what's wrong.
Tom
Rick Ellis wrote:
SNIP!
Brant Watson
On 21 Oct 1997 01:53:00 GMT, el...@ftel.net (Rick Ellis) wrote:
>In article <344C04...@indy.com>, Tom <toms...@indy.com> wrote:
>>Rick Ellis wrote:
>>SNIP!
>
>It appears you are trying to get SDSU to terminate your access Edie. Do
>you actually intend to sue them or are you just looking for something more
>to whine about?
Geez, Tom is Ed, too!!?? I just saw the SDSU in the header. How
many does that make now?
Do you suppose Ed is trying to impress us...to dazzle us with his
brilliance at being able to set up numerous accounts using SDSU's
system? My guess is that the SDSU administrator(s) would be quite
dismayed at one of their students doing this.
Maybe Ed's really tired of going to school or can't afford it any
more or maybe he's pissed some people off, so he's hoping we'll report
him and get him kicked out. Then he can sue us. Do you think this
might be the new reality he's trying to create? I hope he's not that
naive.
Brant
Rick Ellis
In article <344c3afb...@news.erols.com>,
Brant Watson <bra...@erols.com> wrote:
> Do you suppose Ed is trying to impress us...to dazzle us with his
>brilliance at being able to set up numerous accounts using SDSU's
>system? My guess is that the SDSU administrator(s) would be quite
>dismayed at one of their students doing this.
You don't even have to set up numerous accouts when using NNTP to
post articles. Most NNTP implementations can't verify the "From:"
header so they just accept what ever the poster uses.
Jason Mathews
Rick Ellis wrote in message <62hie4$qtg$1...@ting.ftel.net>...
Ed thinks that changing the mail address in Netscape 3.01 Gold
can cloak his postings. He wouldn't know what a NNTP port was
if it bit him.
--
Desktop Mercenary | AKA Mind Control Officer #171, Rabid Jo-Boy,
www.skepticult.org/~deskmerc| SKEP-TI-CULTIST® , Anti-Astro Clone, troll,
desk...@skepticult.org | and writer of text/plain ISO-8859-1 viruses.
First Prophet of the Paranoid Network Intruder Ministries
#81-17642-003 of the mighty SKEP-TI-CULT®
Rick Ellis
Brant Watson
On 21 Oct 1997 18:30:21 GMT, el...@ftel.net (Rick Ellis) wrote:
>In article <344CC8...@aznet.net>,
>Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>
>>I would seriously like to know WHY you spin doctors assume that out of
>>thousands of computers at SDSU-open to 10s of thousands of students to
>>sit down at at any moment whimsically to chat or post or use lab
>>programs in dozens of places on campus that every post that comes in
>>with a header traceable to there is me?
>
>Because we aren't stupid.
>
Thanks for picking this up, Rick. I don't read alt.astrology and it
seems that residents of that NG like to ask questions and make
comments to us while deleting sci.skeptic.
I'll give a little more detailed answer.
Immediately following Ed's loss of his AOL account, we suddenly
start seeing several new people crossposting to alt.astrology and
sci.skeptic the same beliefs and attitudes Ed would be exhibiting.
There is also very similar behavior, like snipping an entire post and
offering nothing of substance in its place. These newbies all seem to
have SDSU accounts. Prior to that, there were few if any people
posting pro-astrology stuff from SDSU. This, after Ed stated that he
had access to 3000 computers on campus and would continue posting as
much as he wanted.
We were also able to make the determination by "pure perception."
Brant
Sure looks like Ed's trying to make good on his promise.
Sherilyn
In article <344d7b7a...@news.erols.com>, Brant Watson
<bra...@erols.com> writes
In article <343699...@aznet.net>, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@aznet.net> writes
>
...
> Not only that but "it" wasted time canceling my account at AOL just
> like I lead it to do-then it says it killfiles people to find more
> productive things to do! Yeah right! Sherilyn what will you do about
> the hundreds of machines in my labs? I don't have to log in, show ID,
> have an account or anything! How will you censor me now? :-))))))))
> You will have to have about 3500 different killfiles to not see me.
The term "it" is a reference to the fact that I'm a transvestite.
Charming.
--
Sherilyn|Ai to seigi no, seeraa fuku bishoujo senshi! Seeraa Muun yo!
alt.astrology Twinkle, twinkle, little planet.
Posting FAQ http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/posting.txt
Charter: http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/alt_astrology.txt
Jason Mathews
Sherilyn wrote in message ...
>In article <343699...@aznet.net>, Edmond Wollmann
><woll...@aznet.net> writes
>>
>...
>> Not only that but "it" wasted time canceling my account at AOL just
>> like I lead it to do-then it says it killfiles people to find more
>> productive things to do! Yeah right! Sherilyn what will you do about
>> the hundreds of machines in my labs? I don't have to log in, show ID,
>> have an account or anything! How will you censor me now? :-))))))))
>> You will have to have about 3500 different killfiles to not see me.
>
>The term "it" is a reference to the fact that I'm a transvestite.
>Charming.
Like it matters. Ed's just threatened by the concept.
I like how he says the labs are 'his'. From my own college experiences,
back in '88, there was a small charge on my bill from the university
about computer usage, when I was taking the various stuff for my
computer science degree. Folks that didn't have computer oriented
classes did not have this fee...so I wonder if Ed is taking valid
courses that allow him the use of such machines. It is possible
that the systems are for the use of all students, I'll grant that as
a possibilty, but no university would allow forged usenet postings
to come from their lab systems. Unless, of course, they feature courses
in header forging...which I doubt, 'cos Ed can't forge a post worth a
damn.
I'm pretty sure the admins of SDSU's labs would take a dim view of Ed
being a sock puppet. His usual postings are fine...but this tomslick
nonsense is probably a violation of the usage policies of those lab
machines.
Jason Mathews
Kevin Burk wrote in message <344F04...@astro-horoscopes.com>...
>Brant, et al:
>
>First of all, just because SDSU (or SDSC.edu, to be more precise - which
>may not be the same thing) appears in a number of different USENET
>headers does NOT mean that the post originated from SDSU. News Servers
>are different than ISPs. I have absolutely nothing to do with SDSU
>either personally or through my job, and SDSC.edu is one of the relays
>used when I post from work, and when I receive and read USENET posts.
>The newsserver links are listed in reverse order - the first one is
>actually the LAST relay - the FARTHEST hop from the source. If you MUST
>complain to a newsserver, at least complain to the last one listed,
>which is the first newsserver to receive the post.
Right. However, here's why I'm quite sure it's Ed:
Hint 1: Ed has already bragged that he can post like a maniac from 3000
SDSU machines.
Hint 2: The post itself is classic Wollmann...nothing but "SNIP".
Hint 3: The headers end all the way at SDSU, just like you said. The
NNTP Posting Host line gives it away, however...the IP address listed is
in SDSU's netblock. When you post, however, even when SDSU is used as a
relay, your posting host will reflect this, and nobody will think yer an
Ed sock puppet.
Hint 4: indy.com does not have a user named tomslick on their server.
Pretty clear this means it's forged. No spamblock is in effect either.
We hate it when spammers forge From lines, why should slack be cut for
Ed?
Hint 5: indy.com is located in Indiana. So is iquest and blueriver,
who provide services to indy.com. SDSU is not an open NNTP server,
so whoever is posting is doing it from the inside.
So we have here someone from SDSU posting as toms...@indy.com, a
bogus mailname, who engages in the exact same methods Ed uses. What
does this suggest?
>Personally, I could care less about Ed's alleged "sock puppets" - but if
>you're assuming that anyone whose posts relay through the SDSC.EDU
>server is simply an Ed Wollman sock puppet then Ed must be a VERY busy
>man. It's far more likely that these people simply happen to be in the
>San Diego area (as I am - and no, I am not Ed, nor have I met him
>personally.)
No, given the above, it's him. It's pathetically easy to change From
lines in Netscape, which is what he is using to post these forged
messages.
>I'm not entirely sure why I'm wasting my time writing this - I tell
>myself that it's in the hopes that it will end this pointless off-topic
>bickering, but I know that's not the case. If you don't like Ed, DON'T
>READ HIS POSTS! SKIP OVER THEM! It's that simple.
Its not that I don't like Ed...he's engaged in something I find personally
offensive as a longtime user of Usenet. Most people will turn their backs,
but I won't do so in this case. How else can you repay the unconscionable
rudeness of header forging and spam? If nobody spoke up about it, for
whatever reason, nobody could peruse Usenet in any way.
>And since I'm now guilty of propogating more of this off-topic spam (and
>yes, as far as I'm concerned the Ed "Sock puppet" posts and attacks, and
>all of the other related crap is just as much spam as Ed is accused of),
>I'll end here with my apologies, and my promise not to contribute any
>further to this discussion.
Well, it's off topic, it's not always family oriented, but the only person
who has spammed has been Ed.
Rick Ellis
In article <345016...@aznet.net>,
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>> So we have here someone from SDSU posting as toms...@indy.com, a
>> bogus mailname, who engages in the exact same methods Ed uses. What
>> does this suggest?
>That you are paranoid schizophrenic.
Still defaming people Edie?
Satori
If this is all true, then why was I accused also of being a sock puppet of
Ed's when it's rather apparent that I'm no where near California???
Satori!
Brant Watson wrote in message <344d7b7a...@news.erols.com>...
>On 21 Oct 1997 18:30:21 GMT, el...@ftel.net (Rick Ellis) wrote:
>
>>In article <344CC8...@aznet.net>,
>>Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I would seriously like to know WHY you spin doctors assume that out of
>>>thousands of computers at SDSU-open to 10s of thousands of students to
>>>sit down at at any moment whimsically to chat or post or use lab
>>>programs in dozens of places on campus that every post that comes in
>>>with a header traceable to there is me?
>>
>>Because we aren't stupid.
>>
> Thanks for picking this up, Rick. I don't read alt.astrology and it
>seems that residents of that NG like to ask questions and make
>comments to us while deleting sci.skeptic.
>
> I'll give a little more detailed answer.
>
> Immediately following Ed's loss of his AOL account, we suddenly
>start seeing several new people crossposting to alt.astrology and
>sci.skeptic the same beliefs and attitudes Ed would be exhibiting.
>There is also very similar behavior, like snipping an entire post and
>offering nothing of substance in its place. These newbies all seem to
>have SDSU accounts. Prior to that, there were few if any people
>posting pro-astrology stuff from SDSU. This, after Ed stated that he
>had access to 3000 computers on campus and would continue posting as
>much as he wanted.
>
> We were also able to make the determination by "pure perception."
>
Edmond Wollmann
Brant Watson wrote:
sci.skeptic added by Brant or Rick so don't cry to me.
> On 21 Oct 1997 18:30:21 GMT, el...@ftel.net (Rick Ellis) wrote:
> >In article <344CC8...@aznet.net>,
> >Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
> >>I would seriously like to know WHY you spin doctors assume that out of
> >>thousands of computers at SDSU-open to 10s of thousands of students to
> >>sit down at at any moment whimsically to chat or post or use lab
> >>programs in dozens of places on campus that every post that comes in
> >>with a header traceable to there is me?
> >Because we aren't stupid.
Stupid plus paranoid-sorry left out the full diagnoses.
> Thanks for picking this up, Rick. I don't read alt.astrology and it
> seems that residents of that NG like to ask questions and make
> comments to us while deleting sci.skeptic.
Do you guys always talk to yourselves like this (sock puppets!) when I
ignore your posts?
> I'll give a little more detailed answer.
You will give a deluded answer so I will leave it -it serves to
demonstrate who the superstitious and subjective delusion heads are.
> Immediately following Ed's loss of his AOL account, we suddenly
> start seeing several new people crossposting to alt.astrology and
> sci.skeptic the same beliefs and attitudes Ed would be exhibiting.
> There is also very similar behavior, like snipping an entire post and
> offering nothing of substance in its place. These newbies all seem to
> have SDSU accounts. Prior to that, there were few if any people
> posting pro-astrology stuff from SDSU. This, after Ed stated that he
> had access to 3000 computers on campus and would continue posting as
> much as he wanted.
Seems, seems, seems,-well I thought you were Mr.scientists, lets apply
this line of reasoning to astrology-the same line some use and you
reject;
Immediately following "calculation of chart and much study", we
suddenly start seeing "all the ramifications that we did study in
astrology being demonstrated" and evidences the same beliefs and
attitudes "astrology" predicted it" would be exhibiting.
There is also very similar behavior, like "psychological attitudes that
the person demonstrates" and "other systems of explanation" offer
nothing of substance in its place. These "cynics" all seem to have "the
same rigid view". Prior to that, there were few if any people
"anti-astrology" in the world. This, after "astrology had been
demonstrated for thousands of years" these persons still state "that
they have access to all the information they need to make an informed
opinion of whether it does function operationally" even though they
haven't even studied one minute of it." And still insist they have as
much as "they need."
> We were also able to make the determination by "pure perception."
As astrologers "We were also able to make the determination it works by
"pure perception."
> Sure looks like Ed's trying to make good on his promise.
Sure looks like cynics's trying to make good on their promise to just
dismiss astrology, disrupt this newsgroup and harrass astrologers no
matter what the evidence.
POT/CYNICAL KETTLE/BLACK!
--
"I came into this world for judgment so that those who do not see may
see, and those who do see may become blind.
The Pharisees near him heard this and said to him, "Surely we are not
blind are we?" And he said to them, "If you were blind, you would have
no sin. But now that you say, *We see,* your sin remains." John 39-41
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
Brant Watson
On Fri, 24 Oct 1997 06:01:22 -0500, "Satori" <sat...@comwerx.net>
wrote:
>If this is all true, then why was I accused also of being a sock puppet of
>Ed's when it's rather apparent that I'm no where near California???
>
>Satori!
I don't know. Has your path header changed recently? I don't
remember accusing you , specifically, of being a sock puppet, but I
was noticing the sudden appearance of pro-Ed, pro-astrology,
sci.skeptic-crossposting, SNIP!-with-no-rebuttal, authors with SDSU at
the end of their path, immediately after Ed was dumped from AOL and
promised that he could use the thousands of computers at SDSU to
continue his crusade.
As Kevin Burke correctly pointed out, the existence of these SDSU
users doesn't necessarily imply they are all Ed, but surely some of
them are.
Brant
Jason Mathews
Rick Ellis wrote in message <62paui$k1s$1...@ting.ftel.net>...
>In article <345016...@aznet.net>,
>Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>
>>> So we have here someone from SDSU posting as toms...@indy.com, a
>>> bogus mailname, who engages in the exact same methods Ed uses. What
>>> does this suggest?
>
>>That you are paranoid schizophrenic.
>
>Still defaming people Edie?
Two! Not only is Ed accusing me of spamming, he says with authority
that I am a paranoid schizophrenic!
And he's admitted to creating sock puppets elsewhere!
Ed! Retract your statements by Monday!
Chris Sutor
Jason Mathews (desk...@skepticult.org) spake thusly:
: Two! Not only is Ed accusing me of spamming, he says with authority
: that I am a paranoid schizophrenic!
Being called a paranoid schizophrenic by Ed Wollman is like being called a
dangerous criminal by Charles Manson.
: And he's admitted to creating sock puppets elsewhere!
After spouting that he never posted under other names. we know.
: Ed! Retract your statements by Monday!
Maybe we skeptics should get together and save up to get Ed some
counciling. A little valium goes a long way.
: --
: Desktop Mercenary | AKA Mind Control Officer #171, Rabid Jo-Boy,
: www.skepticult.org/~deskmerc| SKEP-TI-CULTIST® , Anti-Astro Clone, troll,
: desk...@skepticult.org | and writer of text/plain ISO-8859-1 viruses.
: First Prophet of the Paranoid Network Intruder Ministries
: #81-17642-003 of the mighty SKEP-TI-CULT®
--
_______________________ .-------.
# cob...@tigerden.com # Award winning || PEZ || powered web design
----------------------- "-------"
A lot of what advertising is about
is drawing illogical associations between things
- Stuart Ewen -