahrens) typed:
>
> >Captain UseNet" Phil Oliver (felon...@AHISPAMBLOCKrocketmail.com)
spilled onto his/her news spool:
> >: No, it's not "acceptable" to create joke groups. It's not a violation
> >: of any protocol to do so, but it's also not "acceptable". You're well
> >: within your rights as an American citizen to fart in public, but I
> >: wouldn't recommend it, nor would I call it "acceptable". Joke groups
> >: are the farts of alt.*
If I might put in a word in defence of the proposed group. There`s no
denying it`s primary function was as a joke, but it would be a very useful
group. This Bass charcter is a flame magnet. Every group he`s ever visited
is littered with huge flame wars. I`ve been involved in two in r.a.* A
group dedicated to him in whatever form would be a useful trashcan for the
flames that are inevetably going to arise in the future. He`s staying away
from his tormentors in r.a.s. and making a small effort to behave himself,
but he`s already rubbing others up in his inimitable way and another flame
war with a different crowd is certain.
A boxing ring is the best solution rather than the barroom brawls that are
occuring at present.
If a.f.b-n-b is not a runner, do you have another suggestion?
Larry