SPUT 0
Fluffy
Uni...@sputum.com (Doktor DynaSoar) writes:
> For your irritainment pleasure I present the SPUTUM formation
> flying team, doing some precision kook whackage.
Damn, I spilled my coffee and clawed myself to shreds!
This bunch couldn't even figure out how to find open servers by
themselves? No wonder IRS Agent wasn't interested in playing.
And for shame, John. You told me you _knew_ the original Fluffy.
MEOWHAHAHAHA!
--
"Matt Bruces don't appear every day. It sure was nice to find Guy."
-Fluffy The Cat
Lionel Lauer
Thanks Doktor!
This stuff is great!
>You can have a dandy little collection of this stuff for your
>very own by pointing your webby browsy thingy at:
>
>http://www2.cybernex.net/~charliec
>
>and grab kooklist.zip
Oh boy, this is hilarious stuff - no wonder that that nobody is scared
of these ineffectual lusers.
(I'll leave it to others to point out the lies, blatant hypocrisy &
possibly criminal behaviour of the kooks on the list.)
Our 'evil computer genius' buddy Dr G, who can't even install a hacked
version of Agent, proving how much of a luser he really is.
Watch & laugh as Braniac fails to make the kook's SuperDooperCanceller
software install under 'doze95:
[more excerpts to follow]
From - Sun May 10 15:11:05 1998
Return-Path: d...@pgh.org
Received: from www3.localweb.com (d...@www.localweb.com [204.69.248.200])
by www3.localweb.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id HAA04489; Sun, 10 May
1998 07:22:42 -0400
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 07:22:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Dr.G" <d...@pgh.org>
X-Sender: d...@www3.localweb.com
To: Spinoza Ray Prozak <pro...@anus.com>
cc: "S.P." <s...@pgh.org>, hipc...@pgh.org, cl...@pgh.org, 0...@pgh.org,
8...@pgh.org, a...@pgh.org, bou...@pgh.org, da...@pgh.org,
go...@pgh.org,
r...@pgh.org, scum...@pgh.org
Subject: Re: NewsAgent Marketing Plan Suggestions.
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19980509...@paranoia.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.98051...@www3.localweb.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 1179
On Sat, 9 May 1998, Spinoza Ray Prozak wrote:
> Date: Sat, 09 May 1998 20:45:44 -0700
> From: Spinoza Ray Prozak <pro...@anus.com>
> To: "Dr.G" <d...@pgh.org>
> Cc: "S.P." <s...@pgh.org>, hipc...@pgh.org, cl...@pgh.org, 0...@pgh.org,
> 8...@pgh.org, a...@pgh.org, bou...@pgh.org, da...@pgh.org, go...@pgh.org,
> r...@pgh.org, scum...@pgh.org
> Subject: Re: NewsAgent Marketing Plan Suggestions.
>
> howdy,
>
> >This is all bullshit as the fucking program does not work!
> >I tried to use it last night and it would not even start!
>
> We're all professionals here - a request for aid works just as well. I'm
> sure there are difficulties as modern OS's add total complexity to the
> situation, but even if it doesn't work on my crate respect to the author -
> I haven't gotten off my ass to write one ;)-~
Well, it looks like somebody is currently running it on MSN.
All I ever got is "cannot find file NewsAgent\NewsAgent.exe or
one of it's components." The program did not install.
First of all, any download SOP must first specify a desktop
folder for the file to be downloaded TO. Then, we need some
PATH names to check in DOS.
-JG
Lionel.
--
Grep bait: qmail, Archimedes Plutonium, turkey, Kibo, Wollmann, Meow.
Perna condita delenda est. Agree? - See http://www.ybecker.net/pink/
"Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them." - Me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cipher
In article
<hangspamhigh-ya02408...@news.concentric.net>
Phoenix, hangsp...@bigfoot.com writes:
>> You will be kind in the end game, right? After having launched your
>> diamond missile through your bamboo tubing and disabling your
>> opponent, you WILL refuse to finish him, right?
>
>Not if I have a phaser to vaporize him first.
>
>> Damn decent of you if you choose that option. Or you could just fry
>> 'em.
>
>Bingo. :-))
Phoenix :
You have an evil streak in you. You tend to be merciless in your
pursuit of the Kook among us. An evil and malicious bastard you can
be.
Now, as for the things I DON'T like about you.... :)
Cipher
Check out my ARTWORK at http://www.mindspring.com/~cipher/glinks.html
Visit my Mac help site at http://www.mindspring.com/~cipher/
PGP Public Key available at my website
Just Say *NO* To Key Escrow
IRS Agent
On 01 Jun 1998 00:48:28 -0400, Fluffy <vu...@meow.org> wrote:
MEOW>Uni...@sputum.com (Doktor DynaSoar) writes:
MEOW>> For your irritainment pleasure I present the SPUTUM formation
MEOW>> flying team, doing some precision kook whackage.
MEOW>
MEOW>Damn, I spilled my coffee and clawed myself to shreds!
Are your nads OK?
MEOW>This bunch couldn't even figure out how to find open servers by
MEOW>themselves? No wonder IRS Agent wasn't interested in playing.
Reindeer games are for Paaaaaaaaaal.
MEOW>And for shame, John. You told me you _knew_ the original Fluffy.
MEOW>
MEOW>MEOWHAHAHAHA!
You're starting to sound like Polis. Look in the mirror.
PKB.
Meow,
IRS Agent
Fluffy
IRS Agent <ta...@yourwallet.empty.gov> wrote:
/*
* On 01 Jun 1998 00:48:28 -0400, Fluffy <vu...@meow.org> wrote:
*
* MEOW>Uni...@sputum.com (Doktor DynaSoar) writes:
* MEOW>> For your irritainment pleasure I present the SPUTUM formation
* MEOW>> flying team, doing some precision kook whackage.
* MEOW>
* MEOW>Damn, I spilled my coffee and clawed myself to shreds!
*
* Are your nads OK?
*/
It hardly matters, since I bled to death.
/*
* MEOW>This bunch couldn't even figure out how to find open servers by
* MEOW>themselves? No wonder IRS Agent wasn't interested in playing.
*
* Reindeer games are for Paaaaaaaaaal.
*/
Aw fjuck, am I gonna get one of those njag njotes telling me I'm not
stupid enough again?
/*
* MEOW>And for shame, John. You told me you _knew_ the original Fluffy.
* MEOW>
* MEOW>MEOWHAHAHAHA!
*
* You're starting to sound like Polis. Look in the mirror.
*
* PKB.
*/
There's a hell of a lot of difference between tweaking John's nose and
spending every free moment trying to get his account yanked.
/*
* Meow,
* IRS Agent
*/
Meow.
The King of Rock
On Tue, 02 Jun 1998 08:17:53 GMT, ta...@yourwallet.empty.gov (IRS Agent) posted
this to alt.fan.karl-malden.nose:
>On Tue, 02 Jun 1998 01:50:54 -0600, rao...@vulis.bungmunch.edu (J. Raoul Xemblinosky III) wrote:
>
>MEOW>In article <Mw.4sb...@fluffy.meow.org>, vu...@meow.org (Fluffy) wrote:
>MEOW>
>MEOW>> IRS Agent <ta...@yourwallet.empty.gov> wrote:
>MEOW>> /*
>MEOW>> * On 01 Jun 1998 00:48:28 -0400, Fluffy <vu...@meow.org> wrote:
>MEOW>> *
>MEOW>> * MEOW>Uni...@sputum.com (Doktor DynaSoar) writes:
>MEOW>> * MEOW>> For your irritainment pleasure I present the SPUTUM formation
>MEOW>> * MEOW>> flying team, doing some precision kook whackage.
>MEOW>> * MEOW>
>MEOW>> * MEOW>Damn, I spilled my coffee and clawed myself to shreds!
>MEOW>> *
>MEOW>> * Are your nads OK?
>MEOW>> */
>MEOW>>
>MEOW>> It hardly matters, since I bled to death.
>MEOW>>
>MEOW>> /*
>MEOW>> * MEOW>This bunch couldn't even figure out how to find open servers by
>MEOW>> * MEOW>themselves? No wonder IRS Agent wasn't interested in playing.
>MEOW>> *
>MEOW>> * Reindeer games are for Paaaaaaaaaal.
>MEOW>> */
>MEOW>>
>MEOW>> Aw fjuck, am I gonna get one of those njag njotes telling me I'm not
>MEOW>> stupid enough again?
>MEOW>>
>MEOW>> /*
>MEOW>> * MEOW>And for shame, John. You told me you _knew_ the original Fluffy.
>MEOW>> * MEOW>
>MEOW>> * MEOW>MEOWHAHAHAHA!
>MEOW>> *
>MEOW>> * You're starting to sound like Polis. Look in the mirror.
>MEOW>> *
>MEOW>> * PKB.
>MEOW>> */
>MEOW>>
>MEOW>> There's a hell of a lot of difference between tweaking John's nose and
>MEOW>> spending every free moment trying to get his account yanked.
>MEOW>>
>MEOW>> /*
>MEOW>> * Meow,
>MEOW>> * IRS Agent
>MEOW>> */
>MEOW>>
>MEOW>> Meow.
>MEOW>
>MEOW>Meow, and please keep this out of alt.revenge. My friends there would
>MEOW>prefer not to be bothered.
>
>alt.retribution substituted.
My friends in demon.local would love this thread.
>
>
>
>
>MEOW>- J. Raoul Xemblinosky III =-=-=-=-=-=-= -- . --- .-- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>MEOW> a.f.k-m.n "Meow meow Henrietta Pussycat meow meow
>MEOW> alt.flame meow The Presidents of the United States
>MEOW> FOA/KoB(h) of America meow Kitty?" -- Matt Bruce
>MEOW>- http://extra.newsguy.com/~shpxurnq/ =-=-=-=-= mhm 15x12 =-=-=-=-=-=
--
_______ _ _ ___
|__ __| | | |/ (_)
| | | |__ ___ | ' / _ _ __ __ _
| | | '_ \ / _ \ | < | | '_ \ / _` |
| | | | | | __/ | . \| | | | | (_| |
|_| |_| |_|\___| |_|\_\_|_| |_|\__, |
__/ |
|___/
__ _____ _
/ _| | __ \ | |
___ | |_ | |__) |___ ___| | __
/ _ \| _| | _ // _ \ / __| |/ /
| (_) | | | | \ \ (_) | (__| <
\___/|_| |_| \_\___/ \___|_|\_\
_
(_)
____ _____ ____ ____ _ _ ___ _ ____ ____ _____ ___ _ _ _
/ ___) ___ |/ ___) | \| | | |/___) |/ ___) | \| ___ |/ _ \| | | |
| | | ____( (___ _| | | | |_| |___ | ( (___ _| | | | ____| |_| | | | |
|_| |_____)\____|_)_|_|_|____/(___/|_|\____|_)_|_|_|_____)\___/ \___/
John Quincy Adams
D...@hollis.queens.ny.mil (The King of Rock) wrote in alt.retribution:
0
-ta...@yourwallet.empty.gov (IRS Agent) posted this to alt.fan.karl-malden.nose:
-
->rao...@vulis.bungmunch.edu (J. Raoul Xemblinosky III) wrote:
->
->MEOW>vu...@meow.org (Fluffy) wrote:
->MEOW>
->MEOW>> IRS Agent <ta...@yourwallet.empty.gov> wrote:
->MEOW>> /*
->MEOW>> * On 01 Jun 1998 00:48:28 -0400, Fluffy <vu...@meow.org> wrote:
->MEOW>> *
->MEOW>> * MEOW>Uni...@sputum.com (Doktor DynaSoar) writes:
->MEOW>> * MEOW>> For your irritainment pleasure I present the SPUTUM formation
->MEOW>> * MEOW>> flying team, doing some precision kook whackage.
->MEOW>> * MEOW>
->MEOW>> * MEOW>Damn, I spilled my coffee and clawed myself to shreds!
->MEOW>> *
->MEOW>> * Are your nads OK?
->MEOW>> */
->MEOW>>
->MEOW>> It hardly matters, since I bled to death.
->MEOW>>
->MEOW>> /*
->MEOW>> * MEOW>This bunch couldn't even figure out how to find open servers by
->MEOW>> * MEOW>themselves? No wonder IRS Agent wasn't interested in playing.
->MEOW>> *
->MEOW>> * Reindeer games are for Paaaaaaaaaal.
->MEOW>> */
->MEOW>>
->MEOW>> Aw fjuck, am I gonna get one of those njag njotes telling me I'm not
->MEOW>> stupid enough again?
->MEOW>>
->MEOW>> /*
->MEOW>> * MEOW>And for shame, John. You told me you _knew_ the original Fluffy.
->MEOW>> * MEOW>
->MEOW>> * MEOW>MEOWHAHAHAHA!
->MEOW>> *
->MEOW>> * You're starting to sound like Polis. Look in the mirror.
->MEOW>> *
->MEOW>> * PKB.
->MEOW>> */
->MEOW>>
->MEOW>> There's a hell of a lot of difference between tweaking John's nose and
->MEOW>> spending every free moment trying to get his account yanked.
->MEOW>>
->MEOW>> /*
->MEOW>> * Meow,
->MEOW>> * IRS Agent
->MEOW>> */
->MEOW>>
->MEOW>> Meow.
->MEOW>
->MEOW>Meow, and please keep this out of alt.revenge. My friends there would
->MEOW>prefer not to be bothered.
->
->alt.retribution substituted.
Excellent selection sir.
-My friends in demon.local would love this thread.
I know net.cop and forger Chip Rosenthal would love to
have it in austin.general as well.
Steve
news.admin.censorship
-
->
->
->
->
->MEOW>- J. Raoul Xemblinosky III =-=-=-=-=-=-= -- . --- .-- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
->MEOW> a.f.k-m.n "Meow meow Henrietta Pussycat meow meow
->MEOW> alt.flame meow The Presidents of the United States
->MEOW> FOA/KoB(h) of America meow Kitty?" -- Matt Bruce
->MEOW>- http://extra.newsguy.com/~shpxurnq/ =-=-=-=-= mhm 15x12 =-=-=-=-=-=
bruce foxton
The King of Rock wrote:
>
> On Tue, 02 Jun 1998 08:17:53 GMT, ta...@yourwallet.empty.gov (IRS Agent) posted
> this to alt.fan.karl-malden.nose:
>
> >
> >MEOW>In article <Mw.4sb...@fluffy.meow.org>, vu...@meow.org (Fluffy) wrote:
> >MEOW>
> >MEOW>> * MEOW>Uni...@sputum.com (Doktor DynaSoar) writes:
> >MEOW>> * MEOW>> For your irritainment pleasure I present the SPUTUM formation
> >MEOW>> * MEOW>Damn, I spilled my coffee and clawed myself to shreds!
> >MEOW>> * Are your nads OK?
> >MEOW>>
> >MEOW>> It hardly matters, since I bled to death.
> >MEOW>> /*
> >MEOW>> * MEOW>This bunch couldn't even figure out how to find open servers by
> >MEOW>> * Reindeer games are for Paaaaaaaaaal.
> >MEOW>>
> >MEOW>> Aw fjuck, am I gonna get one of those njag njotes telling me I'm not
> >MEOW>>
> >MEOW>> /*
> >MEOW>> * MEOW>MEOWHAHAHAHA!
> >MEOW>> *
> >MEOW>> * PKB.
> >MEOW>> */
> >MEOW>>
> >MEOW>> /*
> >MEOW>> * Meow,
> >MEOW>> * IRS Agent
> >MEOW>> */
> >MEOW>>
> >MEOW>> Meow.
> >MEOW>
> >
>
> My friends in demon.local would love this thread.
This thread is what demon.local is all about. Little people whingeing
about big .sigfiles!
> >
> >MEOW>- J. Raoul Xemblinosky III =-=-=-=-=-=-= -- . --- .-- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> >MEOW> a.f.k-m.n "Meow meow Henrietta Pussycat meow meow
> >MEOW> alt.flame meow The Presidents of the United States
> >MEOW> FOA/KoB(h) of America meow Kitty?" -- Matt Bruce
> >MEOW>- http://extra.newsguy.com/~shpxurnq/ =-=-=-=-= mhm 15x12 =-=-=-=-=-=
>
Queen of Spain
bruce foxton <jam...@allmodcons.demoon.co.uk> wrote:
-
-The King of Rock wrote:
->
-> ta...@yourwallet.empty.gov (IRS Agent) wrote:
->
->>
->>MEOW>vu...@meow.org (Fluffy) wrote:
->>MEOW>
->>MEOW>> IRS Agent <ta...@yourwallet.empty.gov> wrote:
->>MEOW>> /*
->>MEOW>> * MEOW>> For your irritainment pleasure I present the SPUTUM formation
->>MEOW>> * MEOW>> flying team, doing some precision kook whackage.
->>MEOW>> * MEOW>
->>MEOW>> *
->>MEOW>> * Are your nads OK?
->>MEOW>> */
->>MEOW>>
->>MEOW>> It hardly matters, since I bled to death.
->>MEOW>>
->>MEOW>> /*
->>MEOW>> * MEOW>themselves? No wonder IRS Agent wasn't interested in playing.
->>MEOW>> *
->>MEOW>> * Reindeer games are for Paaaaaaaaaal.
->>MEOW>> */
->>MEOW>>
->>MEOW>> stupid enough again?
->>MEOW>>
->>MEOW>> /*
->>MEOW>> * MEOW>And for shame, John. You told me you _knew_ the original Fluffy.
->>MEOW>> * MEOW>
->>MEOW>> * MEOW>MEOWHAHAHAHA!
->>MEOW>> *
->>MEOW>> * You're starting to sound like Polis. Look in the mirror.
->>MEOW>> *
->>MEOW>> * PKB.
->>MEOW>> */
->>MEOW>>
->>MEOW>> There's a hell of a lot of difference between tweaking John's nose and
->>MEOW>> spending every free moment trying to get his account yanked.
->>MEOW>>
->>MEOW>> /*
->>MEOW>> * Meow,
->>MEOW>> * IRS Agent
->>MEOW>> */
->>MEOW>>
->>MEOW>> Meow.
->>MEOW>
->>MEOW>prefer not to be bothered.
->>
->>alt.retribution substituted.
->
-> My friends in demon.local would love this thread.
-
-This thread is what demon.local is all about. Little people whingeing
-about big .sigfiles!
There should be a contest. What shall be the prize?
Steve
news.admin.censorship
-
-
-> >
-> >MEOW>- J. Raoul Xemblinosky III =-=-=-=-=-=-= -- . --- .-- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-> >MEOW> a.f.k-m.n "Meow meow Henrietta Pussycat meow meow
-> >MEOW> alt.flame meow The Presidents of the United States
-> >MEOW> FOA/KoB(h) of America meow Kitty?" -- Matt Bruce
-> >MEOW>- http://extra.newsguy.com/~shpxurnq/ =-=-=-=-= mhm 15x12 =-=-=-=-=-=
->
-> --
-> _______ _ _ ___
-> |__ __| | | |/ (_)
-> | | | |__ ___ | ' / _ _ __ __ _
-> | | | '_ \ / _ \ | < | | '_ \ / _` |
-> | | | | | | __/ | . \| | | | | (_| |
-> |_| |_| |_|\___| |_|\_\_|_| |_|\__, |
-> __/ |
-> |___/
-> __ _____ _
-> / _| | __ \ | |
-> ___ | |_ | |__) |___ ___| | __
-> / _ \| _| | _ // _ \ / __| |/ /
-> | (_) | | | | \ \ (_) | (__| <
-> \___/|_| |_| \_\___/ \___|_|\_\
->
-> _
-> (_)
-> ____ _____ ____ ____ _ _ ___ _ ____ ____ _____ ___ _ _ _
-> / ___) ___ |/ ___) | \| | | |/___) |/ ___) | \| ___ |/ _ \| | | |
-> | | | ____( (___ _| | | | |_| |___ | ( (___ _| | | | ____| |_| | | | |
-> |_| |_____)\____|_)_|_|_|____/(___/|_|\____|_)_|_|_|_____)\___/ \___/
Dave Hayes
Doktor DynaSoar wrote:
> For your irritainment pleasure I present the SPUTUM formation
> some of this traffic against another source, and so can guarantee
> its authenticity.
Well, no you can't really.
But I have to hand it to you for your skill at infiltration. You
have messages in there that -I- didn't even see.
> We suggest you grab this and share with others by putting it on
> web sites, FTP sites, or just plain chopping out juicy chunks
> and throwing them at each other across usenet. And excellent use
> would be to pick out those pieces which contradict the relevant
> kooks' public positions and whack them with those when they lie.
Like I told them, I tell you the same thing. Your goal can only
be to keep kooks around for your own amusement pleasure, for
what you fight and whack you make stronger.
That seems to be what you want.
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - (NEW!) http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
If at first you don't succeed ... redefine success.
Jeffrey Smith
On Wed, 03 Jun 1998 20:45:21 +0000, Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org>
wrote:
>Like I told them, I tell you the same thing. Your goal can only
>be to keep kooks around for your own amusement pleasure, for
>what you fight and whack you make stronger.
>
>That seems to be what you want.
Actually Dave, I think I speak for all of SPUTUM when I say that we'd
prefer that the Kook Kabal took a long, hard look at the facts and
clued in. Since long experience has taught us that the odds of this
event occuring are roughly the same as the American Communist Party
winning the presidency, we would be satisfied if you would all just
fall off the face of the earth. Since you aren't polite enough to
destroy your computers or die, we can fall back on plan C - mock are
ridicule the hypocracy, stupidity, and bigotry shown by the Kooks.
Granted, it doesn't require a hell of a lot of effort, but there's
nothing wrong with honing your blade on a practice dummy when waiting
for a true challenge.
**** **** **** ****
SubGenius Police, Usenet Tactical Unit (Mobile), aka S.P.U.T.U.M.
Unit CLXXXVII: "Primum Nocere
Parahuman Ragnarok Initiators,METAsysop Element
http://www.sputum.com/
Dave Hayes
Jeffrey Smith wrote:
> Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org wrote:
> >Like I told them, I tell you the same thing. Your goal can only
> >be to keep kooks around for your own amusement pleasure, for
> >what you fight and whack you make stronger.
> >
> >That seems to be what you want.
>
> Actually Dave, I think I speak for all of SPUTUM when I say that we'd
> prefer that the Kook Kabal took a long, hard look at the facts and
> clued in.
Oh I get it. _They_ have to change. Not you.
Just who's interpretation of the "facts" is correct?
> Since long experience has taught us that the odds of this
> event occuring are roughly the same as the American Communist Party
> winning the presidency, we would be satisfied if you would all just
> fall off the face of the earth.
As long as you hold this mindset, there will always be kooks who
will irritate and confound you. You cannot escape this.
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - (NEW!) http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
Your medicine is in you, and you do not observe it.
Your ailment is from yourself, and you do not register it.
Jeffrey Smith
On Thu, 04 Jun 1998 04:42:51 +0000, Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org>
wrote:
>> Actually Dave, I think I speak for all of SPUTUM when I say that we'd
>> prefer that the Kook Kabal took a long, hard look at the facts and
>> clued in.
>
>Oh I get it. _They_ have to change. Not you.
>
>Just who's interpretation of the "facts" is correct?
According to 99.99% of the net, and probably humanity as a whole, us.
Also according to elementary logic, economics, history, and common
sense.
But don't let those sway you. They sure haven't in the past.
Dave Hayes
Phoenix wrote:
> In article <3576320f...@news.mindspring.com>, see_a...@my-sig.com (rrevved) wrote:
> > On Thu, 04 Jun 1998 04:42:51 +0000, Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
> > >> Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org wrote:
> > >> >Like I told them, I tell you the same thing. Your goal can only
> > >> >be to keep kooks around for your own amusement pleasure, for
> > >> >what you fight and whack you make stronger.
> > >> >
> > >> >That seems to be what you want.
> > >>
> > >> prefer that the Kook Kabal took a long, hard look at the facts and
> > >> clued in.
> > >
> > >Oh I get it. _They_ have to change. Not you.
> > >
> > >Just who's interpretation of the "facts" is correct?
> >
> > inaccurate, faked, or ...?
> >
> > Are they not a 'fact'?
>
> Our "interpretation" of the "facts" is correct because it is what best fits
> the information that exists.
By what standard of "best"? Yours? Mine?
Further, what facts -are- you deriving from these messages?
> The information is not false because it is verifiable through computer records.
If you believe this, then I have bridges to sell you. Computer data is not
hard evidence, and is not necessarily admissable in and of itself in a
court of law.
> Therefore, I must come to the
> logical conclusion that Dave is playing dodgeball by simply raising
> questions to muddy the waters without meaningful philosophical point to
> them, and attempting to shift accountability away from those who are being
> justly questioned because of this information.
"Justly" questioned?
By who's standard of justice?
YOU people forge cancels. You rationalize this by saying "the articles
we are cancelling match some arbitrary standard". This somehow makes it
OK to do what you do.
So THEY forge cancels, and all of a sudden they are "censors" and "dishonorable"
and all kinds of other epithets that you deem appropriate to sling at them.
It's not ok for THEM but it is for YOU. Doesn't this sound like a double
standard?
I'm sorry. You folks go on and think you are righteous. Me, I reserve my
judgement
on that. BOTH sides are equally petty, and BOTH sides need to take a vacation
and remember what life and living is all about.
> Just as well. He will turn his back on his beliefs, and choose to defend
> a position that expressly supports censorship as he had defined. Which
> is precisely why I care not to listen to him anymore.
Yeah, yeah. Posturing will eventually give you arthiritis of the mind.
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - (NEW!) http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
Faith (n): The quality by which we believe what we would otherwise think
was false.
Dave Hayes
Jeffrey Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Jun 1998 04:42:51 +0000, Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
> >Just who's interpretation of the "facts" is correct?
>
That's a very strong claim, sir. I daresay you are not only exaggerating,
but attempting to win an argument without recourse to provable fact.
> But don't let those sway you. They sure haven't in the past.
Certainly your arguments don't sway me, that's for sure.
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - (NEW!) http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
War is but a spectacular expression of our everyday life. -Krishnamurti
Jeffrey Smith
On Fri, 05 Jun 1998 01:36:33 +0000, Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org>
wrote:
>Jeffrey Smith wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Jun 1998 04:42:51 +0000, Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
>> >Just who's interpretation of the "facts" is correct?
>>
>> According to 99.99% of the net, and probably humanity as a whole, us.
>
>That's a very strong claim, sir. I daresay you are not only exaggerating,
>but attempting to win an argument without recourse to provable fact.
<GASP> You're right! Lord knows the Freedom Knights have always stated
100% pure, unadulerated Truth, and I feel ashamed - ASHAMED I tell
you! - to have resorted to rherotical devices instead of engaging in
an exchange of information. I admit it takes a lot of gall to state
something like that when any impartial observer would much rather take
your word than mine, with your incredible track record of intellectual
honesty, integrity, and logical ability. Truly, I hang my head in
shame.
>> But don't let those sway you. They sure haven't in the past.
>
>Certainly your arguments don't sway me, that's for sure.
Well gee, there's a suprise. I thought, seeing how you've been immune
to logic for so long, my little post would finally smash its way
through your skull. You've just ruined my whole day.
I have something for you, Dave. <digging through mailbox> Ahh, here it
is, courtesy of a certain female member of rec.games.mecha you may be
familiar with....
>And lo, the LART did come down from the heavens trailing fire and
>brimstone. Yea verily, the LART did implant itself in yon bozo's
>forehead, its mighty blade cleaving his thick skull in twain and exposing
>the empty spaces therein for all the world to gaze upon with much mirth
>and frivolity.
Now, we could go back and forth with a "You're closed-minded" "No,
*you're close-minded!" argument until the sun goes nova, but there
isn't a chance in hell that I'm going to start believing the major
Freedom Knight credos, and at this point I highly doubt you are going
to change your mind - even if you managed to aquire a clue, you've
spent too much time and effort staking our your position in no
uncertain terms.
So i'll settle for mocking you.
a...@b.net
ź
David Gerard
On Thu, 04 Jun 1998 14:59:02 GMT, Pr...@ni.net (Jeffrey Smith) wrote:
:On Thu, 04 Jun 1998 04:42:51 +0000, Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org>
:wrote:
:>> Actually Dave, I think I speak for all of SPUTUM when I say that we'd
:>> prefer that the Kook Kabal took a long, hard look at the facts and
:>> clued in.
:>Oh I get it. _They_ have to change. Not you.
:>Just who's interpretation of the "facts" is correct?
:According to 99.99% of the net, and probably humanity as a whole, us.
:Also according to elementary logic, economics, history, and common
:sense.
:But don't let those sway you. They sure haven't in the past.
The slab of text below used to live at
http://www.wilhelp.com/fkheads/f_wmafh.htm
though the last few times I tried it I got a 403 (Access Forbidden) on the
whole domain.
It's a wonderful piece of work, though, and the world needs to see it.
(And to think I found it on an alt.flame site.)
What Makes A Fuckhead?
by David R. Kendrick
Ever since the dawn of time, Humankind has been divided into two camps:
Those who were welcome in the camps, and those who weren't. Stanley
Kubrick's film classic 2001: A Space Odyssey best depicts this early
schism in human ancestors: At the side of the communal water stream, the
social apes whacked the antisocial apes over the heads with bones.
Over time, religious tradition, social science, and human evolution have
recognized the basic division of mankind into social and antisocial camps.
The antisocial have been shunned, excommunicated, pressed into exile, and
even hunted as the social group has forced the antisocial from its camps,
cities, and homes.
With the advent of the Internet as a force in popular culture, this schism
has not only survived, but become stronger and more readily acknowledged.
In the new Information Age, the antisocial face new pressures, such as
flaming, Usenet death penalties, and being netcopped, and they even have a
new name.
They are called Fuckheads.
But what makes a person a Fuckhead? You cannot tell a fuckhead just by
looking at the e-mail address, or the Web site, or even by the newsgroups
the individual frequents. A fuckhead is a person who, through the pattern
of repeated behaviour when dealing with other Netizens in IRC and Usenet,
demonstrates certain characteristics and a repeated inability or
unwillingness to change or modify his/her behavior to conform to the
social code of conduct called "netiquette."
These are the characteristics that make the Fuckhead:
A Fuckhead Must Have An Exaggerated Sense of His/Her Own Importance
The Internet fuckhead will come to the table insuperably convinced of
his/her own correctness and of his/her immediacy in any debate or
discussion. For example, the non-fuckhead will join a discussion
cautiously, reading over the prior correspondance and offering an opinion
thoughtfully. The fuckhead will come plowing in without regard to the
established parameters of the debate and without regard to the existing
participants.
The fuckhead, when challenged, will then state some fantastic-sounding
credentials to justify and bolster the strong opinion. When challenged
further, the fuckhead will usually display anger and refuse to further
substantiate the presented credentials, some sort of "I already said so,
and that should be good enough for you!"
At this point the Fuckhead has demonstrated an exaggerated sense of his/her
own importance: He has presented an overriding opinion which, in the
fuckhead's mind, should be definitive and cease all debate, and the
fuckhead will be unable to understand why the other Netizens will not
accept his/her opinion on sight.
A Fuckhead Must Refuse to Abide By Common Social Rules
One of the most common traits of the on-line Fuckhead is the absolute
refusal to follow common social rules. For example, the fuckhead will use
racist or sexist terms, will use inappropriate references to bodily
functions, or will otherwise not respect the rules of society.
Fuckheads will frequently use a persecution defense when they are asked to
cease their antisocial behavior. They may claim that they are being singled
out because of their unpopular viewpoints, or that they are victimized by
the nebulous "political correctness" movement. These claims attempt to
avoid the obvious cause of the challenge, which is the antisocial behavior
itself, by demonizing the reaction to the behavior.
The Fuckhead's refusal to abide by common social rules is therefore
manifested. In the early chapters of history, such refusal to abide by the
rules of the group would lead one to be unwelcome by the fire, or to be
tarred and feathered. Now, though, it is just one more characteristic in
the profile of the Fuckhead.
A Fuckhead Must Never Back Down When Caught In A Lie
It is so easy to obtain all sorts of facts on the modern Information
Superhighway that it is hard to imagine anyone attempting to lie, simply
because it is so easy to get caught in a lie and therefore have your
credence demolished. That does not stop the on-line Fuckhead.
The on-line Fuckhead will lie about where he/she is, what he/she does, who
he/she is, and what he/she knows. For example, a Fuckhead will claim to be
an attorney, even though there are several on-line directories of attorneys
which do not include the Fuckhead. A Fuckhead will claim to be in a certain
geographic location but not be able to provide details such as the street
on which he/she is located, yet the Internet provides many detailed maps
and guidebooks and even services which tell you how to drive from your
location to any address.
Yet this abundance of proof and truth does not deter the Fuckhead trait of
mendacity. "I never said that," claims the Usenet fuckhead, yet the Usenet
archive can give you chapter, verse, and message ID. And, as befits the
Fuckhead, when you challenge the Fuckhead and prove that the Fuckhead has
lied, the Fuckhead will usually respond with a completely irrelevant
ad-hominem attack. Such is the way of the Fuckhead.
A Fuckhead Must Keep Coming Back Without Mending His/Her Ways
"Don't you ever learn?" This question is one of the most frequently asked
of wayward children or oft-injured adults. But when asked of the Fuckhead,
the answer is always, "No." The Fuckhead does not learn.
"Why must you come where you're not wanted?" This question has been asked
of the socially deviant and challenged since the dawn of time. Yet the
Fuckhead will keep coming back, over and over again.
The Fuckhead will defend his or her inflexibility by saying, "I have every
right to my opinion," and "I have every right to participate in this
discussion." And, in the egalitarian world of IRC and Usenet, the Fuckhead
is correct. But the Fuckhead will find that other participants, who do not
appreciate the Fuckhead's presence or contributions, will make use of tools
such as "Ignore" commands or killfiles. These tools would not exist if it
weren't for the Fuckheads.
You can count on the Fuckhead to shriek "Censorship!" when you tune out
their input. You can count on the Fuckhead saying rude things about you
when he/she is sure you're no longer listening. But it will never occur to
the Fuckhead to approach topics and people differently, and never, ever
occur to the Fuckhead to avoid venues where the atmosphere is unfriendly.
This inability to exit gracefully is a distinguishing mark of a Fuckhead.
A Fuckhead Will Change His/Her Beliefs To Suit The Situation
Fuckheads are dedicated to one cause, furtherance of self; and they are
committed to only one opinion, superiority of self. All other causes and
opinions are secondary to the Fuckhead. The non-Fuckhead may change his/her
opinions from time to time, or support or abandon causes throughout life,
these changes usually come about when new information is learned, or when
circumstances change. The Fuckhead, however, changes opinions and causes as
readily as a non-Fuckhead might change shirts.
A good example of this change of opinion was shown by a notorious net
Fuckhead in relation to a specific issue. Originally, the Fuckhead held
that unsolicited commercial e-mail was evil and a nuisance. The Fuckhead
put himself on the record as holding that opinion on more than one
occasion. However, when the Fuckhead and his Web site were dismissed from
one ISP after another for rules violations, the only ISP left over which
would host the Fuckhead's Web page was a widely-reviled purveyor of
unsolicited commercial e-mail. The Fuckhead then, as circumstances
dictated, reversed his opinion on UCE and became a booster of that method
of advertisement.
Fuckheads change friends as needs dictate, aligning themselves with and
against other Fuckheads seemingly without regard to history or common
sense. In fact, it is not uncommon for Fuckheads to be at war in one Usenet
newsgroup and aligned in another. Rational people may agree to disagree,
but the Fuckhead's limited focus and lack of loyalty allow the Fuckhead to
fight with friends and agree with foes so readily that there is almost no
distinction between the two. But this changeability makes the individual an
unworthy foe and an untrustworthy ally -- and hence, a Fuckhead.
What Makes a Fuckhead?
The Fuckhead may display all of these characteristics, or some of them, or
only one. Some may love a Fuckhead like a brother, some may think their
brother is a Fuckhead. What is incontrovertible is that for all of
humanity, there are people that you would rather not have to deal with, and
those people, throughout history, are the Fuckheads.
--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ AGSF Unit 0|4 http://suburbia.net/~fun/
Stop JUNK EMAIL Boycott AMAZON.COM http://mickc.home.mindspring.com/index1.htm
"Well, if that's really the way you feel," he sighed, lying back again, "then
there's nothing worse I can wish on you than to be exactly the fuckhead you so
obviously are." Iain M. Banks, 'Use Of Weapons'
Jerry Brenner
f...@thingy.apana.org.au (David Gerard) wrote:
<SNIP>
ROFL
It's at http://jbrenner.ne.mediaone.net/f_head.html now.
Maybe the speedbump FAQ's can reference/incorporate it.
Dave Hayes
Doktor DynaSoar wrote:
> Dave Hayes wrote:
> } Jeffrey Smith wrote:
> } > Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org wrote:
> } > >Like I told them, I tell you the same thing. Your goal can only
> } > >be to keep kooks around for your own amusement pleasure, for
> } > >what you fight and whack you make stronger.
> } > >
> } > >That seems to be what you want.
> } >
> } > prefer that the Kook Kabal took a long, hard look at the facts and
> } > clued in.
> }
> } Oh I get it. _They_ have to change. Not you.
>
> ineffectual boobs and wasting time with bogus projects and goals.
And they'd be a lot happier if you realized that your very nature is to dishonor
those who do not think in an approved manner and that you are wasting time with
your attempt at mob rule.
*shrug*
You pick. (And you will, too. But if you only had the courage to see the third
direction...)
> } Just who's interpretation of the "facts" is correct?
> The kook that looks at them, realizes they are, and goes away.
Not even that person is "correct".
> } As long as you hold this mindset, there will always be kooks who
> } will irritate and confound you. You cannot escape this.
>
> Dave: SubGenius.
I'm not familiar with your lingo. You'll have to explain, or let this
go over my head.
> You aren't underestimating any mindsets we've held for a long time.
I'm not attempting estimation, I'm attempting to protect the forum
from -all- of them.
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - (NEW!) http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
When you have been your own teacher for a time, you may be ready
to find someone else who can teach you.
Dave Hayes
rrevved wrote:> >> In article <3576320f...@news.mindspring.com>, see_a...@my-sig.com (rrevved) wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 04 Jun 1998 04:42:51 +0000, Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
> >> > >Jeffrey Smith wrote:
> >> > >> Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org wrote:
> >> > >> >Like I told them, I tell you the same thing. Your goal can only
> >> > >> >be to keep kooks around for your own amusement pleasure, for
> >> > >> >what you fight and whack you make stronger.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >That seems to be what you want.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Actually Dave, I think I speak for all of SPUTUM when I say that we'd
> >> > >> prefer that the Kook Kabal took a long, hard look at the facts and
> >> > >> clued in.
> >> > >
> >> > >Oh I get it. _They_ have to change. Not you.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > inaccurate, faked, or ...?
> >> >
> >> > Are they not a 'fact'?
> >>
> >> Our "interpretation" of the "facts" is correct because it is what best fits
> >> the information that exists.
> >
> >By what standard of "best"? Yours? Mine?
> >
> >Further, what facts -are- you deriving from these messages?
>
> deliberately disrupt the normal discourse in various, unassuming
> newsgroups.
That's a derived fact, and not necessarily one that I agree is derivable
from those posts. For example, "organized"?
> I derive these FACTS among others... How do you see it?
I see a bunch of people who's actions are controlled by the actions of
others who's own actions are controlled by illusions.
> >> The information is not false because it is verifiable through computer records.
> >If you believe this, then I have bridges to sell you. Computer data is not
> >hard evidence, and is not necessarily admissable in and of itself in a
> >court of law.
> You think these are forgeries? None of your K00K friends have stated as much...
I'm not sure. The law of sufficient paranoia requires that I distrust all these
messages, and I did so when they came to my mailbox the -first- time.
To be honest, I don't even -know- any of these people. For all I know, they could
be -you- folks in your alter-egos.
> >> Therefore, I must come to the
> >> logical conclusion that Dave is playing dodgeball by simply raising
> >> questions to muddy the waters without meaningful philosophical point to
> >> them, and attempting to shift accountability away from those who are being
> >> justly questioned because of this information.
> >
> >"Justly" questioned?
> >
> >By who's standard of justice?
>
> You don't have much to say do you, Dave? Just inane and ridiculous rambling.
Rambling by -your- standard of "inane" of course. Frankly, I find the actions
of those who infiltrated the mailing list and posted its contents worse than
anything else at the moment.
> >YOU people forge cancels. You rationalize this by saying "the articles
> >we are cancelling match some arbitrary standard". This somehow makes it
> >OK to do what you do.
>
> The cancelling is done in the open, and with the blessing of the ISP's that accept them.
KKK lynchings are done in the open, and with the blessing of most of those around
them. Does that make them right?
> The K00Ks don't bother to let anyone know about their cancels, then lie and posture
> against cancels.... Does this disturb a 'man of honor' such as yourself?
What currently disturbs me is the level of ignorance to which you folks will
stoop to bask in that religious feeling of righteousness.
> >So THEY forge cancels, and all of a sudden they are "censors" and "dishonorable"
> >and all kinds of other epithets that you deem appropriate to sling at them.
>
> They are dishonorable because their public positions are the reverse of their actions
Their public positions are irrelavent, and as far as USENET is concerned so are
their actions (presuming cancel messages are disabled).
> They consistently LIE about their activity and their true agenda.
The cabal does this as well. Ya both deserve what ya get. :)
> >It's not ok for THEM but it is for YOU. Doesn't this sound like a double
> >standard?
> There is *no* comparison between covert cancellers and overt cancellers.
Yes there is. They -both- cancel messages.
> If I have a mega-bot and cancel *all* of Usenet, would you put Chris L.
> in the same 'canceller' category with me?
Yep.
> No one is righteous here. Some people do things in the open. Some don't.
> Some are honest about their actions. Some aren't. Which are you, Dave?
Neither.
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - (NEW!) http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
If you want to shoot for the moon, aim for the sun
Dave Hayes
Doktor DynaSoar wrote:
> Dave Hayes wrote:
> } > For your irritainment pleasure I present the SPUTUM formation
> } > flying team, doing some precision kook whackage. We've confirmed
> } > some of this traffic against another source, and so can guarantee
> } > its authenticity.
> }
> } Well, no you can't really.
>
No -you- can't. The only thing you can really accept as factual data is
either the admission of the posters of the letters (which still does not
give you an identity), or you'd have to have met and verified the identity
of -each- person on that list.
Face it, you don't even know who -I- am. :)
> } > We suggest you grab this and share with others by putting it on
> } > web sites, FTP sites, or just plain chopping out juicy chunks
> } > and throwing them at each other across usenet. And excellent use
> } > would be to pick out those pieces which contradict the relevant
> } > kooks' public positions and whack them with those when they lie.
> }
> } Like I told them, I tell you the same thing. Your goal can only
> } be to keep kooks around for your own amusement pleasure, for
> } what you fight and whack you make stronger.
> }
> } That seems to be what you want.
>
> If it were true that would make sense. The evidence indicates it is not
> true. Grubor is no longer an effective bully, nobody believes Boursy's BS
> anymore, and the 'technical breakthroughs' are rehashes of things others
> have done long before and that already have countering devices in force.
I wasn't talking about "effectiveness", I was talking about "amusement".
It amuses you to see ineffectiveness, so that's what you create. It amuses you
to have a group of people that you can deride safely who keep posting regardless
of the derision.
Again, that seems to be what you want.
> So besides your being entirely incorrect on that, I can state with absolute
> certainty that I'd like nothing better than for them to go away.
I won't believe this. It's not that you are a -deliberate- liar, it's that
you have it within your power as a human being to -make- them go away.
> You're rational, Dave. And you have principles. The latter was mentioned
> time and again by those screening the data for useful intel. You gained a
> fair amount of respect from several.
Irrelavent....
> But on the points you raise here you're as wrong as a football bat.
...to my correctness or incorrectness.
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - (NEW!) http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
A philosopher called on Nasrudin and found him away from home. Infuriated,
he wrote 'Stupid Oaf' on his door. As soon as Nasrudin got home and saw this,
he rushed to the philosopher's house. "I'd forgotten", he said, "that you
were to call. And I apologize for not having been at home. I remembered
our appointment as soon as I saw that you'd left your name on my door..."
Dave Hayes
> >> On Thu, 04 Jun 1998 04:42:51 +0000, Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
> >> >Just who's interpretation of the "facts" is correct?
> >>
> >
> >but attempting to win an argument without recourse to provable fact.
>
> <GASP> You're right! Lord knows the Freedom Knights have always stated
> 100% pure, unadulerated Truth,
That's true, if you remember the definition of Freedom Knights I put out
there. However, if you just go by what people say and trust someone
-you- -yourself- say is a liar to call themself a Freedom Knight, I suggest
you are lying to yourself. And that's between you and...
> >> But don't let those sway you. They sure haven't in the past.
> >
> >Certainly your arguments don't sway me, that's for sure.
>
> Well gee, there's a suprise.
See? You shouldn't have expectations.
> I thought, seeing how you've been immune
> to logic for so long, my little post would finally smash its way
> through your skull.
"Logic" doesn't "smash". "Emotions" smash. "Logic" states a case. You
have yet to do the latter, but I'll admit you do excel in the former.
> You've just ruined my whole day.
Gosh! I have so much power over you, I don't know -where- to start first.
Maybe reprogramming your brain would be a start...
> Freedom Knight credos, and at this point I highly doubt you are going
> to change your mind - even if you managed to aquire a clue, you've
> spent too much time and effort staking our your position in no
> uncertain terms.
When you do things like you have been, you are right. If you, for some
strange reason, acquired a bit of tolerance and insight yourself...we
might reach a common ground.
> So i'll settle for mocking you.
Well at least you are funny.
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - (NEW!) http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
The King decided to force his subjects to tell the truth. Nasrudin was
first in line. They asked him, "Where are you going? Tell the truth
or be hanged" "I am going," said Nasrudin, "to be hanged on that gallows."
"I don't believe you." "Very well, if I have told a lie, then hang me!"
"But that would make it the truth!" "Exactly," said Nasrudin, "your truth."
MBE
bruce foxton wrote:
>
> The King of Rock wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 02 Jun 1998 08:17:53 GMT, ta...@yourwallet.empty.gov (IRS Agent) posted
> > this to alt.fan.karl-malden.nose:
> >
> > >On Tue, 02 Jun 1998 01:50:54 -0600, rao...@vulis.bungmunch.edu (J. Raoul Xemblinosky III) wrote:
> > >
> > >MEOW>In article <Mw.4sb...@fluffy.meow.org>, vu...@meow.org (Fluffy) wrote:
> > >MEOW>
> > >MEOW>> * On 01 Jun 1998 00:48:28 -0400, Fluffy <vu...@meow.org> wrote:
> > >MEOW>> *
> > >MEOW>> * MEOW>> flying team, doing some precision kook whackage.
> > >MEOW>> * MEOW>
> > >MEOW>> * MEOW>Damn, I spilled my coffee and clawed myself to shreds!
> > >MEOW>> * Are your nads OK?
> > >MEOW>>
> > >MEOW>> It hardly matters, since I bled to death.
> > >MEOW>> /*
> > >MEOW>> * MEOW>This bunch couldn't even figure out how to find open servers by
> > >MEOW>> * Reindeer games are for Paaaaaaaaaal.
> > >MEOW>>
> > >MEOW>> Aw fjuck, am I gonna get one of those njag njotes telling me I'm not
> > >MEOW>>
> > >MEOW>> /*
> > >MEOW>> * MEOW>MEOWHAHAHAHA!
> > >MEOW>> *
> > >MEOW>> * PKB.
> > >MEOW>> */
> > >MEOW>>
> > >MEOW>> /*
> > >MEOW>> * Meow,
> > >MEOW>> * IRS Agent
> > >MEOW>> */
> > >MEOW>>
> > >MEOW>> Meow.
> > >MEOW>
> > >
> >
> > My friends in demon.local would love this thread.
>
>
> > >
> > >MEOW>- J. Raoul Xemblinosky III =-=-=-=-=-=-= -- . --- .-- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> > |__ __| | | |/ (_)
> > | | | |__ ___ | ' / _ _ __ __ _
> > |_| |_| |_|\___| |_|\_\_|_| |_|\__, |
> > |___/
> > __ _____ _
> > / _| | __ \ | |
> > ___ | |_ | |__) |___ ___| | __
> > \___/|_| |_| \_\___/ \___|_|\_\
> >
> > (_)
> > ____ _____ ____ ____ _ _ ___ _ ____ ____ _____ ___ _ _ _
How exciting, not..
Andrew Gierth
>>>>> "Dave" == Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> writes:
>> They consistently LIE about their activity and their true agenda.
Dave> The cabal does this as well.
And your evidence for this is?
--
Andrew.
Jeffrey Smith
On Sun, 07 Jun 1998 23:46:04 +0000, Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org>
wrote:
>> >> But don't let those sway you. They sure haven't in the past.
>> >
>> >Certainly your arguments don't sway me, that's for sure.
>>
>> Well gee, there's a suprise.
>
>See? You shouldn't have expectations.
Only a complete imbecile does not take past behavior and actions into
account in thier interactions. For example, in the past people have
tried to reason with you. You haven't budged from your positions.
Should I bother attempting a method of discourse that will obviously
fail?
>> I thought, seeing how you've been immune
>> to logic for so long, my little post would finally smash its way
>> through your skull.
>
>"Logic" doesn't "smash". "Emotions" smash. "Logic" states a case. You
>have yet to do the latter, but I'll admit you do excel in the former.
The case has been stated.
Repeatedly.
You have ignored the facts.
Repeatedly.
Why bother using logic-based arguments against you when you aren't
willing to face unpleasant truths? Granted, in the past I have enjoyed
hammering people with a list of facts that shred thier statements, but
basically in your case it isn't worth the effort.
And, as a matter of fact, logic CAN smash. Ask any attorney if he
thinks that logic merely "states a case" [Disbarred scumball thieves
with the initials JG do not count]
>> Freedom Knight credos, and at this point I highly doubt you are going
>> to change your mind - even if you managed to aquire a clue, you've
>> spent too much time and effort staking our your position in no
>> uncertain terms.
>
>When you do things like you have been, you are right. If you, for some
>strange reason, acquired a bit of tolerance and insight yourself...we
>might reach a common ground.
I admit, I have a very low tolerance for what I see as stupidity.
Doubtlessly there *are* some aspects of the operation of the Usenet
upon which we agree - I would find it very suprising if we did not.
However, many of the premises you use to back your viewpoints are at
best flawed, and at worse blatantly misleading. Since you haven't
shown any desire to alter your positions when these are pointed out to
you, I've basically written you off. If you wish to post a list of
your viewpoints I will consider responding, but I think we both know
that, no matter what I say, you aren't open to arguments that may
change the way you operate. Therefore, why should I bother reasoning
with you when you aren't willing to accept data you find
uncomfortable?
And since we aren't going to reach 'common ground', I find it relaxing
to thump you now and then. You certainly aren't good for any
intellectual stimulation - I've dealt with enough closed-minded
individuals at college to realize THAT.
Jeffrey Smith
On Sun, 07 Jun 1998 23:53:02 +0000, Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org>
wrote:
[Crossposted to alt.slack and alt.slack.sputum]
>> } > Actually Dave, I think I speak for all of SPUTUM when I say that we'd
>> } > prefer that the Kook Kabal took a long, hard look at the facts and
>> } > clued in.
>> }
>> } Oh I get it. _They_ have to change. Not you.
>>
>> Nobody has to. Though we'd all be a lot happier if they realized they're
>> ineffectual boobs and wasting time with bogus projects and goals.
>
>And they'd be a lot happier if you realized that your very nature is to dishonor
>those who do not think in an approved manner and that you are wasting time with
>your attempt at mob rule.
Hey mob!
Do we rule you?
Do we WANT to rule you? Are we that STUPID?
Many people don't "think in an approved manner", Dave. Many of those
people are SubGenii.
We target Kooks not because they are different, but because they are
stupid. And, as someone once said whose name escapes me, "It is hard
to dishonor those without honor"
Burntcake
Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
>Frankly, I find the actions
>of those who infiltrated the mailing list and posted its contents worse than
>anything else at the moment.
Golly Dave that sure blows you r "true speech" mantra
out of the fish tank. Thank you for clearing that up.
I guess you could redefine "true speech" and weasal out...
--Ben
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) please
stop search bombing my other handle: "plutonium"
Dave Hayes
Burntcake wrote:
> Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
> >Frankly, I find the actions
> >of those who infiltrated the mailing list and posted its contents worse than
> >anything else at the moment.
> Golly Dave that sure blows you r "true speech" mantra
> out of the fish tank.
Not at all. The people who did this were -free- to do that.
Any group who has rules that say "Don't post private email" that turns
right around and posts private email, you can -bet- they are attempting
to set the record for "worst hypocracy".
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - (NEW!) http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
If you have the idea of superiority and are proud of your ability,
this is a disaster.
Dave Hayes
> >> >
> >> >Certainly your arguments don't sway me, that's for sure.
> >>
> >> Well gee, there's a suprise.
> >
> >See? You shouldn't have expectations.
>
> Only a complete imbecile does not take past behavior and actions into
> account in thier interactions.
God -forbid- you should look like one of -those-.
> For example, in the past people have
> tried to reason with you. You haven't budged from your positions.
> Should I bother attempting a method of discourse that will obviously
> fail?
I dunno. That all depends on how right you think you are, and how much
you want to convince me of said rightness...doesn't it?
> >> I thought, seeing how you've been immune
> >> to logic for so long, my little post would finally smash its way
> >> through your skull.
> >
> >"Logic" doesn't "smash". "Emotions" smash. "Logic" states a case. You
> >have yet to do the latter, but I'll admit you do excel in the former.
>
> The case has been stated.
> Repeatedly.
The case has been countered. Repeatedly.
> You have ignored the facts.
> Repeatedly.
Your facts, not mine.
> Why bother using logic-based arguments against you when you aren't
> willing to face unpleasant truths? Granted, in the past I have enjoyed
> hammering people with a list of facts that shred thier statements, but
> basically in your case it isn't worth the effort.
What you call "facts" are "presumptions" made without little -hard- evidence
to back them up. Now I don't just mean postings here. I mean actual pictures
of the identities you claim to be posting at the keyboard typing the message
and pressing the return key. (And even these can be forged.)
When I get more skeptical than you do, you clam I redefine things.
If you are going to say "agree with me or you are irrational", what can
I possibly say to that...regardless of my sanity?
> >> Freedom Knight credos, and at this point I highly doubt you are going
> >> to change your mind - even if you managed to aquire a clue, you've
> >> spent too much time and effort staking our your position in no
> >> uncertain terms.
> >
> >When you do things like you have been, you are right. If you, for some
> >strange reason, acquired a bit of tolerance and insight yourself...we
> >might reach a common ground.
>
> I admit, I have a very low tolerance for what I see as stupidity.
Of course. However, are you willing to entertain the idea that perhaps
what you are seeing is the result of making bad assumptions?
> Doubtlessly there *are* some aspects of the operation of the Usenet
> upon which we agree - I would find it very suprising if we did not.
> However, many of the premises you use to back your viewpoints are at
> best flawed, and at worse blatantly misleading.
By what standard of "flawed" and "misleading"?
> Since you haven't
> shown any desire to alter your positions when these are pointed out to
> you, I've basically written you off. If you wish to post a list of
> your viewpoints I will consider responding, but I think we both know
> that, no matter what I say, you aren't open to arguments that may
> change the way you operate.
I get it. -I- have to change. Not you, no. You're perfect. :)
> Therefore, why should I bother reasoning
> with you when you aren't willing to accept data you find
> uncomfortable?
Because you are honest enough to admit that what you hold true might very well
-not- be true, by some random objective standard?
> And since we aren't going to reach 'common ground', I find it relaxing
> to thump you now and then.
Thump away. Not like it does any good, as thick as you claim my skin is.... :)
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - (NEW!) http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
The things which hurt, instruct. -Ben Franklin
Dave Hayes
Ah, gathering your mob I see. Wouldn't you slam Steve Boursey for crossposting
like
this?
> Many people don't "think in an approved manner", Dave. Many of those
> people are SubGenii.
Just because your approval does not come from a large segement of society,
doesn't make it any less damaging. You get approval from yourselves, missing
the very point of why you were treated to non-approval in the first place.
*shrug*
Hopefully, someday you will learn.
> We target Kooks not because they are different, but because they are
> stupid.
Lesse. You are "not stupid", but they are "stupid". That sure sounds
"different" to me.
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - (NEW!) http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
Because you grasp labels and slogans, you are hindered by those labels
and slogans, both those used in ordinary life and those considered
sacred. Thus they obstruct your perception of objective truth, and you
cannot understand clearly. -Zen Master Linji
? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
>Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
>>Frankly, I find the actions
>>of those who infiltrated the mailing list and posted its contents worse than
>>anything else at the moment.
>Golly Dave that sure blows you r "true speech" mantra
>out of the fish tank. Thank you for clearing that up.
Not at all, Dave under his own rules is permitted to state what he dose
and dosn't like, to quote his FAQ.
]Speech, in the above definition, does *not* restrict another's speech.
]It can't. It takes a person to *act* on that speech to restrict
]another's speech. That person, then, would be the responsible party.
I would have object to the use of dishonest tacktics to gain infomation,
posting something from a privert email list is little diffrent then
posting something from a privert email.
--
I'm a perl programer; if you need perl programing, hire me.
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia; see the url. Support NoCeM
http://www.cit.nepean.uws.edu.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html http://www.cm.org/
I'm sorry but I just don't consider 'because its yucky' a convincing argument
Jeffrey Smith
On Mon, 08 Jun 1998 05:42:52 +0000, Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org>
wrote:
>> Only a complete imbecile does not take past behavior and actions into
>> account in thier interactions.
>
>God -forbid- you should look like one of -those-.
Are you claiming that you do not take the past into account in your
interactions? I find this very difficult to believe
>> For example, in the past people have
>> tried to reason with you. You haven't budged from your positions.
>> Should I bother attempting a method of discourse that will obviously
>> fail?
>
>I dunno. That all depends on how right you think you are, and how much
>you want to convince me of said rightness...doesn't it?
Since the evidence is that you aren't interested in listening to the
facts, my interest in proving anything to you is minimal
>> The case has been stated.
>> Repeatedly.
>
>The case has been countered. Repeatedly.
So was the case against slavery in the 1500's.
>What you call "facts" are "presumptions" made without little -hard- evidence
>to back them up. Now I don't just mean postings here. I mean actual pictures
>of the identities you claim to be posting at the keyboard typing the message
>and pressing the return key. (And even these can be forged.)
So your statement is, no matter what evidence I present, you will
dismiss it because it can be forged?
>When I get more skeptical than you do, you clam I redefine things.
Actually, that wasn't my claim, but if the shoe fits..
>If you are going to say "agree with me or you are irrational", what can
>I possibly say to that...regardless of my sanity?
Your disagreement with me does not make you irrational. The views you
expouse make you irrational. I trust you can comprehend the
distinction?
> Ihave a very low tolerance for what I see as stupidity.
>
>Of course. However, are you willing to entertain the idea that perhaps
>what you are seeing is the result of making bad assumptions?
Absolutely! In case you don't recall, my first interaction with Sputum
was getting LARTed by Doktor Dynasoar due to my frothing at the mouth
during the binary bombings of last summer. I learned, then, that I had
made a bad assumption - but that was because I recieved contradictory
evidence. Do you have any to offer? No - you basically state that if I
can't prove something with 1000% certainty then it cannot possibly be
correct.
>> Doubtlessly there *are* some aspects of the operation of the Usenet
>> upon which we agree - I would find it very suprising if we did not.
>> However, many of the premises you use to back your viewpoints are at
>> best flawed, and at worse blatantly misleading.
>
>By what standard of "flawed" and "misleading"?
By the standards of anyone who bothers to do a minimal amount of
research.
>> Since you haven't
>> shown any desire to alter your positions when these are pointed out to
>> you, I've basically written you off. If you wish to post a list of
>> your viewpoints I will consider responding, but I think we both know
>> that, no matter what I say, you aren't open to arguments that may
>> change the way you operate.
>
>I get it. -I- have to change. Not you, no. You're perfect. :)
I am far from perfect, but we aren't talking about me or my
viewpoints, we are talking about yours. The fact that I am not without
flaws does not make your ideas any better.
>> Therefore, why should I bother reasoning
>> with you when you aren't willing to accept data you find
>> uncomfortable?
>
>Because you are honest enough to admit that what you hold true might very well
>-not- be true, by some random objective standard?
Define the phrase "random objective standard" please. This
conversation is beginnging to remind me of my that evil Postmodernist
tripe I had to wade through last year
>> And since we aren't going to reach 'common ground', I find it relaxing
>> to thump you now and then.
>
>Thump away. Not like it does any good, as thick as you claim my skin is.... :)
Obviously you have a thick skin, but it was your skull that I claimed
was denser than the heart of a neutron star...
Jeffrey Smith
On Mon, 08 Jun 1998 05:45:39 +0000, Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org>
wrote:
>Jeffrey Smith wrote:
>> Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
>> [Crossposted to alt.slack and alt.slack.sputum]
>
>Ah, gathering your mob I see. Wouldn't you slam Steve Boursey for crossposting
>like this?
Since your claim is that Sputum is attempting "mob rule", I think it
is fair to inform the mob of your claims. After all, you *do* want to
warn them what a dangerous presence we are, don't you?
Incidentally, I completely ignore Speedbump. He can crosspost until
the bovines return to thier place of residence, and I'll never see it
Dave Hayes
> >> account in thier interactions.
> >
> >God -forbid- you should look like one of -those-.
>
> Are you claiming that you do not take the past into account in your
> interactions? I find this very difficult to believe
There's your evidence.
I claimed no such thing. Why did you think otherwise? Do you get it yet? I'll
spell
it out even more:
-Words- -are- -inaccurate- -vehicles- -for- -communicating-.
You have a simulation of "Dave Hayes" running in your brain at this moment.
This simulation "takes into account all the past stuff". However, whatever
you received on Usenet is inaccurate at best. Thus, you base concrete conclusions
on inaccurate data.
And you claim to be "reason-oriented"? "Logical"?
Feh. You don't know who I am. I could be some little old lady living in a sewer
with a VT100, and you wouldn't know the difference. I could be Bill Clinton.
For all you know, I could be your father!
You folks keep hammering me with "you aren't interested in changing your
viewpoint about anything".
Well, right back at you. You aren't the least bit willing to change your
perception as to who "Dave Hayes" is.
When I see that, as in the notable cases of Russ Allbery and Henrietta Thomas,
I respond in kind. When I don't see it...well you've experienced that for
a while now eh?
So. I'm an illusion. Have fun. Flame me, bait me, do what ever makes you feel
righteous. If you want to -talk- to me, you have to be willing to understand
what I am saying (even if I say "you can't understand this now"). I don't
care. Either way. Your choice.
> >What you call "facts" are "presumptions" made without little -hard- evidence
> >to back them up. Now I don't just mean postings here. I mean actual pictures
> >of the identities you claim to be posting at the keyboard typing the message
> >and pressing the return key. (And even these can be forged.)
>
> So your statement is, no matter what evidence I present, you will
> dismiss it because it can be forged?
Damn straight. You are an illusion until I can prove otherwise.
> >If you are going to say "agree with me or you are irrational", what can
> >I possibly say to that...regardless of my sanity?
>
> Your disagreement with me does not make you irrational. The views you
> expouse make you irrational. I trust you can comprehend the
> distinction?
No. Nothing makes me irrational. The fact that you cannot comphrehend my views
does not make me irrational, it makes you unable to understand.
> > Ihave a very low tolerance for what I see as stupidity.
> >
> >Of course. However, are you willing to entertain the idea that perhaps
> >what you are seeing is the result of making bad assumptions?
>
> Absolutely!
Prove it.
> >> Doubtlessly there *are* some aspects of the operation of the Usenet
> >> upon which we agree - I would find it very suprising if we did not.
> >> However, many of the premises you use to back your viewpoints are at
> >> best flawed, and at worse blatantly misleading.
> >
> >By what standard of "flawed" and "misleading"?
>
> By the standards of anyone who bothers to do a minimal amount of
> research.
Well. Let's see. I know two researchers offhand. For one "flawed" is any
change in data more than 10% off the predicted values. For another, "flawed"
is any change in data more than 50% off predicted values.
Which one do I pick?
> >> Therefore, why should I bother reasoning
> >> with you when you aren't willing to accept data you find
> >> uncomfortable?
> >
> >Because you are honest enough to admit that what you hold true might very well
> >-not- be true, by some random objective standard?
>
> Define the phrase "random objective standard" please.
It doesn't need definition for you to understand the concept. Insert "X" for
all I care. Truth, as communicated between individuals, is relative. You may
say "Dave Hayes is mean". It may be the case that for some people "Dave Hayes
is funny". Who's right?
> This conversation is beginnging to remind me of my that evil Postmodernist
> tripe I had to wade through last year
Sorry. Flame me then, if it makes you feel more comfortable.
> >> And since we aren't going to reach 'common ground', I find it relaxing
> >> to thump you now and then.
> >
> >Thump away. Not like it does any good, as thick as you claim my skin is.... :)
>
> Obviously you have a thick skin, but it was your skull that I claimed
> was denser than the heart of a neutron star...
So why do you try, if my skull is so dense?
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - (NEW!) http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.
Jeffrey Smith
On Mon, 08 Jun 1998 09:32:42 +0000, Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org>
wrote:
>> So your statement is, no matter what evidence I present, you will
>> dismiss it because it can be forged?
>
>Damn straight. You are an illusion until I can prove otherwise.
Its all in your head Dave, I'm not really here. There is just one guy
somewhere in the midwest with a bunch of different POP accounts and
mail programs who has made it his life's work to torment you.
Tell me, Dave, do you disbelieve evolution since you can't "prove"
carbon dating? Do you think the shots to the moon were done in a sound
stage in the Mohave Desert? Is the world really flat? Were Nicole
Brown and Ron Goldman killed by a police conspiracy? Was Flight 800
brought down by frieindly fire? Is gravity an illusion, with dozen of
invisible little midgets holding you and everything else down?
I can't 'prove' none of the above are true by the definition you give.
You are engaging in fallacies on a colossal scale. The burden of proof
is on you if you want anyone with more than an elementary school
education to believe anything you state.
And if you aren't interested in proving your point, then I guess
you're even more hypocritical than I thought
>> Obviously you have a thick skin, but it was your skull that I claimed
>> was denser than the heart of a neutron star...
>
>So why do you try, if my skull is so dense?
If you'll try to remember back far in the past, say, oh I dunno, two,
three days, it is you who started sobbing about my lack of desire to
engage in substantial debate. I think the first statement gives a
fairly good reason why I don't try. Having answered your call for
reason, and getting pretty much the answer I expected (except I never
*dreamed* you were so divorced from reality, I just thought you were
simply an idiot), I can go back to using you in the method you have
earned - target practice.
Jeffrey Smith
On 8 Jun 1998 12:18:31 GMT, Sketchy Albedo <rev...@radix.net> wrote:
>:You have a simulation of "Dave Hayes" running in your brain at this moment.
>
>Running, running, running....
General Protection Error running module kook.dll. Please restart your
system.
Nick Wynne
Dave Hayes
Jeffrey Smith wrote:
> Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
>
> >> So your statement is, no matter what evidence I present, you will
> >> dismiss it because it can be forged?
> >
> >Damn straight. You are an illusion until I can prove otherwise.
>
> Its all in your head Dave, I'm not really here. There is just one guy
> somewhere in the midwest with a bunch of different POP accounts and
> mail programs who has made it his life's work to torment you.
That wouldn't surprise me at all.
> Tell me, Dave, do you disbelieve evolution since you can't "prove"
> carbon dating? Do you think the shots to the moon were done in a sound
> stage in the Mohave Desert? Is the world really flat? Were Nicole
> Brown and Ron Goldman killed by a police conspiracy? Was Flight 800
> brought down by frieindly fire? Is gravity an illusion, with dozen of
> invisible little midgets holding you and everything else down?
I don't know one way or another. But at least I don't lie to myself and
say that I -do- know these things are true. I don't. I don't know they
are not true either. I simply can't prove it, one way or the other.
> I can't 'prove' none of the above are true by the definition you give.
> You are engaging in fallacies on a colossal scale. The burden of proof
> is on you if you want anyone with more than an elementary school
> education to believe anything you state.
I don't want anyone to believe anything. You people -keep- presuming that
I care what you believe. I only tread down these lines of discussion when
people want to find a common ground...apparently I am in error in presuming
that you want this.
Seems you are more interested in ad hominem attacks. That's your choice,
I guess.
> >> Obviously you have a thick skin, but it was your skull that I claimed
> >> was denser than the heart of a neutron star...
> >
> >So why do you try, if my skull is so dense?
>
> If you'll try to remember back far in the past, say, oh I dunno, two,
> three days, it is you who started sobbing about my lack of desire to
> engage in substantial debate.
Sobbing? No. I merely pointed out the apparency of your lack of desire,
and that was a followup to my original observation that it was -you-
who was making specious and grandiose clamis which had no basis in
reality.
I suppose it's OK to be a hypocrite, if that's what you want to be.
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - (NEW!) http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
"What's so special about the Net? People -still- don't listen..."
-The Unknown Drummer
Mahatma Gandhi
Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
-
-Jeffrey Smith wrote:
-
-> Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
-
-> [Crossposted to alt.slack and alt.slack.sputum]
-
-Ah, gathering your mob I see. Wouldn't you slam Steve Boursey
-for crossposting like this?
Well of course the bastard would. It's like their pretense as
being 'anti-spammers' when they're nothing more than two
bit net.thugs engaging in content cancels, plug pullings, etc.
But I applaud Jeffrey Smith for his rather bizaare crossposting--
it's the cabal inbreeding that has lead to the overall widespread
decline in their collective intellect.
-> Many people don't "think in an approved manner", Dave. Many
-> of those people are SubGenii.
-
-Just because your approval does not come from a large segement
-of society, doesn't make it any less damaging. You get approval from
-yourselves, missing the very point of why you were treated to non-approval
-in the first place.
-
-*shrug*
-
-Hopefully, someday you will learn.
Yes--forever the optomist Mr. Hayes. One day you'll finally accept
that most of them are worthless human beings incapable of change.
Best you can hope for is having a bit of fun while taking away
their cookies.
-> We target Kooks not because they are different, but because they
-> are stupid.
Oh my--what a terribly bright statement.
-
-Lesse. You are "not stupid", but they are "stupid". That sure sounds
-"different" to me.
Inbreeding--it all comes down to inbreeding. His taking to crossposting
is the best hope they have of ever getting fresh ideas.
Steve
news.admin.censorship
Jeffrey Smith
On Mon, 08 Jun 1998 22:32:00 +0000, Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org>
wrote:
>Seems you are more interested in ad hominem attacks. That's your choice,
>I guess.
Well, since you aren't willing to engage in a reasonable exchange of
ideas without descent into fruitcakedom, there isn't a hell of a lot
left to do with you.
>> If you'll try to remember back far in the past, say, oh I dunno, two,
>> three days, it is you who started sobbing about my lack of desire to
>> engage in substantial debate.
>
>Sobbing? No. I merely pointed out the apparency of your lack of desire,
>and that was a followup to my original observation that it was -you-
>who was making specious and grandiose clamis which had no basis in
>reality.
Well, since in your "reality" anything you can't prove is false, I
guess so. Of course, to the best of my knowledge outside the ivory
towers of left-leaning academia, you are the ONLY person who uses that
definition. Anything you don't like isn't real. It must be wonderful
to live in HayesLand, where anything bad is just a figment of your
imagination.
>I suppose it's OK to be a hypocrite, if that's what you want to be.
I'm not a hypocrite - except in your feeble grasp of reality. And
since you are clinically nuts, I'm not really worried about that
either.
Dave Hayes
Jeffrey Smith wrote:
> Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
> >Seems you are more interested in ad hominem attacks. That's your choice,
> >I guess.
> Well, since you aren't willing to engage in a reasonable exchange of
> ideas without descent into fruitcakedom, there isn't a hell of a lot
> left to do with you.
These are your standards of "reasonable" and "fruitcakedom" of course, and
bear no relation to even an illusion of objective reality.
Of course, since my reality shifts all the time, I can understand yours.
You, however, cannot understand mine.
> >> If you'll try to remember back far in the past, say, oh I dunno, two,
> >> three days, it is you who started sobbing about my lack of desire to
> >> engage in substantial debate.
> >
> >Sobbing? No. I merely pointed out the apparency of your lack of desire,
> >and that was a followup to my original observation that it was -you-
> >who was making specious and grandiose clamis which had no basis in
> >reality.
>
> Well, since in your "reality" anything you can't prove is false, I
> guess so. Of course, to the best of my knowledge outside the ivory
> towers of left-leaning academia, you are the ONLY person who uses that
> definition.
So? Consensus, last I checked, does not refect actual objective reality
to the objective reality supporter.
> Anything you don't like isn't real.
Ain't it great?
> It must be wonderful to live in HayesLand, where anything bad is just
> a figment of your imagination.
Yer just jealous. :) Too bad your mindset isn't flexible enough to do
this yourself.
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - (NEW!) http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
People oppose things because they are ignorant of them.
Dave Hayes
Mahatma Gandhi wrote:
> Yes--forever the optomist Mr. Hayes. One day you'll finally accept
> that most of them are worthless human beings incapable of change.
I am trying -not- to accept that, but they keep removing my reasons
for doing so.
Still, I'm too good at this. I see a kernel of light in each of them.
Now if I can only bring myself to ignore the rest...
> -Lesse. You are "not stupid", but they are "stupid". That sure sounds
> -"different" to me.
> Inbreeding--it all comes down to inbreeding. His taking to crossposting
> is the best hope they have of ever getting fresh ideas.
Maybe that's what people need to help them do...
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - (NEW!) http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
One of the big differences between questions and answers is that a question
may be asked at almost any time, but its answer may come at a special time
and place.
Mahatma Gandhi
Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote...
:
:Mahatma Gandhi wrote:
:
:: Yes--forever the optomist Mr. Hayes. One day you'll finally accept
::that most of them are worthless human beings incapable of change.
:
:I am trying -not- to accept that, but they keep removing my reasons
:for doing so.
Well there you go.
:Still, I'm too good at this. I see a kernel of light in each of
:them. Now if I can only bring myself to ignore the rest...
Look at it this way. Now Gandhi like yourself was a man of
peace and he too say that kernal of light in everyone but he
also was quite clear on who the oppressors where and never lost
sight of that. He didn't try to win over the thugs (British, etc.)
carrying clubs--he worked on winning over public opinion instead
and encouraging the thugs to really show what creature they
really where for all to see.
::: Lesse. You are "not stupid", but they are "stupid". That sure sounds
::: "different" to me.
::
:: Inbreeding--it all comes down to inbreeding. His taking to
:: crossposting is the best hope they have of ever getting fresh ideas.
:
:Maybe that's what people need to help them do...
I've been trying Dave.
Steve
news.admin.censorship
:--
:
gregory byshenk
Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
> Any group who has rules that say "Don't post private email" that turns
> right around and posts private email, you can -bet- they are attempting
> to set the record for "worst hypocracy".
Following along on some of Russ's earlier comments, I'd ask: what
"group" is this? SPUTUM? To my knowledge, SPUTUM _doesn't_ have
rules about posting email.
If you continue to look at everyone who posts to nana*, or everyone
who is antispam, as one united group, with one set of shared rules,
you will only be led further into the dark.
--
+ gregory byshenk - gbys...@tezcat.com - gbys...@prairienet.org +
== Help take a byte out of spam: <http://www.cauce.org> ==
=> Now up: "Help! I've Been Spammed! - A guide for the beginner."
URL: <http://www.tezcat.com/~gbyshenk/ive.been.spammed.html>
Russ Allbery
>> Any group who has rules that say "Don't post private email" that turns
>> right around and posts private email, you can -bet- they are attempting
>> to set the record for "worst hypocracy".
> Following along on some of Russ's earlier comments, I'd ask: what
> "group" is this? SPUTUM? To my knowledge, SPUTUM _doesn't_ have rules
> about posting email.
What I find somewhat more interesting is that, unless I missed it, *none*
of the standard chorus of "you shouldn't do that" that has followed nearly
every other instance of posting of e-mail I've seen followed the SPUTUM
posts.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Russ Allbery
Burntcake <burn...@aol.com> writes:
> Any group calling themselves freedom knights that condems cancels and
> then has their leader turn a blind eye to his knights doing cancels as
> already set the record for "worst hypocracy."
That's an interesting hypothetical evaluation, but what does it have to do
with this thread?
Russ Allbery
rrevved <see_a...@my-sig.com> writes:
> On 09 Jun 1998 21:50:17 -0700, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>> Burntcake <burn...@aol.com> writes:
>>> Any group calling themselves freedom knights that condems cancels and
>>> then has their leader turn a blind eye to his knights doing cancels as
>>> already set the record for "worst hypocracy."
>> That's an interesting hypothetical evaluation, but what does it have to
>> do with this thread?
> Let me summarize it for you:
Okay.
> 1) SPUTUM obtained and published a series of messages from J. Grubor's
> 'hacks' list. The 'hacks' list was composed of several well-known
> 'freedom' knights. John Grubor, Dave Hayes, Steve Boursey etc., etc.
For some definition of "freedom knights" (obviously not Dave's), granted.
> 2) The 'hacks' list was accessible only by people who had a server
> password, granted by Dr. Grubor, and the mail from the list was not just
> cc:'d to their normal (non-pgh.org) mailboxes.
This I cannot verify, as I could just as easily see people installing
.forward files on pgh. But perhaps you know more about how it works than
I do.
> 2b) Dave Hayes, et al, were signing on to the pgh.org server,
> deliberately, and retrieving their mail from the list, using their
> personal pgh.org mail addresses.
Again, I have no information to support this, but for the sake of
argument....
> 3) On the list, rogue cancel and DOS attacks on various unassuming
> newsgroups and individuals, by the members, was discussed, approved,
> executed and applauded.
Yes.
> 4) Freedom knights do not *publicly* approve of cancellation of any
> kind. They posture interminably about the cancellation notices of
> 'Spam', sent to ISP's yet, we now know, *they* plan, execute and applaud
> their *own* rogue cancel attacks, covertly.
What definition of Freedom Knights are you using? Obviously not Dave's.
> Summary: The original poster was referring to the hypocrisy of the
> freedom knights, in their public vs. private positions. His post seems
> to be on-topic for this thread.
You've completely missed my point. The original poster was responding to
Dave Hayes. The statement he made was:
| Any group calling themselves freedom knights that condems cancels and
| then has their leader turn a blind eye to his knights doing cancels as
| already set the record for "worst hypocracy."
I've yet to see a leader of freedom knights (under *either* definition)
post to this group or any other. Would you care to say specifically who
you think this poster is talking about?
Burntcake
>Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
>
>> Any group who has rules that say "Don't post private email" that turns
>> right around and posts private email, you can -bet- they are attempting
Jeffrey Smith
On Tue, 09 Jun 1998 05:33:03 +0000, Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org>
wrote:
>Of course, since my reality shifts all the time, I can understand yours.
>You, however, cannot understand mine.
Dave, I wouldn't wish your version of reality upon my worst enemy
Fluffy the Poisonous Cat
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
/*
* What I find somewhat more interesting is that, unless I missed it, *none*
* of the standard chorus of "you shouldn't do that" that has followed nearly
* every other instance of posting of e-mail I've seen followed the SPUTUM
* posts.
*/
I think maybe that people are waiting for the other shoe to drop.
I mean, there must have been a good reason for all that stuff to be
posted, other than light entertainment, right?
If not, then I guess we've all learned what SPUTUM is really about.
And it ain't good.
Information Security
Fluffy the Poisonous Cat <flu...@meow.org> wrote:
<SNORT!>
Says the meower asshole.
---guy
Archimedes Plutonium: One day he'll kill the president of Dartmouth College.
Russ Allbery
rrevved <see_a...@my-sig.com> writes:
> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>> rrevved <see_a...@my-sig.com> writes:
>>> 1) SPUTUM obtained and published a series of messages from J. Grubor's
>>> 'hacks' list. The 'hacks' list was composed of several well-known
>>> 'freedom' knights. John Grubor, Dave Hayes, Steve Boursey etc., etc.
>> For some definition of "freedom knights" (obviously not Dave's),
>> granted.
> Are you saying that Dave doesn't consider the list members to be
> 'Freedom Knights'?
Yes.
He has, in fact, said precisely that in pretty much those words in this
newsgroup.
> IMO, if there is ANYONE that believes as Dave does, it would be John
> Grubor, etc.
Oh good grief. Have you actually *read* what he says?
> Is there anyone else that you can think of that more closely mirrors
> Dave's philosophy?
Yes. Me, for example.
> Dave didn't receive any *unsolicited* mail from the list. He signed on
> to the PGH mailserver, with his password, got his mail and sent his mail
> to the list.
Huh. Okay. It makes me wonder why he bothered, but that clears up some
of the things you were saying elsewhere. I appreciate the information.
> See above. The mail received, by Dave and others, was NOT unsolicted.
> Even if it was forwarded by some scheme, which it wasn't, Dave still
> knew the source of the mail. He also knows that the messages posted by
> SPUTUM are not forged. He just can't deal with what the messages showed
> and his participation in the list.
I'd say that the messages showed a fairly flattering view of his
participation on the list, honestly, but I don't share the filters through
which you're viewing this. I have different ones. I'm somewhat surprised
that Dave appears to be the proximate cause of SP leaving this list and
handing all of these archives over to SPUTUM and you aren't even
commenting on that. Or do you have information that indicates SP was
making that part up?
> Dave was on the list, with his birds of a feather.
Dave doesn't *have* birds of a feather.
> He was invited to join and he did join. He dutifully retrieved his
> messages and participated in the list.
Is there any evidence that he did that beyond the first set of messages?
As near as *I* could tell from the evidence that you presented, there's no
sign that he read anything at all after the last time he sent mail to the
whole group of them. The final exchange was private e-mail to SP,
apparently.
(I should note that I honestly do not care one way or the other about the
answers to these questions, except to point out that you're taking a lot
of things for granted here or are relying on privileged information you
haven't made available and can't really expect other people to know.)
> If he didn't consider that these people were of a like mind to his own,
> I daresay he wouldn't have done it.
Heh.
>> I've yet to see a leader of freedom knights (under *either* definition)
>> post to this group or any other.
> Dr. Grubor doesn't post here? Your server IS broke.
Oh, is *that* who you're talking about? Honestly, I don't consider Grubor
a leader of anything in particular, but I suppose I can see where you're
getting that from.
> Maybe this will help. In this thread, Dave Hayes accuses SPUTUM of [sic]
> 'hypocracy' for posting the email from the list. BurntCake accuses the
> Freedom Knights hacks list members and their leader Dr. Grubor, in
> particular, of hypocrisy for their DOS and rogue cancel attacks
> vs. their public position.
Well, I can't comment on *that*, if that's what people were talking about,
because I haven't seen anything Grubor's posted except in quoted material
for at least a year now. *shrug* Most of what I've seen from him
elsewhere seems to be entirely in favor of cancel messages for people who
disagree with him, and that's what he was posting before I killfiled him,
so that would be a rather dramatic change of heart on his part.
> Anything else I can help you with? Feel free to ask.
Thanks. :)
Russ Allbery
rrevved <see_a...@my-sig.com> writes:
> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>> rrevved <see_a...@my-sig.com> writes:
>>> Are you saying that Dave doesn't consider the list members to be
>>> 'Freedom Knights'?
>> Yes.
> I understand that Dave considers himself to be the one.and.only.true.f.k
No, actually, he's mentioned other people he considers to be Freedom
Knights as well. And honestly, the definition is pretty straightforward;
I could name a few more people myself. Dave's not the only news admin who
has disabled all cancels and prefers not to filter except via things like
MD5 checksums, and who thinks people should be able to post pretty much
what they want. There are lots who just have more sense, class, or what
have you than to pick up spammers, which is the only way this group
generally finds out about it.
> but if you are saying that he was invited to a secret list where his
> beliefs didn't jibe with the list owner/members, I think you're
> mistaken.
*shrug*
> Grubor or Dave? I've obviously read both. What I am saying is that
> Grubor's 'total freedom' beliefs mimic Dave's.
That has got to be one of the funnier things I've read. :) Since when
has Grubor been in favor of total freedom? Grubor's the one who wants to
kill everyone who he doesn't like, and who regularly talks about
cancelling all of X person's articles.
I suppose from a very odd point of view that that's total freedom, but I
certainly wouldn't call it that.
>>> Is there anyone else that you can think of that more closely mirrors
>>> Dave's philosophy?
>> Yes. Me, for example.
> Were you invited to the list, like Dave?
Nope. You asked for someone who mirrored Dave's philosophy, not for
someone who mirrored Grubor's philosophy. Grubor's delusions about who
agrees with him aren't my problem.
>> Huh. Okay. It makes me wonder why he bothered, but that clears up
>> some of the things you were saying elsewhere. I appreciate the
>> information.
> He 'bothered' cuz he was invited, accepted, got a password and that was
> the only way he could participate.. more clear now?
No, it's still not clear why he bothered participating.
>>> Dave was on the list, with his birds of a feather.
>> Dave doesn't *have* birds of a feather.
> And why was Dave on the list?
Why don't you ask him? I bet he'd tell you if you simply asked, rather
than implied things or insulted him in the process. I imagine it probably
has some similarities to the reason why I joined freedom-knights.
> As far as the timing of when he stopped visiting PGH.ORG or when he
> stopped reading the list, maybe you should ask Dave. He's been a little
> quiet on the subject. He didn't respond when I reminded him of his
> visits to PGH.ORG to get his mail.
I'm somewhat more interested in asking you. I'm becoming increasingly
intrigued about the amount of information you have and precisely how it
was obtained and passed along to you. Everything you've said so far is
pretty obviously information S.P. had, but some of the things that you're
playing cagy about, such as the timing issues above, are a bit more...
fuzzy?
I'm also wondering more and more about the question that Fluffy posed,
namely what exactly is SPUTUM, or whatever part of SPUTUM did all this, up
to with all of this, and what was the point?
>> (I should note that I honestly do not care one way or the other about
>> the answers to these questions, except to point out that you're taking
>> a lot of things for granted here or are relying on privileged
>> information you haven't made available and can't really expect other
>> people to know.)
> I know for a fact that a password was required to receive list mail at
> PGH.ORG. The mail was not forwarded and required a server password.
Okay. That doesn't answer the timing question.
>>> If he didn't consider that these people were of a like mind to his
>>> own, I daresay he wouldn't have done it.
>> Heh.
> ?
Oh, don't mind me, I'm just trying to imagine what life would be like if
one never joined a list of other than like-minded people. How incredibly
boring.
>> Oh, is *that* who you're talking about? Honestly, I don't consider
>> Grubor a leader of anything in particular, but I suppose I can see
>> where you're getting that from.
> He owned the frigging list for Dobbs's sake! He invited Dave to the list
> and Dave responded and participated. Period.
Like I said, I see where you're getting that from.
> That explains it.. killfile. He's [Grubor's] still rather active,
> FWIW.. :)
Oh, I assumed. It would just really surprise me if he was coherently and
consistently advocating a "no cancels" position. Probably more that it
was consistent than anything else. :)
Dave Hayes
rrevved wrote:
> Yes, I do know how it worked. PGH.ORG mailserver required a server
> password for access. This info is from a person in a (very) unique position
> to know. You really don't believe that this was an unsecured server, do you?
>
> Dave didn't receive any *unsolicited* mail from the list.
> He signed on to the PGH mailserver, with his password, got his mail and
> sent his mail to the list.
This is so completely untrue that you are either lying or quite misinformed.
Do you have proof of this grandiose assertion?
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - (NEW!) http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at
them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me.
Burntcake
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
><burn...@aol.com> writes:
>
>> Any group calling themselves freedom knights that condems cancels and
>> then has their leader turn a blind eye to his knights doing cancels as
>> already set the record for "worst hypocracy."
>
>That's an interesting hypothetical evaluation, but what does it have to do
>with this thread?
It is a response to Dave's following post to this thread:
>Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
>
>> Any group who has rules that say "Don't post private email" that turns
>> right around and posts private email, you can -bet- they are attempting
>> to set the record for "worst hypocracy".
His post was a reference to the posting of evidence against his
FK cancel activity and mine was a comment on the criminal activity
of his FK henchmen.
Sorry for the confusion.
Jeffrey Smith
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 10:55:21 +0000, Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org>
wrote:
>rrevved wrote:
>> Yes, I do know how it worked. PGH.ORG mailserver required a server
>> password for access. This info is from a person in a (very) unique position
>> to know. You really don't believe that this was an unsecured server, do you?
>>
>> Dave didn't receive any *unsolicited* mail from the list.
>> He signed on to the PGH mailserver, with his password, got his mail and
>> sent his mail to the list.
>
>This is so completely untrue that you are either lying or quite misinformed.
>Do you have proof of this grandiose assertion?
Do you have any proof that it isn't true?
Fluffy the Poisonous Cat
Jeffrey Smith <Pr...@ni.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 10:55:21 +0000, Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org>
> wrote:
> >rrevved wrote:
> >> Dave didn't receive any *unsolicited* mail from the list.
> >> He signed on to the PGH mailserver, with his password, got his mail and
> >> sent his mail to the list.
> >
> >This is so completely untrue that you are either lying or quite misinformed.
> >Do you have proof of this grandiose assertion?
>
> Do you have any proof that it isn't true?
That mail alias I posted today didn't get added just today or anything.
It was set that way the day the list mail was posted, and I've seen
pgh.org addresses like that in the past.
Fluffy the Poisonous Cat
flu...@meow.org (Fluffy the Poisonous Cat) wrote:
/*
* Jeffrey Smith <Pr...@ni.net> wrote:
* > Do you have any proof that it isn't true?
*
* That mail alias I posted today didn't get added just today or anything.
* It was set that way the day the list mail was posted, and I've seen
* pgh.org addresses like that in the past.
*/
Whoops, it looks like there is some fairly good proof that Dave
*wasn't* logging into pgh.org!
In the list archive is a bounce message from Dave's server, dated 5
May. The returned message didn't include any jetcafe.org addresses.
The mail was being forwarded even that far back.
The Sonny Bono Internet Tribute Committee
If it isn't "criminal" to issue a third-party cancel for a spam, why
is it "criminal" to issue a third-party cancel for no good reason at
all? Violating Usenet protocol != criminal.
--
The opinions of this poster do not necessarily reflect the
views of the Sonny Bono Internet Tribute Committee.
Burntcake
sonny-lives-in-our-hearts wrote:
>If it isn't "criminal" to issue a third-party cancel for a spam, why
>is it "criminal" to issue a third-party cancel for no good reason at
>all? Violating Usenet protocol != criminal.
Well sonny, think of it as war. Just because our boys
and girls can be off to war killing the enemy doesn't
give the folks at home the ok to murder folks they
don't like.
I hope you have not subscribed to the boursy-hipcrime
tag-team cancel crew. Their credo: "if one may, all may"
haunts your query.
Dave Hayes
Jeffrey Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 10:55:21 +0000, Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org>
> wrote:
> >rrevved wrote:
> >> password for access. This info is from a person in a (very) unique position
> >> to know. You really don't believe that this was an unsecured server, do you?
> >>
> >> He signed on to the PGH mailserver, with his password, got his mail and
> >> sent his mail to the list.
> >
> >This is so completely untrue that you are either lying or quite misinformed.
> >Do you have proof of this grandiose assertion?
>
Much. However it's not transferrable.
In other words, what would -you- accept as proof? Not a damn thing from me.
Therefore you can't perceive the proof.
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - (NEW!) http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
You may follow one stream.
Realize that it leads to the Ocean.
Do not mistake the stream for the Ocean.
Dave Hayes
Fluffy the Poisonous Cat wrote:
> Whoops, it looks like there is some fairly good proof that Dave
> *wasn't* logging into pgh.org!
I haven't yet figured out how to tell the difference between the various
Fluffies out there. However, if you are the same one, this is the third
time I have seen you make good sense.
At this time I have to re-evaluate my lumping you together with the rest
of the Cabal. Apparently you deserve quite more respect than that. My apologies
for considering you to be part of the SPUTUM phlegm.
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - (NEW!) http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
". . . when all government . . . in little as in great things,
shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will
render powerless the checks provided of one government on another
and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which
we separated." -Thomas Jefferson (1821)
? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
In <357f32f9...@news.mindspring.com> see_a...@my-sig.com (rrevved) writes:
>On 09 Jun 1998 23:16:07 -0700, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
[...]
>>For some definition of "freedom knights" (obviously not Dave's), granted.
>>
>Are you saying that Dave doesn't consider the list members to be
>'Freedom Knights'? Russ, have you been smoking what Dave has?
Correct, Russ Allbery is a member of the list, as is Tim Skirvin, these
peaple are not freedom knights. As I understand it the Freedom knights
mailing list is for the discusstion of the phylophy of the Freedom
knights.
>IMO, if there is ANYONE that believes as Dave does, it would be
>John Grubor, etc. Is there anyone else that you can think of that
>more closely mirrors Dave's philosophy?
I don't think John Grubor closely mirrors Dave's philosophy. I suppose
the person who runs alt.net (name escaping me at the moment) is very close
to him. There are other (like myself and Miz Thomus) who are sympatic to
his beleafs.
>>This I cannot verify, as I could just as easily see people installing
>>.forward files on pgh. But perhaps you know more about how it works than
>>I do.
>>
>Yes, I do know how it worked. PGH.ORG mailserver required a server
>password for access. This info is from a person in a (very) unique position
>to know. [...]
At the moment this is unconfurmed hearsay infomation. There is no way to
verify this infomation.
[...]
>>What definition of Freedom Knights are you using? Obviously not Dave's.
>>
>Dave was on the list, with his birds of a feather.
Isn't this guilt by assosation?
> He was invited to
>join and he did join. He dutifully retrieved his messages and participated
>in the list. If he didn't consider that these people were of a like mind to
>his own, I daresay he wouldn't have done it.
He is a member of this newsgroup, and it is not populated by peaple of a
like mind.
[...]
>>I've yet to see a leader of freedom knights (under *either* definition)
>>post to this group or any other.
>Dr. Grubor doesn't post here? Your server IS broke.
Dr. Grubor is not the leader of the freedom knights.
--
I'm a perl programer; if you need perl programing, hire me.
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia; see the url. Support NoCeM
http://www.cit.nepean.uws.edu.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html http://www.cm.org/
I'm sorry but I just don't consider 'because its yucky' a convincing argument
? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
>On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 10:55:21 +0000, Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org>
>wrote:
>>rrevved wrote:
[...]
>>> Dave didn't receive any *unsolicited* mail from the list.
>>> He signed on to the PGH mailserver, with his password, got his mail and
>>> sent his mail to the list.
>>
>>This is so completely untrue that you are either lying or quite misinformed.
>>Do you have proof of this grandiose assertion?
>Do you have any proof that it isn't true?
Do you have any proof that there is not a giant snark siting on my
sholder? You made the clame it is your responcablity to prove it true.
? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
In <35804d05...@news.mindspring.com> see_a...@my-sig.com (rrevved) writes:
>On 10 Jun 1998 00:59:31 -0700, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
[...]
>Grubor or Dave? I've obviously read both. What I am saying is that Grubor's
>'total freedom' beliefs mimic Dave's. That's all.
Not realy.
Grubor wishes total freedom for himself, and wishes to limmit
other peaple's freedom so to achive it.
Dave wishes freedom for everybody and will alow his own freedom to be
limmited so to achive it.
[...]
>S.P. had several reasons for leaving the list. Dave was not the most
>pressing reason.
You beleave S.P. ?
Fluffy the Poisonous Cat
Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
> I haven't yet figured out how to tell the difference between the various
> Fluffies out there. However, if you are the same one, this is the third
> time I have seen you make good sense.
I don't always make sense, but do have a mind of my very own. Keep
noticing that there are individuals here, and I might stop being
annoyed with you =)
Randy Newman
? the platypus {aka David Formosa} <dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote:
-
-see_a...@my-sig.com (rrevved) writes:
-
<clips>
->S.P. had several reasons for leaving the list. Dave was not the most
->pressing reason.
-
-You beleave S.P. ?
More to the point does he believes Dynasour. That's what has
amazed me (integrity wise that is). So many took his 'archieve'
of what he claims to be private email of those he hates and take
it as factual. Who was that guy that wrote:
"I used to be disgusted but now I'm just amused"???
Good song.
Steve
news.admin.censorship
Henrietta Thomas
In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on Thu, 11 Jun 1998 00:19:38 +0000,
Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
>Fluffy the Poisonous Cat wrote:
>> Whoops, it looks like there is some fairly good proof that Dave
>> *wasn't* logging into pgh.org!
>
>I haven't yet figured out how to tell the difference between the various
>Fluffies out there. However, if you are the same one, this is the third
>time I have seen you make good sense.
All Fluffies from meow.org are one and the same, but they change
their spots from time to time. The author of Fluffy's posts is highly
respected in this group, and he almost always makes sense to
me.
Meow,
Henrietta
Burntcake
speedbump wrote:
>That's what has amazed me (integrity wise that is)
People are often amased with things they can never obtain.
Jeffrey Smith
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998 02:40:19 GMT, ra...@red.shoes.net (Randy Newman)
wrote:
[headers trimmed]
> More to the point does he believes Dynasour.
Hmm... who to believe, Grubor, Speedbump and Hayes, or Dynasoar?
Gee - what a dilemma.....
Tell me Steve, what would *you* do in my shoes? Believe someone I've
known and trusted for months, or believe a group of the most wacked
out, brain damaged, and venom spewing morons on the net? Hell, as I
told Dave
everything-is-relative-and-may-change-in-the-next-two-seconds Hayes,
I'm willing to listen to new information. Got any? Of course, with
your history, I assume you understand why the burden of proof will lie
in your court...
I'm intellectually honest and have an open mind. Win me to your cause
Steve - if you can.
The Sonny Bono Internet Tribute Committee
On 10 Jun 1998 22:12:22 GMT, burn...@aol.com (Burntcake) wrote:
>sonny-lives-in-our-hearts wrote:
>
>>If it isn't "criminal" to issue a third-party cancel for a spam, why
>>is it "criminal" to issue a third-party cancel for no good reason at
>>all? Violating Usenet protocol != criminal.
>
>Well sonny, think of it as war. Just because our boys
>and girls can be off to war killing the enemy doesn't
>give the folks at home the ok to murder folks they
>don't like.
Could you site the law which states that violating this Usenet
protocol is criminal?
>I hope you have not subscribed to the boursy-hipcrime
>tag-team cancel crew. Their credo: "if one may, all may"
>haunts your query.
I dislike cancels based purely on a practical basis.
The Sonny Bono Internet Tribute Committee
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998 00:19:38 +0000, Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org>
wrote:
>Fluffy the Poisonous Cat wrote:
>> Whoops, it looks like there is some fairly good proof that Dave
>> *wasn't* logging into pgh.org!
>
>I haven't yet figured out how to tell the difference between the various
>Fluffies out there. However, if you are the same one, this is the third
>time I have seen you make good sense.
The Fluffy we know and love always posts from fluffy.meow.org.
The Sonny Bono Internet Tribute Committee
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998 06:12:44 GMT, Pr...@ni.net (Jeffrey Smith) wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Jun 1998 02:40:19 GMT, ra...@red.shoes.net (Randy Newman)
>wrote:
>
>[headers trimmed]
>
>> More to the point does he believes Dynasour.
>
>Hmm... who to believe, Grubor, Speedbump and Hayes, or Dynasoar?
>
>Gee - what a dilemma.....
I'm more amused that believing Dynasoar requires also believing SP,
who's tatics of net terrorism far succeeded those of the other three
listed individuals combined. Now that SP's apparently changed teams
and is on the side of the "good guys," he's automatically believeable.
The Sonny Bono Internet Tribute Committee
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998 08:04:11 GMT, see_a...@my-sig.com (rrevved)
wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Jun 1998 07:55:47 GMT, sonny-lives-...@NOSPAMSANDWICHjuno.com (The Sonny Bono Internet Tribute
>Committee) wrote:
>
>>I dislike cancels based purely on a practical basis.
>
>And if your policy was implemented, what would be the consequence?
When did I propose a "policy?"
Elvis Costello
Pr...@ni.net (Jeffrey Smith) wrote:
-ra...@red.shoes.net (Randy Newman) wrote:
-
-[headers trimmed]
Restored and embellished.
-
-> More to the point does he believes Dynasour.
-
-Hmm... who to believe, Grubor, Speedbump and Hayes,
-or Dynasoar?
-
-Gee - what a dilemma.....
If it's at all a 'dilemma' you're not worth the time integrity
wise quite honestly.
Steve
news.admin.censorship
Cardinal Ratzinger
The Sonny Bono Internet Tribute Committee wrote:
-see_a...@my-sig.com (rrevved) wrote:
-
-:sonny-lives-...@NOSPAMSANDWICHjuno.com wrote:
-:
-::I dislike cancels based purely on a practical basis.
-:
-:And if your policy was implemented, what would be the consequence?
-
-When did I propose a "policy?"
Perhaps he's asking you to impose a policy for you--he's
the type that likes a firm hand.
Steve
news.admin.censorship
? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
>On Thu, 11 Jun 1998 07:55:47 GMT, sonny-lives-...@NOSPAMSANDWICHjuno.com (The Sonny Bono Internet Tribute
>Committee) wrote:
>>I dislike cancels based purely on a practical basis.
>And if your policy was implemented, what would be the consequence?
Cancels would stop, NoCeMs and filtering would take over. Bandwidth would
be saved, new idears and options would flurish like 1000 flowers bluming.
That is the point of the cancel monotorum. Spam canceling is broken the
faster we can change to better soultions the better.
Jeffrey Smith
> -[headers trimmed]
>
> Restored and embellished.
Thats ok, I'll let the readers of the other groups see your hypocracy
this time
> -> More to the point does he believes Dynasour.
> -
> -Hmm... who to believe, Grubor, Speedbump and Hayes,
> -or Dynasoar?
> -
> -Gee - what a dilemma.....
>
> If it's at all a 'dilemma' you're not worth the time integrity
>wise quite honestly.
Translation: You can't meet the standards of evidence I have set for
me to believe that you are more trustworthy than Dennis, so you have
chosen to engage in an ad-hominem attack on me in an attempt to shift
the conversation.
Here's the part of the post you cut instead of quoting:
***
Tell me Steve, what would *you* do in my shoes? Believe someone I've
known and trusted for months, or believe a group of the most wacked
out, brain damaged, and venom spewing morons on the net? Hell, as I
told Dave
everything-is-relative-and-may-change-in-the-next-two-seconds Hayes,
I'm willing to listen to new information. Got any? Of course, with
your history, I assume you understand why the burden of proof will lie
in your court...
I'm intellectually honest and have an open mind. Win me to your cause
Steve - if you can.
***
Again, Steve, can you provide evidence that you are more worthy of my
trust than Dennis? Or will you simply descend into personal attacks as
a way to shift the discussion from an.... uncomfortable area?
$10 says the latter - any takers? Hell, I'll give odds....
Fluffy the Poisonous Cat
sonny-lives-...@NOSPAMSANDWICHjuno.com (The Sonny Bono Internet Tribute Committee) wrote:
* The Fluffy we know and love always posts from fluffy.meow.org.
*/
Usually, not always. Sometimes it's useful to separate what's being
said from who is saying it =)
Fluffy the Poisonous Cat
sonny-lives-...@NOSPAMSANDWICHjuno.com (The Sonny Bono
Internet Tribute Committee) wrote:
/*
*/
Fair enough. Most (not all) of the people issuing huge numbers of
cancels dislike them too. They just have a stronger dislike for EMP.
Fluffy the Poisonous Cat
Burntcake <burn...@aol.com> wrote:
Oh, I'm not so sure about that. At least Boursy freely admits that
he's an asshole.
Chris Lewis
According to The Sonny Bono Internet Tribute Committee <sonny-lives-...@NOSPAMSANDWICHjuno.com>:
> >[headers trimmed]
> >
> >> More to the point does he believes Dynasour.
> >
> >
> >Gee - what a dilemma.....
> I'm more amused that believing Dynasoar requires also believing SP,
> who's tatics of net terrorism far succeeded those of the other three
> listed individuals combined. Now that SP's apparently changed teams
> and is on the side of the "good guys," he's automatically believeable.
The only issue of importance is whether you believe that SP or anyone
else is capable of producing that big an archive of material that is
consistent with the behavior and tactics of the alleged participants.
In other words, do you believe the material as presented, or do you think
that Dynasor and/or SP spent a ridiculous amount of time generating material
that good?
Further they match the observed real world events. For example, before
SP or Dynasor (or anyone else other than the perpetrator) could have
possibly known about the mailbombing of my accounts, let alone who was
responsible - not only did I already know that it was Blanc (because of
his grubby fingerprints in the headers), the archives had additional
evidence. So, it's logically impossible for it to be faked.
I'll point out that pgh.org is open to EXPN, and many of the
addresses directly expand out at the SMTP level to their more familiar
addresses. So, fakery would require collusion on the part of the PGH
administrator - rather unlikely ;-).
The only addresses on that list that don't EXPN out to somewhere
familiar are the 007 and 835 accounts. All of the others are
EXPNable or otherwise obvious.
I'll also point out that Dave Hayes is complaining that the archive
was revealed publically, rather than complaining that it was faked.
--
For more information on spam, see http://spam.abuse.net/spam
Fight spam, support Rep. Chris Smith's TCPA extension: http://www.cauce.org
Chris Lewis
According to Fluffy the Poisonous Cat <flu...@meow.org>:
> flu...@meow.org (Fluffy the Poisonous Cat) wrote:
> /*
> * Jeffrey Smith <Pr...@ni.net> wrote:
> * > Do you have any proof that it isn't true?
> *
> * That mail alias I posted today didn't get added just today or anything.
> * It was set that way the day the list mail was posted, and I've seen
> * pgh.org addresses like that in the past.
> */
> *wasn't* logging into pgh.org!
As of about a week ago, if you telnet to pgh.org on port 25 and did
an "expn da...@pgh.org" it expanded out to da...@jetcafe.org.
I haven't checked recently, so I don't know what it does now.
That was enough for me.
Fluffholio
b...@lloo.at.wilhelp.dot.com (balloo) wrote:
/*
* Fluffy the Poisonous Cat <flu...@meow.org> escribió en artículo:
*
* >sonny-lives-...@NOSPAMSANDWICHjuno.com (The Sonny Bono Internet Tribute Committee) wrote:
* >/*
* > * The Fluffy we know and love always posts from fluffy.meow.org.
* > */
* >Usually, not always. Sometimes it's useful to separate what's being
* >said from who is saying it =)
*
* Yeah, whatever, just so long as we get to worship your angora ass.
*
* *smootch*
*/
Tart.
Frank Zappa
Pr...@ni.net (Jeffrey Smith) wrote:
-
-el...@clown.strike.net (Elvis Costello) wrote:
-
-> -[headers trimmed]
->
-> Restored and embellished.
-
-Thats ok,
Oh--I knew that.
- I'll let the readers of the other groups see your hypocracy
-this time
It's about time you loosened up a bit.
<chop>
-I'm intellectually honest
Yes--and the pope shits in the woods.
-and have an open mind. Win me to your cause
-Steve - if you can.
If you were remotely 'intellectually honest' you'd
realize there's no need to 'win' you over. Dinasaur
posted what he claims is private list email from
his enemies, given to him he claims by SP who've
you've all trashed up and down like I've never
seen before, and you thing it's up to me to
prove to you that they are forged?
As I said you lack integrity and intellectually
honest you are not. My comments regarding
the absurdity of the documents being cited
as a credible reference was directed at some
of the cabal that are a bit more thoughtful
and honest.
Steve
news.admin.censorship
balloo
Fluffy the Poisonous Cat <flu...@meow.org> escribió en artículo:
>sonny-lives-...@NOSPAMSANDWICHjuno.com (The Sonny Bono Internet Tribute Committee) wrote:
>/*
> * The Fluffy we know and love always posts from fluffy.meow.org.
> */
>
>Usually, not always. Sometimes it's useful to separate what's being
>said from who is saying it =)
Yeah, whatever, just so long as we get to worship your angora ass.
*smootch*
--
coochie coo
benjamin d. capoeman mhm15x1 alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk
http://www.blarg.net/~balloo balloo at wilhelp.com
empire of meow smeeter#? wsd10 order of the greasy sombrero
jelliebun's dainty ursine of delight
Podkayne Fries
*PLONKOMATIC ALERT* *PLONKOMATIC ALERT*
*PLONKOMATIC ALERT* *PLONKOMATIC ALERT*
*PLONKOMATIC ALERT* *PLONKOMATIC ALERT*
--
Regards, Podkayne Fries
No one expects THE SPAMMISH INQUISITION!
Timothy Sutter
Dave Hayes wrote:
>
> Jeffrey Smith wrote:
> > Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
> > [Crossposted to alt.slack and alt.slack.sputum]
>
> Ah, gathering your mob I see. Wouldn't you slam Steve Boursey for crossposting
> like
> this?
>
> > Many people don't "think in an approved manner", Dave. Many of those
> > people are SubGenii.
>
> Just because your approval does not come from a large segement of society,
> doesn't make it any less damaging. You get approval from yourselves, missing
> the very point of why you were treated to non-approval in the first place.
>
> *shrug*
>
> Hopefully, someday you will learn.
>
> > We target Kooks not because they are different, but because they are
> > stupid.
>
> Lesse. You are "not stupid", but they are "stupid". That sure sounds
> "different" to me.
> --
> Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
> >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
> Freedom Knight of Usenet - (NEW!) http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
>
> Because you grasp labels and slogans, you are hindered by those labels
> and slogans, both those used in ordinary life and those considered
> sacred. Thus they obstruct your perception of objective truth, and you
> cannot understand clearly. -Zen Master Linji
slack is the definition of net abuse.
--
I Won't Dignify That With a Response No One
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/2307
Timothy Sutter
> -Jeffrey Smith wrote:
> -
> -> Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
> -
> -> [Crossposted to alt.slack and alt.slack.sputum]
> -
> -Ah, gathering your mob I see. Wouldn't you slam Steve Boursey
> -for crossposting like this?
>
> Well of course the bastard would. It's like their pretense as
> being 'anti-spammers' when they're nothing more than two
> bit net.thugs engaging in content cancels, plug pullings, etc.
> But I applaud Jeffrey Smith for his rather bizaare crossposting--
> it's the cabal inbreeding that has lead to the overall widespread
> decline in their collective intellect.
>
> -> Many people don't "think in an approved manner", Dave. Many
> -> of those people are SubGenii.
> -
> -Just because your approval does not come from a large segement
> -of society, doesn't make it any less damaging. You get approval from
> -yourselves, missing the very point of why you were treated to non-approval
> -in the first place.
> -
> -*shrug*
> -
> -Hopefully, someday you will learn.
>
> Yes--forever the optomist Mr. Hayes. One day you'll finally accept
> that most of them are worthless human beings incapable of change.
> Best you can hope for is having a bit of fun while taking away
> their cookies.
>
> -> We target Kooks not because they are different, but because they
> -> are stupid.
>
> Oh my--what a terribly bright statement.
>
> -
> -Lesse. You are "not stupid", but they are "stupid". That sure sounds
> -"different" to me.
>
> Inbreeding--it all comes down to inbreeding. His taking to crossposting
> is the best hope they have of ever getting fresh ideas.
>
> Steve
> news.admin.censorship
slack is an affront to the senses.
Timothy Sutter
rrevved wrote:
>
> On Tue, 09 Jun 1998 00:20:31 GMT, re...@paraguana.net (Spirolina Rae Xanax) wrote:
>
> >gan...@disobedience.gov (Steve "Mahatma Gandhi" Boursy) wrote:
> >
> >>Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
> >
> >Hayes et al. going on here. Seems to be reaching hysterical levels of
> >shrillness.
> >
> >Wonder what caused it?
> >
> >http://www2.cybernex.net/~charliec/kooklist.zip
> >
> Actually, in the case of Dave "Purple" Hayes, I'm not sure it is a case
> of Spin DOCTORING as much as just plain ole spinning out of control.......
>
> You have to wonder why he is willing to take the fall for the REAL kooks
> on the list......
>
> --
> * rrevved at mindspring dot com
> * unit.26 s.p.u.t.u.m.
> * http://www.sputum.com
sput this.
Jeffrey Smith
On Fri, 12 Jun 1998 00:58:25 GMT, za...@your.mouth.net (Frank Zappa)
wrote:
> As I said you lack integrity and intellectually
>honest you are not.
Oh No! Speedbump is calling me dishonest!
<sob>
So I should assume by this latest post of yours that you DON'T have
any useful information to share. Why am I not suprised?
Dave Hayes
> > Fluffies out there. However, if you are the same one, this is the third
> > time I have seen you make good sense.
>
> noticing that there are individuals here, and I might stop being
> annoyed with you =)
It's hard to notice that there are individuals here with the party
line being repeated as if they were all one and the same poster.
But I'm learning. :)
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - (NEW!) http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
Who are the learned? Those who put into practice what they know.
The Sonny Bono Internet Tribute Committee
On Fri, 12 Jun 1998 05:05:20 GMT, see_a...@my-sig.com (rrevved)
wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Jun 1998 00:38:17 -0400, Timmy Sutter <tsu...@geocities.com>
> wrote, in total:
>
>
>>sput this.
>sput whut?
sputnik
The Sonny Bono Internet Tribute Committee
On 11 Jun 1998 12:15:56 -0400, Fluffy the Poisonous Cat
<flu...@meow.org> wrote:
>sonny-lives-...@NOSPAMSANDWICHjuno.com (The Sonny Bono
>Internet Tribute Committee) wrote:
>/*
> * I dislike cancels based purely on a practical basis.
Oooh, I love it when I'm redundant.
> */
>
>Fair enough. Most (not all) of the people issuing huge numbers of
>cancels dislike them too. They just have a stronger dislike for EMP.
As do I, I was just pointing out that a dislike of cancels does not
make one Hayes or Boursy. (Although someone did send me an e-mail
flame today because Boursy followed up to one of my posts, so
apparently someone thinks there's a connection...)
Fluffholio
Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
> It's hard to notice that there are individuals here with the party
> line being repeated as if they were all one and the same poster.
It's definitely pervasive, and it's an easy trap. I am, however,
grateful for some of the more, um, enthusiastic 'anti-spammers' here;
their unintended self-parody does a great job of illustrating why
'buying in' and not thinking things through is dangerous.
> But I'm learning. :)
Me too.
The Sonny Bono Internet Tribute Committee
On 11 Jun 1998 20:29:45 GMT, cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
wrote:
>According to The Sonny Bono Internet Tribute Committee <sonny-lives-...@NOSPAMSANDWICHjuno.com>:
>> >[headers trimmed]
>> >
>> >> More to the point does he believes Dynasour.
>> >
>> >Hmm... who to believe, Grubor, Speedbump and Hayes, or Dynasoar?
>> >
>> >Gee - what a dilemma.....
>
>> I'm more amused that believing Dynasoar requires also believing SP,
>> who's tatics of net terrorism far succeeded those of the other three
>> listed individuals combined. Now that SP's apparently changed teams
>> and is on the side of the "good guys," he's automatically believeable.
>
>The only issue of importance is whether you believe that SP or anyone
>else is capable of producing that big an archive of material that is
>consistent with the behavior and tactics of the alleged participants.
>
>In other words, do you believe the material as presented, or do you think
>that Dynasor and/or SP spent a ridiculous amount of time generating material
>that good?
I think it's likely the material is real, if only because, as you
state below, that none of the parties involved have claimed it wasn't.
But it would not surprise me in the least if SP spent large quantities
of time altering mailing list archives. The man spent large
quantities of time posting absolutely inane garbage to the nana*
hierarchy for months.
>Further they match the observed real world events. For example, before
>SP or Dynasor (or anyone else other than the perpetrator) could have
>possibly known about the mailbombing of my accounts, let alone who was
>responsible - not only did I already know that it was Blanc (because of
>his grubby fingerprints in the headers), the archives had additional
>evidence. So, it's logically impossible for it to be faked.
Even if it's logically impossible for the information to be faked,
that does not preclude the possibility that any given message in that
archive wasn't actually posted by the person specified in the from:
header. He could have simply taken the headers of a real mailing
list message an inserted his own text in there, in other words, even
if there was a mailing list and many messages in that archive are real
(including the ones you mention), that doesn't mean they are all real.
>I'll point out that pgh.org is open to EXPN, and many of the
>addresses directly expand out at the SMTP level to their more familiar
>addresses. So, fakery would require collusion on the part of the PGH
>administrator - rather unlikely ;-).
That simply proves Grubor gave them forwarding addresses, and if the
headers all match up, that SP once received e-mail from the person
from that forwarding address. It does nothing to verify the
legitimacy of the text within.
>I'll also point out that Dave Hayes is complaining that the archive
>was revealed publically, rather than complaining that it was faked.
That's perfectly sensible. But before Hayes or any of the others
could have had a chance to say "Hey, this is faked," people were quick
to believe the legitimacy of the entire thing, when that legitimacy
purely rests on SP's shoulders. Dave Hayes was criticized at length
for saying "Now you kids have fun. :)" in response to Grubor's threats
of rogue cancels, when the only person who could verify that he really
said that is SP (or anyone else on the list, but I'm assuming Dynasoar
didn't talk to anyone else on the list.)
I believe any rational person who has read nanau regularly should
consider Dave Hayes infinitely more credible than SP, but as soon as
SP became "one of the good guys" and handed over the archives of this
mailing list, somehow he's credible? I don't believe so. I find it
troubling that many people were so ready to believe something they
wanted to believe, even when it required trusting someone like SP.
Timothy Sutter
The Sonny Bono Internet Tribute Committee wrote:
>
> On Fri, 12 Jun 1998 05:05:20 GMT, see_a...@my-sig.com (rrevved)
> wrote:
>
> > Timmy Sutter <tsu...@geocities.com> wrote, in total:
> >>sput this.
> >sput whut?
> sputnik
beatnik
*ISP_Ratings
Podkayne Fries <ch...@buckeyenet.net> wrote...
:
:*PLONKOMATIC ALERT* *PLONKOMATIC ALERT*
Yes--Podkayne Fries is quite embarrassed by
some of his friends issuing references and
citations that no self respecting person
would even dream of trying to support.
Not surprisingly we've another cabal with
zero integrity with the moral development
of a snake.
Steve
news.admin.censorship
:--
:Regards, Podkayne Fries
Rebecca Ore
sonny-lives-...@NOSPAMSANDWICHjuno.com (The Sonny Bono Internet Tribute Committee) writes:
> On 11 Jun 1998 12:15:56 -0400, Fluffy the Poisonous Cat
> <flu...@meow.org> wrote:
>
> >sonny-lives-...@NOSPAMSANDWICHjuno.com (The Sonny Bono
> >Internet Tribute Committee) wrote:
> >/*
> > * I dislike cancels based purely on a practical basis.
>
> Oooh, I love it when I'm redundant.
>
> > */
> >
> >Fair enough. Most (not all) of the people issuing huge numbers of
> >cancels dislike them too. They just have a stronger dislike for EMP.
>
> As do I, I was just pointing out that a dislike of cancels does not
> make one Hayes or Boursy. (Although someone did send me an e-mail
> flame today because Boursy followed up to one of my posts, so
> apparently someone thinks there's a connection...)
See, op.net has the highest ratio of sane to insane
anti-spammers of any ISP in the country, I guess.
Some of our side are flaming extremist boneheads with an
exaggerated sense of self-importance who confuse going after trolls
with the main event. (Should I put a smiley. Debate, debate).
Russ and others point out that Dave does see that there is a
problem with excessive repetitive posts. Boursy apparently doesn't.
And one can play a marvelous game with Dave's concept of he is
but a mirror and my "you are your trolls."
--
Rebecca Ore