A generic response to "Darth Aggie"
Paul Phillip Kneisel
Here are the details for another two messages I've just canceled.
I didn't just select these messages because they are forgeries; I singled
these out based on their content. (But I also consider them spam.)
"Darth Aggie" may have the technical ability to republish them; he may even
be able to resurrect them.
But he has no right to do either.
-- tallpaul (Paul Kneisel)
<htt://www.anti-fascism.org/page-special-forgery.html>
Date: 11 Oct 2001 00:22:27 -0000
Message-ID: <I8I5O6OW3717...@frog.gilgamesh.org>
From: Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (Paul Kneisel)
Subject: I LIKE EATING NIGGER TERDS AND CUM WASHED DOWN WITH A PISS CHASER
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
X-No-Archive: No
Comments: This message probably did not originate from the above address.
It was automatically remailed by one or more anonymous mail
services.
You should NEVER trust ANY address on Usenet ANYWAYS: use PGP !!!
Get information about complaints from the URL below
X-Remailer-Contact: http://www.privacyresources.org/frogadmin/
Mail-To-News-Contact: ab...@dizum.com
Organization: mail...@dizum.com
Lines: 6
Xref: nyccyc02 alt.revisionism:391779
-- tallpaul (Paul Kneisel)
<http://www.anti-fascism.org>
- - - - -
Date: 10 Oct 2001 09:14:57 -0000
Message-ID: <HGHGIQLG3717...@frog.gilgamesh.org>
From: Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (Paul Kneisel)
Subject: I WAS NOT BREAST FED BY MY MOTHER; MY FATHER COCK FED ME
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
X-No-Archive: No
Comments: This message probably did not originate from the above address.
It was automatically remailed by one or more anonymous mail
services.
You should NEVER trust ANY address on Usenet ANYWAYS: use PGP !!!
Get information about complaints from the URL below
X-Remailer-Contact: http://www.privacyresources.org/frogadmin/
Mail-To-News-Contact: ab...@dizum.com
Organization: mail...@dizum.com
Lines: 6
Xref: nyccyc02 alt.revisionism:391515
I WAS SUCKING COCK FROM INFANCY
Paul Kneisel :-O
Paul Kneisel
I R A Darth Aggie
Paul Kneisel <tall...@nyct.net>, in
<gq7istcgonuibsu32...@4ax.com> wrote:
+
+ Here are the details for another two messages I've just canceled.
+
+ I didn't just select these messages because they are forgeries; I singled
+ these out based on their content.
Then you admit to being a censorous netKKKop and a rogue canceller, to
boot. Maybe you are a Communist. Or a facist, it would be something
either would do -- and have done.
+ "Darth Aggie" may have the technical ability to republish them; he may even
+ be able to resurrect them.
+
+ But he has no right to do either.
I have as much right to resurrect them as you have a right to cancel
them.
Why do I get the feeling that you're cancelling your own posts?? come
now, Paul, admit that you're posting via anonymous remailer so that
you can cancel those posts and flood a.r.
James
--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
isn't looking good, either.
I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.
Paul Kneisel
<gbur...@databasix.com> <9qc76d$3ts$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com>
wrote:
>On 14 Oct 2001 12:59:22 GMT, in article
><slrn9sj30a....@gurcragntba.pbz>, sy_n...@gurcragntba.pbz (I R A
>Darth Aggie) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 14 Oct 2001 05:15:45 GMT,
>>Paul Kneisel <tall...@nyct.net>, in
>><gq7istcgonuibsu32...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>+
>>+ Here are the details for another two messages I've just canceled.
>>+
>>+ I didn't just select these messages because they are forgeries; I singled
>>+ these out based on their content.
>>
>>Then you admit to being a censorous netKKKop and a rogue canceller, to
>>boot. Maybe you are a Communist. Or a facist, it would be something
>>either would do -- and have done.
>>
>>+ "Darth Aggie" may have the technical ability to republish them; he may even
>>+ be able to resurrect them.
>>+
>>+ But he has no right to do either.
>>
>>I have as much right to resurrect them as you have a right to cancel
>>them.
>>
>>Why do I get the feeling that you're cancelling your own posts?? come
>>now, Paul, admit that you're posting via anonymous remailer so that
>>you can cancel those posts and flood a.r.
>
>They're not his posts. He's not allowed to cancel them. It is against the AUP
>of his service provider.
This was once the case. In particular RFC 1036 "Standard for Interchange of
USENET Messages" by M. Horton and R. Adams stated:
"3.1 CANCEL ... If a message with the given Message-ID is present on the
local system, the message is canceled. This mechanism allows a user to
cancel a message after the message has been distributed over the
network. If the system is unable to cancel the message as requested, it
should not forward the cancellation request to its neighbor systems. Only
the author of the message or the local news administrator is allowed to
send this message."
But in RFC 1036b, "News Article Format and Transmission," Henry Spence
wrote "... it is highly desirable to permit authorities other than the
author to cancel articles...."
I realize that some people who maintain they believe in an absolute free
speech that forbids anybody to cancel spam will rely on RFC 1036 for their
authority. And I believe that these people can also maintain their pro-spam
views by challenging those who normally cancel spam with their own claim
that RFC 1036b has no authority.
-- tallpaul (Paul Kneisel)
<ftp://ftp.nyct.net/pub/users/tallpaul/docs/faqs_etc/RFC-1036.txt>
<http://www.anti-fascism.org/page-learn.html>
Paul Kneisel
Aggie" in his response, included below for reference.
-- tallpaul (Paul Kneisel)
<http://www.anti-fascism.org>
On 14 Oct 2001 12:59:22 GMT, sy_n...@gurcragntba.pbz (I R A Darth Aggie)
>Doc Tavish<
sy_n...@gurcragntba.pbz (I R A Darth Aggie) wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Oct 2001 05:15:45 GMT,
>Paul Kneisel <tall...@nyct.net>, in
><gq7istcgonuibsu32...@4ax.com> wrote:
>+
>+ Here are the details for another two messages I've just canceled.
>+
>+ I didn't just select these messages because they are forgeries; I singled
>+ these out based on their content.
:
>Then you admit to being a censorous netKKKop and a rogue canceller, to
>boot. Maybe you are a Communist.
You hit the nail right on the head. If you go to his web site you will see for a
FACT Peter Outerbridge aka Paul Kneisel is Red through and through. BTW do not
believe the hooey that his name is Paul Kneisel-- I off all of my proofs here:
<<<In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is
distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed
a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. - FAIR USE INTENDED>>>
http://www.anti-fascism.org/page-links-trad.html
Traditional Anti-Fascist Groups
Fascism victimized many groups with its crimes against humanity.
One of its more horrible characteristics was its propensity to target people on
the basis of race/ethnicity or genetics (like the handicapped). The other was to
destroy groups who were otherwise apolitical. Many of these different formations
essentially missed the virulent nature of fascist ideology in the early period.
Most Jewish groups, for example, treated fascism as just another anti-Semitic
ideology, little different from those it faced before. Three groups, however,
understood the special nature of fascism even before it took power. They were,
respectively, the labor movement, the socialists, and the communists.
Jewish Bundist Organization - Warszawa A continuation of the German Jewish Labor
Federation ("Bund") http://msanews.mynet.net/Scholars/Weizfeld/decl-eng.htm
("Bund")
The Second 'Socialist' International
http://www.socialistinternational.org/
Reflecting the politics of the Third 'Communist' International
http://www.yclusa.org/links/wrldlink.html
-----
BTW that link Peter Outerbridge aka Paul Kneisel gives
http://www.yclusa.org/links/wrldlink.html shows:
<<<In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is
distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed
a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. - FAIR USE INTENDED>>>
World Communist Movement Links
The communist movement of youth, students and young workers is on the move in
most countries today. Check out the activities of communist youth organizations
from this partial list of links.
Link Notes
Kommunistischer Studentinn/ en Verband (KSV) Communist Students Union of Austria
Kommunistische Jugend Österreichs (KJÖ) Communist Youth of Austria
Coletius de Juventut Comunista de Catalunya (CJC) Communist Youth of Catalonia
Juventud Comunista Colombiana (JUCO) Colombian Young Communists
United Democratic Youth Organization of Cyprus (EDON)
Kommunistisk Parti i Danmark Ungdom (KPID-U) Youth of the Communist Party in
Denmark
Mouvement Jeunes Communistes du France (MCJF) Movement of Young Communists of
France
Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterjugend (SDAJ) Socialist German Workers Youth
Communist Youth of Greece (KNE)
Workers Youth Party of Ireland (WPY)
Giovani Communisti /e (GC) Young Communists of Italy
Democratic Youth League of Japan (DYLJ)
Norges Kommunistiske Ungdomsforbund (NKU) Norwegian Communist Youth Union
Juventude Comunista Portuguesa (JCP) Portugese Communist Youth.
Sveriges Kommunistiska Ungdomsförbund (SKU) Swedish Communist Youth Union
Union de Juventudes Communistas de España Union of Young Communists of Spain
YCL-USA
235 West 23rd Street,
New York, NY 10011
phone: 212-741-2016
fax: 212-229-1713
e-mail: y...@yclusa.org
Proof that a person named Peter Outerbridge is the Communist behind "Paul
Kneisel":
Path: mindspring!news.mindspring.net!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!
newsfeed.earthlink.net!netnews.com!xfer02.netnews.com!
newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!nyccyc01!news-out.nyc.rr.com!
typhoon.nyc.rr.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Paul Kneisel <tall...@nyct.net>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Was the WTC Bombed? was Re: The Treblinka Holocaust
Organization: http://www.anti-fascism.org
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Message-ID: <2uarO0Y5mPpiFz...@4ax.com>
References: <3bab...@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 01:20:39 GMT
Verify the above headers as being authentic with this link:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2uarO0Y5mPpiFzxSBENiK86fLFPT%404ax.com&output=gplain
Notice the keyparts of the above headers. You see a person who calls himself
Paul Kneisel using an e-mail address of <tall...@nyct.net> and you see "Paul
Kneisel's" organization is <anti-fascism.org>
Using GEEKTOOLS this is what a Whois search returns on <anti-fascism.org>:
http://www.geektools.com/cgi-bin/proxy.cgi
Registrant:
anti-fascism.org (ANTI-FASCISM-DOM)
200 East Tenth Street #603
New York, NY 10003
Domain Name: ANTI-FASCISM.ORG
Administrative Contact, Billing Contact:
Outerbridge, Peter (PO815) tall...@NYCT.NET
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
anti-fascism.org
200 East Tenth Street #603
New York,, NY 10003
212-568-6690
and ANYONE can go to http://www.infospace.com/ (public domain) and do a white
pages search for Peter Outerbridge (a real common name I'd imagine [yeah]) and
they will get a Staten Island address and apartment number for Peter
Outerbridge.
Just click the INFOSPACE link above and when there activate this choice:
White Pages
People Search:
Phone & Address
http://www.infospace.com/adman;rld=12338627&hntlbi=646&hnt=12088&tid=15398&vid=info&fid=pfdcyzpigsppwsgqvn&sid=1&--to=http://www.infospace.com/_1_4K1LURO03NG4JR2__info/redirs_all.htm?pgtarg=ppli
and enter Outerbridge and Peter in the appropriate boxes and select New York
state and you come up.
White Pages
Phone & Address Search
Last Name: Outerbridge
First Name/Initial: Peter
City:
State/Province
(required for US and Canada) Choose: New York
Country (required): United States
Here is what I get by doing the above:
Peter Outerbridge
54 Wall St Apt 3
Staten Island, NY 10301
Phone: 718-390-8692
<end>
Need I say more?
>Or a facist,
He's no fascist-- he's red to the core. Peter Outerbridge calls all of the
people who disagree with his rants and ravings fascists. He repeats the same
diatribe over and over too! Go look at alt.revisionism to see how he floods with
his "Paul Kneisel" and his "Johann Sebastian Bot."
Doc Tavish
>it would be something either would do -- and have done.
:
>+ "Darth Aggie" may have the technical ability to republish them; he may even
>+ be able to resurrect them.
>+
>+ But he has no right to do either.
>
>I have as much right to resurrect them as you have a right to cancel
>them.
>
>Why do I get the feeling that you're cancelling your own posts?? come
>now, Paul, admit that you're posting via anonymous remailer so that
>you can cancel those posts and flood a.r.
>
>James
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With NINE Servers In California And Texas - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
Paul Kneisel
<city...@online.know> <9qd5sa$rbu$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com> wrote:
>Every time Paul Kneisel steps in the booth, he/she brings the truth:
>
>>Here are the details for another two messages I've just canceled.
>>
>>I didn't just select these messages because they are forgeries; I singled
>>these out based on their content. (But I also consider them spam.)
>>
>>"Darth Aggie" may have the technical ability to republish them; he may even
>>be able to resurrect them.
>>
>>But he has no right to do either.
>
>But because you don't like the content, you have the right to cancel
>them, right? Fuckhead.
I am always amazed at the ability of some human beings to ignore a clear,
simple, declarative sentence and rant on about what somebody really said or
really meant. Often, they then denounce the victim of the self-declared
rants to be "kooks."
My favorite example was the fellow who denounced me as a "proven" kook on
his ranted grounds that I was soon going to compare myself to Galileo.
There are people who go atwitter and aggressive because they cannot
understand the difference between the personal motivation for the act and
the de jure basis of the act.
Perhaps "Government CHEE$E" is one of them.
Paul Kneisel
J_S...@baited-breath-n-hookum.reel-em-in.net
<ambkstcnhcelmdfr6...@4ax.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Oct 2001 16:57:54 GMT, Paul Kneisel <tall...@nyct.net> in
>news.admin.net-abuse.usenet wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 14 Oct 2001 10:24:11 -0400, Gary L. Burnore
>><gbur...@databasix.com> <9qc76d$3ts$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 14 Oct 2001 12:59:22 GMT, in article
>>><slrn9sj30a....@gurcragntba.pbz>, sy_n...@gurcragntba.pbz (I R A
>>>Darth Aggie) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 14 Oct 2001 05:15:45 GMT,
>>>>Paul Kneisel <tall...@nyct.net>, in
>>>><gq7istcgonuibsu32...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>+
>>>>+ Here are the details for another two messages I've just canceled.
>
><snip>
>
>>But in RFC 1036b, "News Article Format and Transmission," Henry Spence
>>wrote "... it is highly desirable to permit authorities other than the
>>author to cancel articles...."
>
>Paul you see the words, "permit authorities". That means authorized
>System admins, network admin, news admins, and even (at a stretch)
>local/regional hierarchy admins, and those people authorized by the
>"authorities".
>
>If you didn't write the articles, you have no right to issue cancels.
>Not even if they are 'forgeries', in your opinion.
>
>Do you understand it now...
The otherwise reasonable nature of the poster's arguments is sadly negated
by his or her decision to further muddy the data stream via the deliberate
adoption of the nyms of others.
However ...
The use of the word "authorities" is an interesting one and the poster
provides a real argument. But Spence does not identify who is meant by the
word.
The author defines "authorities" as "authorized System admins, network
admin, news admins, and even (at a stretch) local/regional hierarchy
admins" etc. and that is a reasonable definition.
The difficulty however with his analysis is the nature and differences
between RFC 1036 and RFC 1036b.
RFC 1036 makes no allowance for *any* third party cancels. It states "Only
the author of the message or the local news administrator is allowed to
send this message."
I think that RFC 1036's views were modified in 1036b to permit third-party
cancels beyond the original author and the "local news administrator."
My sense is that RFC 1036b meant to significantly increase reasons for
cancels, not to expand the technical meaning of "local news administrator"
to "authorized System admins, network admin, news admins, and even (at a
stretch) local/regional hierarchy admins" etc. If Spence had meant to do
this he probably would have written RFC 1036b in the language of the
current author.
Onto the next issue ....
Virtually everybody who cancels spam has a personal motivation to do so
based on the contents.
The vast majority of spam has two contents: ads for "xxx-biker-girls.com"
and come-ons to "make $10,000 a week emailing ads for bunion cures."
Political spam is very rare.
The "net cops" (in the good sense) focus their efforts on the worst
problem. They don't look for political spam; they search for spam whose
content is sexual or reflects cockroach-capitalism (as a libertarian friend
calls it.)
Put another way: calculations are content-neutral, motivations are
content-dependent; calculations are objective, motivations are subjective.
Rebecca Ore
> Onto the next issue ....
>
> Virtually everybody who cancels spam has a personal motivation to do so
> based on the contents.
Wrong.
> The vast majority of spam has two contents: ads for "xxx-biker-girls.com"
> and come-ons to "make $10,000 a week emailing ads for bunion cures."
Wrong.
>
> Political spam is very rare.
Wrong.
(Snips).
--
Rebecca Ore
Jon Sabastien Bot
tall...@nyct.net says...
> My sense is that RFC 1036b meant to significantly increase reasons for
> cancels, not to expand the technical meaning of "local news administrator"
> to "authorized System admins, network admin, news admins, and even (at a
> stretch) local/regional hierarchy admins" etc. If Spence had meant to do
> this he probably would have written RFC 1036b in the language of the
> current author.
So it meant to allow anyone to cancel anyone else's post simply by
claiming they own part of the contents of the from line? Oh goodie, I
claim the @
>
> Onto the next issue ....
>
> Virtually everybody who cancels spam has a personal motivation to do so
> based on the contents.
>
> The vast majority of spam has two contents: ads for "xxx-biker-girls.com"
> and come-ons to "make $10,000 a week emailing ads for bunion cures."
>
> Political spam is very rare.
Bullshit
>
> The "net cops" (in the good sense) focus their efforts on the worst
> problem. They don't look for political spam; they search for spam whose
> content is sexual or reflects cockroach-capitalism (as a libertarian
friend
> calls it.)
Bullshit. You know very little. Content is neutral on usenet spam,
quantity is what matters.
>
> Put another way: calculations are content-neutral, motivations are
> content-dependent; calculations are objective, motivations are subjective.
>
Yes. So how do your cancels fit into this objective part?
J. S. Bot
Jon Sabastien Bot
> cancels, not to expand the technical meaning of "local news administrator"
> to "authorized System admins, network admin, news admins, and even (at a
> stretch) local/regional hierarchy admins" etc. If Spence had meant to do
> this he probably would have written RFC 1036b in the language of the
> current author.
So it meant to allow anyone to cancel anyone else's post simply by
claiming they own part of the contents of the from line? Oh goodie, I
claim the @
>
> Onto the next issue ....
>
> Virtually everybody who cancels spam has a personal motivation to do so
> based on the contents.
>
> The vast majority of spam has two contents: ads for "xxx-biker-girls.com"
> and come-ons to "make $10,000 a week emailing ads for bunion cures."
>
> Political spam is very rare.
Bullshit
>
> The "net cops" (in the good sense) focus their efforts on the worst
> problem. They don't look for political spam; they search for spam whose
> content is sexual or reflects cockroach-capitalism (as a libertarian
friend
> calls it.)
Bullshit. You know very little. Content is neutral on usenet spam,
quantity is what matters.
>
> Put another way: calculations are content-neutral, motivations are
> content-dependent; calculations are objective, motivations are subjective.
>
Yes. So how do your cancels fit into this objective part?
J. S. Bot