What Dave Hayes said
Henrietta Thomas
Posted from kooklist.zip without comment, no offense intended
to Doug Mackall........
From - Fri May 15 01:54:24 1998
Message-ID: <355C02...@pgh.org>
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 01:54:24 -0700
From: "S.P." <s...@pgh.org>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-WorldNet (Win95; U; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org>
CC: ISP_Ratings <bou...@earthlink.net>, "Dr.G" <d...@pgh.org>
Subject: Re: Private
References: <1998051505...@hokkshideh.jetcafe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 4892
Dave Hayes wrote:
>
> ISP Ratings <bou...@earthlink.net> writes:
> > S.P. wrote:
> >> Dr. G,
> >>
> >> I agree with you whole heartedly that everyone must coordinate
> >> their efforts to have any effect.
> >>
> >> It would be helpful if Dave would comment and provide some
> >> direction.
> > Yes it would be very helpful---I know he's still around as he's
> > been posting here and there.
>
> I tried to provide direction long ago and you folks were too focused
> on fighting the cabal (thus making them stronger) to be bothered to
> listen.
So far, all of the attacks I have witnessed have only served to
strengthen my belief that the "cabal" grows stronger with each attack,
as Dave says.
> I hinted at it a few weeks ago even.
I have stopped posting to USENET, because I have trigger fingers, and
because I have noted that fighting and flamewars are a bother, and a
waste of my energy.
> I am a man of peace. My goals are not to "remove porn from the net",
No one's goal is to remove porn from the net--it is to force ISPs to act
like common carriers and nothing more. But probably there is no good
way to accomplish this.
> nor are they to "destroy Chris Lewis",
I also have no desire to destroy Chris Lewis, but I am constantly
overruled by Steve and Dr. G.
> nor are they even "to cancel
> messages by any rhyme or reason". My -true- goals have no conceptual
> reference point by which most people may grasp them; the best I can do
> is to say "to do the highest and best good for the help and health of
> the people."
No one can grasp them, Dave, because you are obscure in expressing them
on USENET, but here you express a philosophy much akin to Gandhi's, and
many can grasp his simple teachings of peace and goodwill.
> What you folks are doing is pretty amusing to me, but I cannot
> participate in any sort of terrorism, cancel wars, or mailbombing.
If Dave can't do them, then certainly I cannot do them. I asked for
Dave's opinion. He has been around much longer than I on USENET, and
has far more insight into these issues than I do. Therefore, I will
follow Dave's example, and will stop advocating those things. This
probably means I must be removed from the list, but, Dave's words make
much sense, and I can see that all of the mailbombing, canceling or
floods in the world will not bring a resolution.
> If -I- did these things, I'd do them real well...such that their
> ISP would be off the net for a while. That kind of ability needs
> tempering with a good dose of responsibility.
That is why I respect you, Dave. Anyone can see from reading you that
you are in control of yourself.
> I have a lot on my plate right now.
So do I. I am working on a large website, and seeing a new woman, which
may lead to a serious relationship.
> Besides running my own business, I
> have a band which is getting more popular everytime we play,
Dave, if you ever tour, come to Austin and play Antones. I saw Stevie
Ray play there many times, and now all kinds of bands are welcome, not
just blues bands. On Tuesday night, the SCABS play Caribe style music,
and the whole house is packed, so that each band member makes $300, and
there are seven of them.
> I've a
> software project that's not getting worked on as much as I want, and
> I've a non-profit ISP to run. All these things take time. Dr G. is
> right when he says I'm pretty busy...I am.
>
> If you really want my direction, then take to heart what I said about
> suddenly becoming polite.
I have. I even sent a private email to Sam about help with a spam I
received. Steve, that guy wrote me a nice reply, and here I thought he
hated my guts. Dave is right. Being nice builds bridges.
> Instead of fighting the cabal, help those
> who are being oppressed by it. Instead of mailbombing people, read
> groups where a cybermob is threatening to censor someone and send that
> someone some supportive email. Instead of cancelling messages, gather
> resources together and start an ISP dedicated to free speech.
> You call yourselves Freedom Knights, even against the stated criteria
> in my FAQ, but Knights are there to help people...not belittle them.
Dave, these are harsh criticisms, AND THEY ARE ALL TRUE! I am tired of
acting like a bully, fighting with other bullies on USENET.
> > It's amusing how much the cabal is looking for your approval Dave.
>
> *shrug* If there were something I could do about that, I would.
They are not seeking your approval, Dave. They are trying to make you a
freind, because they like you, as a person.
> I seek no approval from others, and I do not believe approval should
> be sought from others as a general rule.
Unless your job depends on it, and rent is due.
Dave, thanks for relating all this.
Take care,
SP
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From - Fri May 15 02:06:16 1998
Message-ID: <355C05...@pgh.org>
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 02:06:16 -0700
From: "S.P." <s...@pgh.org>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-WorldNet (Win95; U; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: da...@jetcafe.org
CC: pro...@anus.com, bou...@alt.net, hipc...@pgh.org,
"Dr.G" <d...@pgh.org>, 1Hacks <0...@pgh.org>, 8...@pgh.org,
a...@pgh.org, bou...@pgh.org, cl...@pgh.org, da...@pgh.org,
go...@pgh.org, r...@pgh.org, scum...@pgh.org
Subject: To the Hacks from SP re: Dave Hayes' comments.
References: <3.0.32.19980514...@paranoia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Content-Length: 901
Hacks,
Through private email, Dave Hayes has more or less condemned what we
are doing, advocating and discussing. Because I know that Dave is
right, I can no longer participate on this list.
We have all fallen into an old trap. Fortunately, it is easy to
escape the trap once you see the way out. I just escaped thanks to my
ability to learn from the experiences of others.
I hope that Spinoza and Ric will understand that this is nothing
personal, but Dave pretty much came down on us for how we are trying to
accomplish our mission.
In substance, Dave seems to infer, we are really no better than the
"cabal".
Therefore, it is not right that I be on this list anymore, and, to all
of you, I want to say that this was one of the most interesting lists
around. But please remove my email from the list when you communicate
to the group.
Take care,
SP
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From - Fri May 15 02:11:29 1998
Message-ID: <355C06...@pgh.org>
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 02:11:29 -0700
From: "S.P." <s...@pgh.org>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-WorldNet (Win95; U; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: d...@pgh.org
CC: bou...@earthlink.net, da...@jetcafe.org
Subject: Dave's Comments
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Content-Length: 881
Dr. G,
After Dave's scathing attack of us, I feel it best that I move on.
Please remove my email from the list, and please close my email
addresses.
After reading Dave's comments about how he could take an ISP off the
net, but that such skill requires temperence, I see now how unfair it
would be to attack ISP employees, to ruin lives, or to bring down an
ISP, as I was allowed to tour one two days ago, and I would not want to
harm the livlihood of these people.
Thanks for allowing me to have a free email account, but what Dave
said really struck home, and, as he has advised that people be nice and
supportive, that is what I intend to do from now on.
For me, this has everything to do with trusting the experience of
others. I am an historian, I am trained to do this. I will do this. I
am a man of peace from now on.
Take care,
SP
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burntcake
h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) (quoting hayes/SP) wrote:
hayes:
>> What you folks are doing is pretty amusing to me, but I cannot
>> participate in any sort of terrorism, cancel wars, or mailbombing.
So he's reduced to cheerleading his "knights" and their abuse.
hayes:
>> If -I- did these things, I'd do them real well...such that their
>> ISP would be off the net for a while. That kind of ability needs
>> tempering with a good dose of responsibility.
Such restraint from a hipocritical cracker.
hayes:
>> Instead of fighting the cabal, help those
>> who are being oppressed by it.
Insisting there's a "cabal" when there isn't one begs the purchase of
another oar. And just who are these oppressed? Hufnal, porn spammers
and other hayes heros like the binary bomber?
hayes won't be satisfied until USENET is completly overrun by his
"FREE XXX PICS XXX" and MMF/MLM heros.
--Ben
Doug Mackall
In article <199806051110...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, Burntcake
(burn...@aol.com) says...
> >> participate in any sort of terrorism, cancel wars, or mailbombing.
>
>
> hayes:
> >> ISP would be off the net for a while. That kind of ability needs
> >> tempering with a good dose of responsibility.
Funny you should mention that.
The Cabal, if there were one, would certainly have powers and abilities
far beyong those of mere mortals.
Fr'instance, if I were, as ABC News has stated, the Leader of the Cabal,
I could certainly take out a simple ISP any time I wished.
Now *there's* restraint and several IU's of responsibility.
(Damn, you got me again Dave. I promised myself I would ignore you from
now on).
Oh, well, I guess all I can do now is:
*PLONK*
I hate to do that.
( Russ, this was partially for you :-) ).
--
SubGenius Police, Usenet Tactical Unit (Mobile), aka S.P.U.T.U.M.
Unit C: "Thou Shalt Not Pass Light Speed!"
The Eternally Recondite Master Interdictor, Network Attack Legion(TERMINAL)
http://www.sputum.com/
Lionel Lauer
Kibo informs me that h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) stated that:
[quoted from the 'hacks' mailing list archives]
>> > It's amusing how much the cabal is looking for your approval Dave.
>>
>> *shrug* If there were something I could do about that, I would.
>
>They are not seeking your approval, Dave. They are trying to make you a
>freind, because they like you, as a person.
I'm glad that you posted this Henrietta.
It genuinely makes me very sad that Dave doesn't see the truth in that
statement.
He just doesn't seem to realise that many of us don't hate him in the
slightest, we just disagree with some of his philosophy & behaviour.
Lionel.
--
Grep bait: qmail, Archimedes Plutonium, turkey, Kibo, Wollmann, Meow.
Grep bait de jour: Theresa Willis, Terri
Perna condita delenda est. Agree? - See http://www.ybecker.net/pink/
"Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them."
Henrietta Thomas
In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on Sun, 07 Jun 1998 05:27:35 GMT,
nos...@sexzilla.net (Lionel Lauer) wrote:
>Kibo informs me that h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) stated that:
>[quoted from the 'hacks' mailing list archives]
>
>>> > It's amusing how much the cabal is looking for your approval Dave.
>>>
>>> *shrug* If there were something I could do about that, I would.
>>
>>They are not seeking your approval, Dave. They are trying to make you a
>>freind, because they like you, as a person.
>
>I'm glad that you posted this Henrietta.
I'm glad I posted it, too. I felt it was needed if people were going
to be discussing Dave Hayes. Anyone who reads it carefully will
see both positives and negatives. The emphasis so far has been
on the negatives, but I hope that people will look at the positives,
too.
>It genuinely makes me very sad that Dave doesn't see the truth in that
>statement.
Could that be because every time he speaks, somebody jumps
on him?
>He just doesn't seem to realise that many of us don't hate him in the
>slightest, we just disagree with some of his philosophy & behaviour.
If and when he comes back, we need to show him that. We need to
give him a chance to tell his own story in his own words without jumping
on everything he says. The road to peace is in understanding where
the other side is coming from.
Henrietta
Russ Allbery
Henrietta Thomas <h...@wwa.com> writes:
> nos...@sexzilla.net (Lionel Lauer) wrote:
>> Kibo informs me that h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) stated that:
>>> They are not seeking your approval, Dave. They are trying to make you
>>> a friend, because they like you, as a person.
>> It genuinely makes me very sad that Dave doesn't see the truth in that
>> statement.
> Could that be because every time he speaks, somebody jumps on him?
Maybe in part, but most of it is because he's too tied up in trying to
teach things he thinks are important to actually listen to people most of
the time.
Which I find funny, since that's a mirror of the same problem *some*
people here have (not all).
>> He just doesn't seem to realise that many of us don't hate him in the
>> slightest, we just disagree with some of his philosophy & behaviour.
> If and when he comes back, we need to show him that. We need to give
> him a chance to tell his own story in his own words without jumping on
> everything he says. The road to peace is in understanding where the
> other side is coming from.
On one hand, I agree with you. On the other hand, been there, done that.
Dave is getting precisely the kind of reaction Dave is *trying* to get;
people who simply refuse to play the game, I find admirable, but in order
to get *through* the game you have to get *Dave* to stop playing, and
that's rather a lot harder.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Information Security
Henrietta Thomas <h...@wwa.com> wrote:
: In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on Sun, 07 Jun 1998 05:27:35 GMT,
: nos...@sexzilla.net (Lionel Lauer) wrote:
: >Kibo informs me that h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) stated that:
: >[quoted from the 'hacks' mailing list archives]
: >
: >>> > It's amusing how much the cabal is looking for your approval Dave.
: >>>
: >>> *shrug* If there were something I could do about that, I would.
: >>
: >>They are not seeking your approval, Dave. They are trying to make you a
: >>freind, because they like you, as a person.
: >
: >I'm glad that you posted this Henrietta.
: I'm glad I posted it, too. I felt it was needed if people were going
: to be discussing Dave Hayes. Anyone who reads it carefully will
: see both positives and negatives. The emphasis so far has been
: on the negatives, but I hope that people will look at the positives,
: too.
: >It genuinely makes me very sad that Dave doesn't see the truth in that
: >statement.
: Could that be because every time he speaks, somebody jumps
: on him?
: >He just doesn't seem to realise that many of us don't hate him in the
: >slightest, we just disagree with some of his philosophy & behaviour.
: If and when he comes back, we need to show him that. We need to
: give him a chance to tell his own story in his own words without jumping
: on everything he says. The road to peace is in understanding where
: the other side is coming from.
Your forgot to say we all need to hug each other more often too.
---guy, White people are soooo touchy feelie.
"What is spam?" ---Chris Caputo, owner of Altopia
Robert Sneddon
In article <357a4f34...@news.wwa.com>, Henrietta Thomas
<h...@wwa.com> writes
>In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on Sun, 07 Jun 1998 05:27:35 GMT,
>nos...@sexzilla.net (Lionel Lauer) wrote:
>
>
>>He just doesn't seem to realise that many of us don't hate him in the
>>slightest, we just disagree with some of his philosophy & behaviour.
>
>If and when he comes back, we need to show him that. We need to
>give him a chance to tell his own story in his own words without jumping
>on everything he says.
The problem people have in discoursing with Dave is he demands the
right to redefine the meanings of everything he says. Any discussions
about the Net, who owns it and what constitutes net abuse eventually
degenerate into philosophical arguments that would make a Jesuit reach
for two Tylenol and a dark room to lie down in.
He has told his own story, interminably, and incomprehensibly. On the
net, engineers get their hands dirty fixing stuff because it needs to be
done *now*. Dave the Net Scientist stands loftly above these rude
mechanicals, saying "No, no, no, that's not how you should do that.
First, consider a perfectly frictionless spherical Usenet of constant
density..."
It's not beyond understanding that some grease monkeys throw an
occasional wrench at him. The rest tend to get on with the job in hand,
keeping the most complex single piece of communications equipment on the
planet running.
I've got Dave killfiled. I expect a lot of people have Dave killfiled.
He's made himself irrelevant. What a waste of brains.
--
To reply by email, send to nojay (at) public (period) antipope (dot) org
Robert Sneddon
Henrietta Thomas
In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on 7 Jun 1998 09:29:24 GMT,
<T...@NSA.sucks> Information Security wrote:
>Henrietta Thomas <h...@wwa.com> wrote:
regarding Dave Hayes....
>: If and when he comes back, we need to show him that. We need to
>: give him a chance to tell his own story in his own words without jumping
>: on everything he says. The road to peace is in understanding where
>: the other side is coming from.
>
>Your forgot to say we all need to hug each other more often too.
We all need to hug each other more often, too.
>---guy, White people are soooo touchy feelie.
Race has nothing to do with it.
Henrietta Thomas
In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on 07 Jun 1998 01:54:20 -0700,
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>Henrietta Thomas <h...@wwa.com> writes:
>> nos...@sexzilla.net (Lionel Lauer) wrote:
>>> Kibo informs me that h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) stated that:
>
>>>> They are not seeking your approval, Dave. They are trying to make you
>>>> a friend, because they like you, as a person.
>
>>> It genuinely makes me very sad that Dave doesn't see the truth in that
>>> statement.
>
>> Could that be because every time he speaks, somebody jumps on him?
>
>Maybe in part, but most of it is because he's too tied up in trying to
>teach things he thinks are important to actually listen to people most of
>the time.
As you note below, he is not alone. Lots of people do that. They
talk *at* each other, or *past* each other, rather than *to* each other,
because they think their own ideas are the most important.
>Which I find funny, since that's a mirror of the same problem *some*
>people here have (not all).
It is a common human affliction, IMHO.
>>> He just doesn't seem to realise that many of us don't hate him in the
>>> slightest, we just disagree with some of his philosophy & behaviour.
>
>> If and when he comes back, we need to show him that. We need to give
>> him a chance to tell his own story in his own words without jumping on
>> everything he says. The road to peace is in understanding where the
>> other side is coming from.
>
>On one hand, I agree with you. On the other hand, been there, done that.
>Dave is getting precisely the kind of reaction Dave is *trying* to get;
>people who simply refuse to play the game, I find admirable, but in order
>to get *through* the game you have to get *Dave* to stop playing, and
>that's rather a lot harder.
Well, I am going to give it the old college try. It is never too late to
try and communicate, IMO. We have nothing to lose and everything
to gain by giving ourselves another chance.
Henrietta
Information Security
Henrietta Thomas <h...@wwa.com> wrote:
: In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on 7 Jun 1998 09:29:24 GMT,
: <T...@NSA.sucks> Information Security wrote:
: >Henrietta Thomas <h...@wwa.com> wrote:
: regarding Dave Hayes....
: >: If and when he comes back, we need to show him that. We need to
: >: give him a chance to tell his own story in his own words without jumping
: >: on everything he says. The road to peace is in understanding where
: >: the other side is coming from.
: >
: >Your forgot to say we all need to hug each other more often too.
: We all need to hug each other more often, too.
: >---guy, White people are soooo touchy feelie.
: Race has nothing to do with it.
I'm quoting "Jefferson".
---guy, Vulis Terminator
KABLAMMO! dm.com was gone...Vulis never to post in his own name again
Henrietta Thomas
In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on Sun, 7 Jun 1998 13:25:43 +0100, Robert
Sneddon <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]......
> I've got Dave killfiled. I expect a lot of people have Dave killfiled.
Including some people I highly respect. I think that is too bad. When
you killfile a person, you cut yourself off from him, and there is no way
he will be able to communicate with you, not even to say he is sorry
if he offended you. That is a loss for both parties, because without
communication, there is no road to peace.
>He's made himself irrelevant.
I rather suspect that, instead, he was made irrelevant by some
of the very people who have him killfiled now -- people not able
to compromise who will not settle for anything but unconditional
surrender.
I am reminded of Peter da Silva, who spent many years trying
to get some of his ideas across to the establishment. His voice
fell on deaf ears, so he finally went away and created net.*. He
also is "irrelevant" as far as Usenet proper is concerned. Some
people may think that is good, but I do not. There should be room
for all in Usenet's big house, and no one should be left out.
>What a waste of brains.
Especially when Usenet needs all the help it can get.
Henrietta Thomas
h...@wwa.com
gregory byshenk
Henrietta Thomas <h...@wwa.com> wrote:
> If and when he comes back, we need to show him that. We need to
> give him a chance to tell his own story in his own words without jumping
> on everything he says. The road to peace is in understanding where
> the other side is coming from.
Two problems here: 1) Dave has told his story, at length, more
than once. Unfortunately, it is internally inconsistent and tends
to start out "assume infinite bandwidth and the existence of the
psychic newsreader" -- which tends to put it out of play rather
quickly. 2) Dave tends to assert both that he _can't_ explain
where he's coming from, and that the readers of this group _can't_
understand it (using "can't" in the sense of "cannot be done").
--
+ 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>
Chris Westbury
In article <357a4f34...@news.wwa.com>,
Dave Hayes is not gone. He's merely enjoying a glorious early-Summer
weekend, while I'm stuck at work. What's your excuse for wasting such a
splendid weekend on Usenet?
> We need to give him a chance to tell his own story in his own words
> without jumping on everything he says.
Mr. Hayes is not in this newsgroup to tell his story. He has already
laid out his program as clearly as any Western rationalist like me could
ask. He posts it from time to time, and if it is expired on your
newsserver as it is on mine, you can always download it from his Web
site.
He is here for something else, but his principles forbid him to tell you
what it is. Instead, it is up to you to induce his point from his
behaviour (or not, as the case may be) because any spiritual
enlightenment that you do not attain through your own effort is
inauthentic. Western rationalism is not the only modality of thought.
> The road to peace is in understanding where the other side is coming
> from.
Peace is vastly overrated.
Knowing where the other side is coming from has yet to avert a war, but
it certainly helps one to achieve the optimum disposition of one's own
forces.
If you don't know where Mr. Hayes is coming from by now, the odds are
that you never will.
--
Christopher Westbury, Midtown Associates, 15 Fallon Place, Cambridge, MA 02138
Sigmond Freud
h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) wrote:
-
-<T...@NSA.sucks> Information Security wrote:
-
->Henrietta Thomas <h...@wwa.com> wrote:
-
-regarding Dave Hayes....
-
->: If and when he comes back, we need to show him that. We need to
->: give him a chance to tell his own story in his own words without jumping
->: on everything he says. The road to peace is in understanding where
->: the other side is coming from.
->
->Your forgot to say we all need to hug each other more often too.
-
-We all need to hug each other more often, too.
Are you getting horny again Henrietta? Hot's for Dave? Such an
alliance could lead to a lasting peace you know (at least several
days anyway).
-
->---guy, White people are soooo touchy feelie.
Oh--and a racist as well!!!
Steve
news.admin.censorship
-
-Race has nothing to do with it.
Dave Hayes
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Henrietta Thomas <h...@wwa.com> writes:
> > nos...@sexzilla.net (Lionel Lauer) wrote:
> >> Kibo informs me that h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) stated that:
>
> >> It genuinely makes me very sad that Dave doesn't see the truth in that
> >> statement.
>
> > Could that be because every time he speaks, somebody jumps on him?
>
> Maybe in part, but most of it is because he's too tied up in trying to
> teach things he thinks are important to actually listen to people most of
> the time.
>
> people here have (not all).
It's a mirror of a lot of things, especially to you. :) You have
but scratched the surface here, but you have gotten the farthest of
anyone I've seen. I encourage you to continue to try to teach me, but
only if -you- want to. ;)
I will say that I'm trying to teach myself by continuing to post here.
Logic dictated that I stop trying to convince anyone of anything long
ago.
> >> He just doesn't seem to realise that many of us don't hate him in the
> >> slightest, we just disagree with some of his philosophy & behaviour.
>
> > If and when he comes back, we need to show him that. We need to give
> > him a chance to tell his own story in his own words without jumping on
> > everything he says. The road to peace is in understanding where the
> > other side is coming from.
>
> On one hand, I agree with you. On the other hand, been there, done that.
> Dave is getting precisely the kind of reaction Dave is *trying* to get;
Not exactly. On one hand, I'm not -trying- to get anything, I merely post
and watch. On the other hand, I post here expecting to -get- certain
reactions...these are my expectations which I must deal with myself.
I think even you have presumptions about what I am doing which come from
your own expectations of intent. We've both made the mistake of misreading
each other before, I suspect the magnitude of the mistake is less important
than the direction.
--
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
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither
inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse
for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to
encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked
with greater confidence than an armed one."
-Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist 1764.
Lionel Lauer
>>Maybe in part, but most of it is because he's too tied up in trying to
>>teach things he thinks are important to actually listen to people most of
>>the time.
>
>As you note below, he is not alone. Lots of people do that. They
>talk *at* each other, or *past* each other, rather than *to* each other,
>because they think their own ideas are the most important.
>
>>Which I find funny, since that's a mirror of the same problem *some*
>>people here have (not all).
>
>It is a common human affliction, IMHO.
And probably humanity's biggest failing - all of us do it at some time
or other, usually without realising it.
If you really want to scare yourself sometime, try listening to a tape
of yourself fighting with someone that you care for.
(I once did this by accident, it still makes me cringe to remember it.)
Lionel Lauer
Kibo informs me that Robert Sneddon <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> stated
that:
>In article <357a4f34...@news.wwa.com>, Henrietta Thomas
><h...@wwa.com> writes
>>In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on Sun, 07 Jun 1998 05:27:35 GMT,
>>nos...@sexzilla.net (Lionel Lauer) wrote:
>>
>>>slightest, we just disagree with some of his philosophy & behaviour.
>>
>>If and when he comes back, we need to show him that. We need to
>>give him a chance to tell his own story in his own words without jumping
>>on everything he says.
>
> The problem people have in discoursing with Dave is he demands the
>right to redefine the meanings of everything he says. Any discussions
>about the Net, who owns it and what constitutes net abuse eventually
>degenerate into philosophical arguments that would make a Jesuit reach
>for two Tylenol and a dark room to lie down in.
>
> He has told his own story, interminably, and incomprehensibly. On the
>net, engineers get their hands dirty fixing stuff because it needs to be
>done *now*. Dave the Net Scientist stands loftly above these rude
>mechanicals, saying "No, no, no, that's not how you should do that.
>First, consider a perfectly frictionless spherical Usenet of constant
>density..."
These two points are my major beef with him as well.
I am very interested in the philosophical & social issues that go with
the net, but I am primarily a practical person.
(17+ years of building, using, designing & networking computer equipment
tends to have that effect on a person. ;)
While I place a high value on looking at where things are going, & where
they *should* be going, I don't consider that a good reason to ignore it
when a server has smoke billowing out of it, if you see what I mean.
I put the damn fire out, *then* sort out the philosophical
ramifications.
I suspect that the majority of the despammers have the same motivation.
> I've got Dave killfiled. I expect a lot of people have Dave killfiled.
>He's made himself irrelevant. What a waste of brains.
It *is* a damn shame. If he'd just drop the whole damn martyr thing, he
might actually be able to *help* his cause, rather than hindering it.
Lionel Lauer
Kibo informs me that h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) stated that:
>In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on Sun, 07 Jun 1998 05:27:35 GMT,
>nos...@sexzilla.net (Lionel Lauer) wrote:
>
>>Kibo informs me that h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) stated that:
>>[quoted from the 'hacks' mailing list archives]
>>
>>>> > It's amusing how much the cabal is looking for your approval Dave.
>>>>
>>>> *shrug* If there were something I could do about that, I would.
>>>
>>>They are not seeking your approval, Dave. They are trying to make you a
>>>freind, because they like you, as a person.
>>
>>I'm glad that you posted this Henrietta.
>
>I'm glad I posted it, too. I felt it was needed if people were going
>to be discussing Dave Hayes. Anyone who reads it carefully will
>see both positives and negatives. The emphasis so far has been
>on the negatives, but I hope that people will look at the positives,
>too.
Well, I've certainly tried to, FWIW. :^/
>>It genuinely makes me very sad that Dave doesn't see the truth in that
>>statement.
>
>Could that be because every time he speaks, somebody jumps
>on him?
Well, I don't know if that's totally true.
There /are/ people who jump down his throat any time he posts, but
that's true of many people here. OTOH, there are also many respected
regulars who /don't/ attack him.
>>He just doesn't seem to realise that many of us don't hate him in the
>>slightest, we just disagree with some of his philosophy & behaviour.
>
>If and when he comes back, we need to show him that. We need to
>give him a chance to tell his own story in his own words without jumping
>on everything he says. The road to peace is in understanding where
>the other side is coming from.
Very true.
Henrietta Thomas
In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on Sun, 7 Jun 1998 21:34:16 -0600,
gbys...@tezcat.com (gregory byshenk) wrote:
>Henrietta Thomas <h...@wwa.com> wrote:
>
>> If and when he comes back, we need to show him that. We need to
>> give him a chance to tell his own story in his own words without jumping
>> on everything he says. The road to peace is in understanding where
>> the other side is coming from.
>
>Two problems here: 1) Dave has told his story, at length, more
>than once. Unfortunately, it is internally inconsistent and tends
>to start out "assume infinite bandwidth and the existence of the
>psychic newsreader" -- which tends to put it out of play rather
>quickly. 2) Dave tends to assert both that he _can't_ explain
>where he's coming from, and that the readers of this group _can't_
>understand it (using "can't" in the sense of "cannot be done").
The readers of this group can understand anything they *want* to
understand. So I think Mr. Hayes is wrong when he says they
can't. But since so many readers of this group refuse to talk to
him, they will never be able to show him that they can.
Henrietta
Henrietta Thomas
In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on Tue, 09 Jun 1998 12:54:35 GMT,
nos...@sexzilla.net (Lionel Lauer) wrote:
>Kibo informs me that h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) stated that:
>
>>In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on Sun, 07 Jun 1998 05:27:35 GMT,
>>nos...@sexzilla.net (Lionel Lauer) wrote:
>>
>>>Kibo informs me that h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) stated that:
>>>[quoted from the 'hacks' mailing list archives]
>>>
>>>>> > It's amusing how much the cabal is looking for your approval Dave.
>>>>>
>>>>> *shrug* If there were something I could do about that, I would.
>>>>
>>>>They are not seeking your approval, Dave. They are trying to make you a
>>>>freind, because they like you, as a person.
>>>
>>>I'm glad that you posted this Henrietta.
>>
>>I'm glad I posted it, too. I felt it was needed if people were going
>>to be discussing Dave Hayes. Anyone who reads it carefully will
>>see both positives and negatives. The emphasis so far has been
>>on the negatives, but I hope that people will look at the positives,
>>too.
>
>Well, I've certainly tried to, FWIW. :^/
And what did you think of the positive statements he made?
>>>It genuinely makes me very sad that Dave doesn't see the truth in that
>>>statement.
>>
>>Could that be because every time he speaks, somebody jumps
>>on him?
>
>Well, I don't know if that's totally true.
>There /are/ people who jump down his throat any time he posts, but
>that's true of many people here. OTOH, there are also many respected
>regulars who /don't/ attack him.
But they don't talk to him either, so he has no way of knowing if they've
all killfiled him or not.
>>>He just doesn't seem to realise that many of us don't hate him in the
>>>slightest, we just disagree with some of his philosophy & behaviour.
>>
>>If and when he comes back, we need to show him that. We need to
>>give him a chance to tell his own story in his own words without jumping
>>on everything he says. The road to peace is in understanding where
>>the other side is coming from.
>
>Very true.
So why isn't anybody doing that? I don't mean you personally;
I mean anybody in this group who has more than a few brains.
Henrietta
Burntcake
h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) wrote:
>nos...@sexzilla.net (Lionel Lauer) wrote:
>>>The road to peace is in understanding where
>>>the other side is coming from.
>>Very true.
>
>So why isn't anybody doing that? I don't mean you personally;
>I mean anybody in this group who has more than a few brains.
Talking to Haye's yeilds cosmic posturing responses from him that have
nothing to do with resolving the issues at hand. It's like talking to an Elisa
that's been loaded with responses by Hendrix, Gandhi, Marx,
Sanford, Roger Waters, Leary, Sagan, Jim Morrison, and others.
Maybe if you threw in some Jimmy Buffet, General Swartzkopt,
SPUTUM or Sam it would be more digestable.
I'm sure he's a really nice guy in person and I'd be the first
to offer him a cold one, but man he needs to lay off whatever
it is when composing some of those zingers - or else offer
us some of what he's having...
Lionel Lauer
Kibo informs me that gbys...@tezcat.com (gregory byshenk) stated that:
>Henrietta Thomas <h...@wwa.com> wrote:
>
>> If and when he comes back, we need to show him that. We need to
>> give him a chance to tell his own story in his own words without jumping
>
>than once. Unfortunately, it is internally inconsistent and tends
>to start out "assume infinite bandwidth and the existence of the
>psychic newsreader" -- which tends to put it out of play rather
This is actually a misinterpretation of what he is saying.
Dave's point is that you are your own 'psychic newsreader' (so to
speak). The point being that if you allow yourself to be bothered by
stuff, it's a problem with you, rather than with the stuff.
I actually understand his logic behind this quite clearly, & agree that
it's a valuable goal for us (as humans) to strive for. I disagree that
that Usenet's current mix of people should have to sink or swim with
that attitude - a mix of groups that vary between order & chaos would
work better to help people achieve that particular enlightenment.
>quickly. 2) Dave tends to assert both that he _can't_ explain
>where he's coming from, and that the readers of this group _can't_
>understand it (using "can't" in the sense of "cannot be done").
I sometimes find it frustrating that Dave assumes that anyone who
understands his arguments will automatically agree with them.
This is an assumption that I consider very egotistical, & rather
inconsistant with the philosophical beliefs that he espouses.
gregory byshenk
Lionel Lauer <nos...@sexzilla.net> wrote:
> Kibo informs me that gbys...@tezcat.com (gregory byshenk) stated that:
> >Henrietta Thomas <h...@wwa.com> wrote:
> >Two problems here: 1) Dave has told his story, at length, more
> >than once. Unfortunately, it is internally inconsistent and tends
> >to start out "assume infinite bandwidth and the existence of the
> >psychic newsreader" -- which tends to put it out of play rather
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> This is actually a misinterpretation of what he is saying.
> Dave's point is that you are your own 'psychic newsreader' (so to
> speak). The point being that if you allow yourself to be bothered by
> stuff, it's a problem with you, rather than with the stuff.
Which is fine, so far as it goes. Indeed, I've been thrown into
the "free speach" camp by some posters here for arguing that one
_should_ simply ignore things that are merely annoying.
But there's more involved. I can "ignore" 9975 posts in a
newsgroup and pay attention only the the 25 that are worth
reading -- but it takes time to select those 25 out of 10,000,
and it takes time and money to transfer and store those extra
9975 posts.
Ignoring is a excellent solution for the merely annoying; it is
a non-starter as a solution for spam, misplaced binaries, usw.
Russ Allbery
Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Maybe in part, but most of it is because he's too tied up in trying to
>> teach things he thinks are important to actually listen to people most
>> of the time.
>> Which I find funny, since that's a mirror of the same problem *some*
>> people here have (not all).
> It's a mirror of a lot of things, especially to you. :)
No kidding. :)
> You have but scratched the surface here, but you have gotten the
> farthest of anyone I've seen. I encourage you to continue to try to
> teach me, but only if -you- want to. ;)
Hey, I'm having fun. Always a good reason to continue what I'm doing, ne?
Besides, it seems to annoy the hell out of people who don't like anyone
talking to anyone who doesn't agree with them, which I find amusing.
> I think even you have presumptions about what I am doing which come from
> your own expectations of intent.
Oh, definitely.
> We've both made the mistake of misreading each other before, I suspect
> the magnitude of the mistake is less important than the direction.
The difference being that neither of us takes the misreadings personally,
or at least that's the goal. Makes the somewhat blundering process of
attempting to communicate philosophical concepts in limited words much
more enjoyable and less stressful.
Henrietta Thomas
In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on Tue, 09 Jun 1998 17:42:14 GMT,
see_a...@my-sig.com (rrevved) wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Jun 1998 17:21:18 GMT, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) wrote:
>
>>In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on Sun, 7 Jun 1998 21:34:16 -0600,
>>gbys...@tezcat.com (gregory byshenk) wrote:
>>
>>>Henrietta Thomas <h...@wwa.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If and when he comes back, we need to show him that. We need to
>>>> give him a chance to tell his own story in his own words without jumping
>>>> on everything he says. The road to peace is in understanding where
>>>> the other side is coming from.
>>>
>>>Two problems here: 1) Dave has told his story, at length, more
>>>than once. Unfortunately, it is internally inconsistent and tends
>>>to start out "assume infinite bandwidth and the existence of the
>>>psychic newsreader" -- which tends to put it out of play rather
>>>quickly. 2) Dave tends to assert both that he _can't_ explain
>>>where he's coming from, and that the readers of this group _can't_
>>>understand it (using "can't" in the sense of "cannot be done").
>>
>>The readers of this group can understand anything they *want* to
>>understand. So I think Mr. Hayes is wrong when he says they
>>can't. But since so many readers of this group refuse to talk to
>>him, they will never be able to show him that they can.
>>
>
>Henrietta, MANY here have tried to have a 'conversation' with Dave.
I am glad to hear that. I only came into Usenet in 1995, so haven't
had much contact with Dave, and do not know the history of his
involvement with Usenet.
>He thinks that we (and everything in life) are an 'illusion'.
Possible. Only God knows for sure. And we don't even know there
is a God.
>He believes that the best course for Usenet is to just allow people
>to do whatever 'feels good' without any accountability or control.
Well, we already have an anarchy (at least, that's what I've been
told) which apparently isn't working too well. Maybe Dave thinks
the solution to anarchy is more anarchy. I personally would like to
see a little law and order. But I don't know who would be "in charge."
>He believes that servers have unlimited space
Definitely NOT true.
>and that people who attempt to use the newsgroups have
>unlimited patience.
Also NOT true.
>I disagree, strongly, with his idea that left to its own devices, Usenet
>will fix itself.
That seems to be what people are doing right now -- leaving Usenet
to its own devices. Everybody knows lots of things need fixing, but
nobody is willing to take the first steps.
>I am including some of the answers and comments that people who tried
>to 'converse' with Dave got in the last few days. Maybe YOU understand
>where he's coming from, but I can safely say, many of us don't.
>
>: <3575BBE8...@jetcafe.org>
>: If you are going to exact guilt based on association, then John Grubor
>: is my personal friend and I like him.
Guilt by association makes Dave responsible for everything John
Grubor does just because John Grubor is his friend. Would *you*
like to be judged guilty of everything *your* friends do?
>: <3576353D...@jetcafe.org>
>: What you cannot see is that "honor" demands that you not interfere
>: with someone's action.
I have a real problem with this, because I disapprove of SPUTUM's
publication of the 'hacks' list. If I had had knowledge of this from the
gitgo, I would have tried to talk SPUTUM out of doing it, but I wouldn't
have tried to interfere if they went ahead and did it anyway because
I have net.friends who are members of SPUTUM. This is a real moral
dilemma. I would want to be loyal to my friends, but I would also want
to do what I believe to be "the right thing." Which is more important?
I am still wrestling with that question myself.
Note: A friend is someone who cares for you even when s/he thinks
you are wrong. (i.e., fair weather friends don't count).
>: <35774B2B...@jetcafe.org>
>: Yeah, yeah. Posturing will eventually give you arthiritis of the mind.
>: [or the wrist - ed]
Sometimes we get so fixated on certain ideas that we close our minds
off to everything else. This is another common human affliction, very
difficult to cure.
>: <35774CFF...@jetcafe.org>
>: Chris Westbury wrote:
>: > For starters, the First Amendment doesn't forbid the abridgement of
>: > _speech_. It forbids the abridgement of _freedom_ of speech. In
>: > Meiklejohn's classic formulation, "The First Amendment is not the
>: > guardian of unregulated talkativeness".
>:
>: So that means that talkativeness should be regulated (by your statement,
>: I presume you agree with that, if not please correct me). If that is
>: true, then the standard of regulation must be produced. Any standard
>: of regulation is arbitrary and designed to restrict speech. Any restriction
>: of speech disallows free speech.
>:
>: Semantics are fine, but call a restriction a restriction and admit that you
>: aren't evolved enough for -true- free speech.
I do not completely agree with Dave here. Speech *is* restricted
in the United States with the Supreme Court's blessing. The pecking
order, to the best of my knowledge, is as follows:
a) political speech -- only minimal rules to preserve law and order
b) commercial speech -- may be regulated in the public interest
c) obscenity -- may be banned under certain conditions.
I have a longer quote from Meiklejohn, which I will post if you like.
It may help to clarify Meiklejohn's point of view.
>: <35774FBC...@jetcafe.org>
>: Rebecca Ore wrote:
>: > Have you ever been cancelled in this group by one of us?
This was a trick question. Rebecca knows Dave the Resurrector
watches over the nana.* groups, and that therefore no regular in
this group would dare cancel *any* article posted to this group.
>: I wouldn't know, actually. I don't care to check.
>:
>: > If not, what the devil are you talking about? If so, I can think of ten
>: > despammers right off the bat who'd be happy to get the bozo's account
>: > pulled.
>:
>: I don't -want- their account pulled for cancelling me. I -want- people's
>: accounts to be sacred, and not get pulled for typing arbitrary characters
>: into a message and posting them.
I don't like "pulling plugs" either, and think such acts should be
reserved for the most egregious cases.
>: <35775650...@jetcafe.org>
>: pavanas abludo incusus wrote:
>: > Dave define moral codes.
>:
>: "Those external standards of conduct by which one thinks others should
>: adhere to."
i.e., The Ten Commandments, The Golden Rule, etc., which come
primarily from religion. We also have codes of conduct for various
professional groups (doctors, lawyers, judges, etc.) as well as for
the military forces. These codes of conduct are made by men to
guide the actions of other men as they go about their duties, and
there are penalties for those who break the rules.
>: <357B24F5...@jetcafe.org>
>: rrevved wrote:
>: > 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.
Hindsight being better than foresight, I think it would have been in Dave's
best interest to check out this strange stuff coming into his mailbox from
people he didn't know. Of course, he knows John Grubor and maybe he
felt it was OK on those grounds. Who knows? I do not think this is a vital
question. When he was finally brought into the open by S.P., Dave didn't
seem to be very much impressed and made a number of alternative
suggestions which, SFAIK, John Grubor refused to consider.
>: > I derive the FACT that the revealed list posts show an organized plan to
>: > 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"?
Here, I would agree with Dave. The plan was well on its way, but not
really finalized yet. And the organizers appeared to me to be fairly
well DISorganized.
>: > 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.
Not sure who he's referring to here. Could be that he sees the members
of the list as being controlled by John Grubor "who's own actions are
controlled by illusions." That would make sense to me, except that I
think John Grubor has some very unrealistic DElusions of grandeur.
>: > 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.
Agree. S.P. was wrong to hand over the archive and SPUTUM was
wrong to publish it. This is, again, a moral issue on which reasonable
people may have to agree to disagree. How would *you* feel if the
situation were reversed -- if someone from SPUTUM defected to
Grubor, handed over his archive, and Grubor published it?
>: > If I have a mega-bot and cancel *all* of Usenet, would you put Chris L.
>: > in the same 'canceller' category with me?
>:
>: Yep.
That, I think, is because Dave is opposed to 3rd party cancels.
It does not matter to him that Chris Lewis follows the $alz convention
and is willing to answer for any mistakes he makes. I would have
made a distinction between the two, and would have told the rogue
to follow the guidelines or quit cancelling.
>: <357B32A6...@jetcafe.org>
>:
>: Russ Allbery wrote:
>: > Someday you'll manage to give the same benefit of the doubt to the
>: > anti-spammer side as you give to the spammer side. I have faith.
>:
>: An anti-spammer, by definition, has already lost any benefit that doubt gave
>: them in the first place. Spammers are usually ignorant (at first).
Dave apparently expects the anti-spammers to take the high moral ground,
which some of them have apparently failed to do. Negative behavior on
the part of anti-spammers gives the anti-spam movement a bad name.
>: <357B34F6...@jetcafe.org>
>: Look here.
>:
>: I don't think like anyone else. I never -will- think like anyone else (unless
>: I'm running a simulation, and even then...). I'm an outcast even to the outcasts.
>: It is this condition that gives me a unique insight which most people perceive
>: as contradictory. This doesn't make me better or worse than anyone else,
>: it simply is a condition that can be used to advantage or disadvantage...my
>: choice.
>:
>: If you -really- want to see what I am saying, take two mirrors and face
>: them at each other, then attempt to see the end of the dual-reflections.
>: Then try to see humans as walking mirrors.
I haven't tried to do this yet, cuz I don't have two mirrors. But I
remember seeing a movie once about an astronaut who landed
on a planet just the opposite from his own. I don't remember the
name of the movie, but the people on this left-handed planet
tried to get him back to his own right-handed planet, and it
didn't work. (The assumption is that he crashed somewhere in
space). At the very end of the movie, one of the characters
in a medical ward sees himself in a mirror and rushes (in his
wheelchair) to shake hands. This idea of mirror images may
have something to do with what Dave is talking about.
>: <357B379D...@jetcafe.org>
>: pavanas abludo incusus wrote:
>: > Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> mused and hath written:
>: > >> Dave define moral codes.
>: > >
>: > >"Those external standards of conduct by which one thinks others should adhere
>: > >to."
>: > >
>: >
>: > This places the individual in the position of being the individual's own
>: > higher authority.
>:
>: There are no individuals. It's an illusion.
>:
>: > The default is to be your own king, then?
>:
>: It's never been any other way.
This reminds me of a poem that starts like this (I forget the rest):
"I have to live with myself, and so
I want to be fit for myself to know....."
>: <357B79DC...@jetcafe.org>
>: 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.)
I doubt if the whole thing could have been forged, but it was certainly
possible to change words within sentences. The only way to know for
sure would be to have archives from other members of the list and do
some kind of comparison study. There *are* special investigators
who know how to do this, and there are ways and means of collecting
evidence from someone's hard disk.
>: <357BAFBA...@jetcafe.org>
>: Jeffrey Smith 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.
Dave apparently only recognizes people he has personally met.
Hope this helps,
Henrietta
Hans Chloride
>In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on Sun, 7 Jun 1998 21:34:16 -0600,
>gbys...@tezcat.com (gregory byshenk) wrote:
>
>>Henrietta Thomas <h...@wwa.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If and when he comes back, we need to show him that. We need to
>>> give him a chance to tell his own story in his own words without jumping
>>> on everything he says. The road to peace is in understanding where
>>> the other side is coming from.
>>
>>Two problems here: 1) Dave has told his story, at length, more
>>than once. Unfortunately, it is internally inconsistent and tends
>>to start out "assume infinite bandwidth and the existence of the
>>psychic newsreader" -- which tends to put it out of play rather
>>quickly. 2) Dave tends to assert both that he _can't_ explain
>>where he's coming from, and that the readers of this group _can't_
>>understand it (using "can't" in the sense of "cannot be done").
>
>The readers of this group can understand anything they *want* to
>understand. So I think Mr. Hayes is wrong when he says they
>can't. But since so many readers of this group refuse to talk to
>him, they will never be able to show him that they can.
>
I'd say the readers of this group understand Mr. Hayes pretty well,
but they also understand his method of handling the situation, which
is simply not handling it at all, simply isn't practical. Anytime
anybody attempts to explain this to him, he refuses to acknowledge it
and kinda goes off in all directions. I'm sure more people would talk
to him if he were a bit more reasonable. I haven't killfiled him, I
just kinda think it'd be pointless to try to enter any kind of
productive discussion with him. He's totally on the other side of the
fence from where I am.
I'll concede the fact that I tend to get a bit hysterical at times,
when I see what could be a smoothly functioning thing of beauty
threatening to come apart at the seams. USENET has to be protected
against abuse, or it's going to be more of an mess than it already is.
That it works at all considering what it's subjected to is amazing,
let alone that it works as well as it does. There have to be _some_
limitations on people's behaviour. If you simply let everybody do as
they please, with no sanctions, USENET will turn into a half close to
useless wasteland. It won't die, it'll just become lame and crippled.
You're probably right in that people get a bit too polarized. There
does need to be some compromising on both sides before a truly
workable solution is found. You have to see the validity in the other
party's points when possible, and adjust your thinking and attitudes
accordingly. But this only works when _both_ sides are willing to
play.
HC
Guy Macon
>The difference being that neither of us takes the misreadings personally,
>or at least that's the goal. Makes the somewhat blundering process of
>attempting to communicate philosophical concepts in limited words much
>more enjoyable and less stressful.
What are you, some sort of racist?
Dave Hayes
rrevved wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 00:15:44 GMT, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) wrote:
> >In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on Tue, 09 Jun 1998 17:42:14 GMT,
> >see_a...@my-sig.com (rrevved) wrote:
> >>He thinks that we (and everything in life) are an 'illusion'.
> >
> >Possible. Only God knows for sure. And we don't even know there
> >is a God.
>
> state that he thinks you are an illusion or may be a fake. Henrietta,
> you can't communicate with someone who falls back on that ploy.
Incorrect. She's doing a damn sight better job at communicating with me
than you are.
:)
> If a 'vote' could be taken of current newsgroup users on Usenet as to
> whether they felt that spew and spam are good things and should be protected
> under someone's idea of free speech, the results would be overwhelmingly
> ANTI-spam. With that kind of mandate, I feel that those of us working
> for a Usenet where it is POSSIBLE to communicate are in the right.
> Or at least we represent the majority opinion.
The majority, while defined as being "right" by it's own mass, does not
necessarily always come up with the most appropriate solutions.
> >>He believes that servers have unlimited space
> >Definitely NOT true.
Yep. That's not true for me either. I don't know where ya got this one.
> That's a new one on me. How does he propose to store the unfettered spew
> that would result from no further regulation? I really would like to know.
The error here lies in your mistaken attempt to extend the result of unchecked
spam ad absurdum. It's not possible to have unlimited spam because there
aren't unlimited computers in the world to produce unlimited spam.
Granted, if -every- computer spammed, there would be a problem. Practically
speaking, just how likely is this? Given the rabidity the small vocal anti-spam
minority has, I'd think any sane advertiser would avoid the issue until it's
politically expedient to.
> I really would like to understand why you think this way.
But not why I think my way. Yep. I see you. :)
> He *chose* to accept the invite to the list and participated in it.
Not true, and this is the one facet of this entire thing that pisses me off.
I wasn't invited to the list. I wasn't even asked. All of a sudden this
stuff shows up in my mailbox. I don't generally turn people away (Tim Skirvin
is a notable exception, and that's only cause of his NoCeMs) from my mailbox,
and if there is harm in receving messages I don't see it.
I think you really need to step back a bit and look at the -real- facts,
as in the ones you can verify...not the ones you presume true because yer
SPUTUM buddies jump up and down insisting it is true.
> BTW, I wonder how Dave felt about Hitler's invasion of Poland? After all, no
> one should have interfered with Mr. Hitler's action, per Dave's beliefs...
Hey! I invoke Godwin's Law! :)
> Dave says that the vacuum cleaner salesmen can scream anywhere they want.
No Dave Doesn't.
> Whew.. Henrietta, DAVE HAD A PGH.ORG account, email address and server password.
Eh? Do you have proof of me using that account?
> Each and every message that was posted was downloaded by the members of the list
> after signing on to the PGH.ORG mailserver with passwords granted them by J.Grubor.
> These things didn't fly into their mailboxes, they were retrieved, just as you retreive
> your mail. No different. Dave had a PW to PGH.ORG , and retrieved his mail just
> like the rest of them. This was not U.K.E. (Unsolicited K00K Email).
Oh wow. You've just demonstrated extreme cluelessness here, even by my standards.
Nothing in this paragraph is even remotely accurate. At this point, nothing you
say has any technical weight since you cannot have verifiable proof of this,
which means you are lying or misinformed or both.
> You have to wonder WTF he won't just let us in on his little secret.. :)
You're not ready yet. Clearly.
--
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 should never live in a world where dreams are rarer than money."
-Mathhew Brodrick
Russ Allbery
Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> writes:
> rrevved wrote:
>> He *chose* to accept the invite to the list and participated in it.
> Not true, and this is the one facet of this entire thing that pisses me
> off. I wasn't invited to the list. I wasn't even asked. All of a sudden
> this stuff shows up in my mailbox.
Thought so. This is far more consistent with what I've seen in the past
and the personalities involved than the other posted stories, and hence
I'm far more inclined to believe this until such time as rrevved or
someone else produces proof to the contrary.
Fluffy the Poisonous Cat
rrevved <see_a...@my-sig.com> wrote:
> You are a LIAR. Those messages were only accessible via your PGH.ORG
> mailbox after you accessed the PGH.ORG mailserver, using the PW given to
> you by Grubor.
>
> Think hard... what does this cc list mean to you?
> :Cc: pro...@anus.com, s...@pgh.org, 0...@pgh.org, 8...@pgh.org, a...@pgh.org,
> : bou...@pgh.org, da...@pgh.org, hipc...@pgh.org, r...@pgh.org,
> : scum...@pgh.org, cl...@pgh.org
>
> Why are you lying?
Jumpin' Jehosephat on a pogo stick!
man aliases
Fluffy the Poisonous Cat
flu...@meow.org (Fluffy the Poisonous Cat) wrote:
/*
* rrevved <see_a...@my-sig.com> wrote:
*
* > You are a LIAR. Those messages were only accessible via your PGH.ORG
* > mailbox after you accessed the PGH.ORG mailserver, using the PW given to
* > you by Grubor.
* >
* > Think hard... what does this cc list mean to you?
* > :Cc: pro...@anus.com, s...@pgh.org, 0...@pgh.org, 8...@pgh.org, a...@pgh.org,
* > : bou...@pgh.org, da...@pgh.org, hipc...@pgh.org, r...@pgh.org,
* > : scum...@pgh.org, cl...@pgh.org
* >
* > Why are you lying?
*
* Jumpin' Jehosephat on a pogo stick!
*
* man aliases
*/
Oo, I did sone super-elite haxoring and looky here what I found!
$ telnet pgh.org 25
Trying 198.85.234.183...
Connected to pgh.org.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 www3.localweb.com ESMTP Sendmail 8.8.8/8.8.8; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 08:13:51 -04\00
expn da...@pgh.org
250 <da...@jetcafe.org>
rrevved, you are *SO* *FULL* of shit.
Burntcake
Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
>rrevved wrote:
>> Well, it makes conversation with him rather diffcult, when he can merely
>> state that he thinks you are an illusion or may be a fake. Henrietta,
>> you can't communicate with someone who falls back on that ploy.
>
>Incorrect. She's doing a damn sight better job at communicating with me
>than you are.
capitulation != communication
>> If a 'vote' could be taken of current newsgroup users on Usenet as to
>> whether they felt that spew and spam are good things and should be protected
>> under someone's idea of free speech, the results would be overwhelmingly
>> ANTI-spam. With that kind of mandate, I feel that those of us working
>> for a Usenet where it is POSSIBLE to communicate are in the right.
>> Or at least we represent the majority opinion.
>
>The majority, while defined as being "right" by it's own mass, does not
>necessarily always come up with the most appropriate solutions.
True, but in this case it IS "the most appropriate solution."
>Given the rabidity the small vocal anti-spam
>minority has, I'd think any sane advertiser would avoid the issue until it's
>politically expedient to.
Most users that despise spam don't know where or how
to vocalise their complaints. Spend some time in newsgroups
where the members innocently respond to a spam posting
with polite pleas to not post their crap in their group. These
unwashed masses actually think there's a sane human reading
their request to stop. Seeing that really saddens me and watching
you defend these insane robots that are destroying their newsgroups
really burns my cakes.
It's good that you agree the current spammers are insane.
>> He *chose* to accept the invite to the list and participated in it.
>
>Not true, and this is the one facet of this entire thing that pisses me off.
Stop mincing words. Were you the dave@pgh that wrote
you were "amused" by the rogue cancels or not?
thanks.
Henrietta Thomas
In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on 7 Jun 98 20:43:21 EST,
cwes...@giant.intranet.com (Chris Westbury) wrote:
>In article <357a4f34...@news.wwa.com>,
>h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) wrote:
>>
>> If and when he comes back, we need to show him that.
>
>Dave Hayes is not gone. He's merely enjoying a glorious early-Summer
>weekend, while I'm stuck at work. What's your excuse for wasting such a
>splendid weekend on Usenet?
The weather was not as great here in Chicago as it probably was
where you are in Cambridge, MA. I *did* go out do some shopping,
though, and I took a walk through the park. Maybe next weekend,
I'll do something a little more energetic. :-)
>> We need to give him a chance to tell his own story in his own words
>> without jumping on everything he says.
>
>Mr. Hayes is not in this newsgroup to tell his story. He has already
>laid out his program as clearly as any Western rationalist like me could
>ask. He posts it from time to time, and if it is expired on your
>newsserver as it is on mine, you can always download it from his Web
>site.
I think he should post it again. But I will take a looksee at his site, too.
>He is here for something else, but his principles forbid him to tell you
>what it is. Instead, it is up to you to induce his point from his
>behaviour (or not, as the case may be) because any spiritual
>enlightenment that you do not attain through your own effort is
>inauthentic. Western rationalism is not the only modality of thought.
Well, I am talking to him, anyway, to see if he will be a little
more clear as to what he's talking about. I am perfectly
willing to enlighten myself, providing I do it on my own terms
and in my own way, and providing no one tells me they have
the "right" answers to all questions. And I would agree that
there are other ways of thinking beyond Western rationalism.
>> The road to peace is in understanding where the other side is coming
>> from.
>
>Peace is vastly overrated.
But it's much more fun than war.
>Knowing where the other side is coming from has yet to avert a war, but
>it certainly helps one to achieve the optimum disposition of one's own
>forces.
If that is one's desire, yes. But peace need not be used that way.
>If you don't know where Mr. Hayes is coming from by now, the odds are
>that you never will.
Some people who have known him longer than I apparently still
don't know.
Henrietta
Fluffy the Poisonous Cat
see_a...@my-sig.com (rrevved) wrote:
/*
* *fluffy*
*
* Did you check during Dave's tenure on the 'list'?
*/
Actually, yes. Every once in a while, for no apparent reason, people
on the various FK offshoot lists do forward me odd things. I've done
this expn thing before. Same results.
/*
* When was the alias added?
*/
Quite some time ago, more than a couple months.
/*
* Did you check the logs of pgh.org to determine his presence there,
* then and now?
*/
Didn't need to.
/*
* Did you ask Dave if he is STILL on their list?
*/
I don't need to. Only two days ago I received one of those random
pieces of mail, and the Cc: list was quite similiar to the "hacks"
mail, with a few additions (one, obviously,. was me).
/*
* Do you *not* believe that Dave was invited to be on the list by Dr. Grubor?
*/
I don't believe or disbelieve. I, like Russ, have received mail out
of the blue from some of the people included on the list under
discussion. I find it quite plausible that Grubor would have simply
assumed that it should be sent there.
/*
* Do you *not* believe that Dave was an active participant on the hacks list?
*/
He didn't appear to be very active to me.
/*
* Do you believe Dave's assertion that he just received the U.K.E.
* (unsolicited k00K email) in his jetcafe email with no knowledge of
* why or how it got there?
*/
Sure. As I said, it's happened to me.
/*
* Do you believe that Dave was capable of asking that he be *removed*
* from the pgh.org cc:?
*/
Sure, but why?
/*
* Do you believe he would have remained on the list, which discussed,
* planned and DOS attacks and newsgroup terrorism, if he had no interest
* in these topics?
*/
Sure. I've been on mailing lists where I've stongly opposed the
activities being discussed, even considered dropping those lists. I
decided it might be better to try to get a word of reason in edgewise.
Occasionally, I'm even heard.
/*
* Do you believe that Dave *never* retreived his mail from the pgh.org
* mailserver with his PW?
*/
If it was being forwarded to his jetcafe address, there would have
been no mail on the localweb server to retrieve. QED.
/*
* Would you believe that I would have called him a liar without info
* to back it up?
*/
Yes.
Russ Allbery
Burntcake <burn...@aol.com> writes:
> Stop mincing words. Were you the dave@pgh that wrote you were "amused"
> by the rogue cancels or not?
*I'm* amused by rogue cancels from time to time. The whole mess Deeter
got himself into trying to cancel articles out of news.announce.newgroups
was downright funny. "Amused by" != "agree with".
Chris Westbury
In article <1da99xq.8ot...@gbyshenk.tezcat.com>,
gbys...@tezcat.com (gregory byshenk) wrote:
>
> Dave tends to assert both that he _can't_ explain where he's coming
> from, and that the readers of this group _can't_ understand it (using
> "can't" in the sense of "cannot be done").
One more time.
Dave Hayes is perfectly able to explain where he's coming from, as
clearly as any Western rationalist like me could ask, and he has done it
before.
However, he is not here to _explain_ where he's coming from. He is here
for something else, and it is that something else which he can't explain
(using "can't" in the sense of "his principles forbid him to tell you").
One relevant principle, is the rather familiar one that in order to learn
anything, you have to struggle with it personally. It does you no good
if he just _tells_ you the answer. Any spiritual enlightenment that you
do not attain by your own act of will is inauthentic.
Another relevant principle is the rather unfamiliar one that you can't
learn anything from words, you have to "see" it or it doesn't count. So,
when someone says "Tell me", Mr. Hayes _shows_ him instead.
Of course, he doesn't _tell_ you he's showing you, because that also
would be against his principles! You have to figure it out. Or not.
It's up to you.
The questioner is listening hard, but he does not hear any answer,
because it was not spoken; the answer is right in front of his eyes, but
he is so busy listening that his eyes are squinched shut. So the
questioner says "Tell me" over and over, and Mr. Hayes shows him over and
over, until either the questioner gets so frustrated at not hearing any
answer that he breaks into vituperation or (more rarely) Mr. Hayes gets
so frustrated at the questioner's self-imposed blindness that he breaks
away for a while to center himself again.
Mind you, the answer itself is irrelevant! The point of the exercise is
not to give you an answer but to trick you into opening your eyes. The
answer is merely the bait, used because Western rationalists have been
known to seek after answers.
It's also true that many of the readers of this newsgroup (including me)
can't seem to understand (using "can't" in the sense of "haven't so far,
despite being shown billions and billions of times, at least it seems
like billions").
Dave Hayes
rrevved wrote:
> >> >In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on Tue, 09 Jun 1998 17:42:14 GMT,
> >> >see_a...@my-sig.com (rrevved) wrote:
> >> >>He thinks that we (and everything in life) are an 'illusion'.
> >> >
> >> >Possible. Only God knows for sure. And we don't even know there
> >> >is a God.
> >>
> >> state that he thinks you are an illusion or may be a fake. Henrietta,
> >> you can't communicate with someone who falls back on that ploy.
> >
> >Incorrect. She's doing a damn sight better job at communicating with me
> >than you are.
> >
> >
>
> You don't believe that Henrietta is an illusion? Where's your consistency?
Oh I do believe she and everything else is an illusion. This does not mean that
I don't want to play the game, this merely puts a sobering perspective on the
game
itself.
> >> If a 'vote' could be taken of current newsgroup users on Usenet as to
> >> whether they felt that spew and spam are good things and should be protected
> >> under someone's idea of free speech, the results would be overwhelmingly
> >> ANTI-spam. With that kind of mandate, I feel that those of us working
> >> for a Usenet where it is POSSIBLE to communicate are in the right.
> >> Or at least we represent the majority opinion.
> >
> >The majority, while defined as being "right" by it's own mass, does not
> >necessarily always come up with the most appropriate solutions.
>
> Dave why did you snip the next few lines of my post where I supported the
> equal rights of the minority?
I saw no need to respond to it?
> >> >>He believes that servers have unlimited space
> >> >Definitely NOT true.
> >
> >Yep. That's not true for me either. I don't know where ya got this one.
>
> Where would the unchecked spew reside?
> (in simple child-like terms, please..humor me)
-What- unchecked spew? My servers will be and are in some cases designed to
prevent
spew from entering the system in the first place, using content-blind
methodologies.
> >> That's a new one on me. How does he propose to store the unfettered spew
> >> that would result from no further regulation? I really would like to know.
> >
> >The error here lies in your mistaken attempt to extend the result of unchecked
> >spam ad absurdum. It's not possible to have unlimited spam because there
> >aren't unlimited computers in the world to produce unlimited spam.
>
> Unlimited in the sense that Usenet would become unlimited-ly dead.
>
> >Granted, if -every- computer spammed, there would be a problem. Practically
> >speaking, just how likely is this?
>
> How about .1% of the millions of computers spamming and spewing, unchecked?
NNRP posting backoff takes care of this case.
> >Given the rabidity the small vocal anti-spam
> >minority has, I'd think any sane advertiser would avoid the issue until it's
> >politically expedient to.
> Why? If they are allowed to spam freely, what's to wait for?
The "internet backlash" (a term actually used by corporate america these
days, not just us net.people) to subside. It's very real to them, regardless
of your willingness to accept that they think it's real.
> >> He *chose* to accept the invite to the list and participated in it.
> >Not true, and this is the one facet of this entire thing that pisses me off.
> >I wasn't invited to the list. I wasn't even asked. All of a sudden this
> >stuff shows up in my mailbox. I don't generally turn people away (Tim Skirvin
> >is a notable exception, and that's only cause of his NoCeMs) from my mailbox,
> >and if there is harm in receving messages I don't see it.
> You are a LIAR. Those messages were only accessible via your PGH.ORG
> mailbox after you accessed the PGH.ORG mailserver, using the PW given to
> you by Grubor.
Dude, back at you. You are clearly lying, since I know the events as they
happend.
You are making your position worse in my eyes.
> Think hard... what does this cc list mean to you?
> :Cc: pro...@anus.com, s...@pgh.org, 0...@pgh.org, 8...@pgh.org, a...@pgh.org,
It means that there are a bunch of aliases or .forward files on pgh.org which
is -really- another machine?
> Why are you lying?
I'm not. You are. I'm still giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are
misinformed.
> You don't expect us to believe you were the victim of U.K.E. (Unsolicited K00K Email)
> while you unknowingly happened to be on the PGH.ORG mailserver, do you?
> How stupid do you think everyone is??
You are at least stupid enough to try and dupe a real network administrator.
> >Nothing in this paragraph is even remotely accurate. At this point, nothing you
> >say has any technical weight since you cannot have verifiable proof of this,
> >which means you are lying or misinformed or both.
> Clueless? Why?
> Inaccurate? Nope.
> Proof? Watch out what you ask for, you may get it.
Go for it. In fact, I will not be responding to any more of your articles until
you either retract your unfounded accusations or manifest proof 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
Self justification is worse than the the original transgression.
Dave Hayes
rrevved wrote:
> Meee tooo, and that goes for my SPUTUM affiliation. If I am
> convinced that Dave has a better idea for saving the utility of Usenet
> than SPUTUM, and SPUTUM doesn't respond, I'm outta SPUTUM and
> will immediately join the 'I Love Dave' corps.
WHOA right thar pardner.
That's precisely why I constructed the Freedom Knight FAQs like I did.
I do NOT want a "I Love Dave" corps. I do not want to be anyone's pariah
or messaih. I do not want people to count what I say as gospel just because
I say it, nor do I want them to discount what I say as evil just because
I say it.
Presuming I can get what I want, I want people to think for themselves.
> I just don't understand "Dave's Way (tm)".
What about "rrevved"'s way? Why not understand that first?
> I predict that no one will ever *fully* 'understand' Dave.
Of course not. No one will ever fully understand anyone else.
--
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 bread looks like depends upon whether you are hungry or not.
Burntcake
cwes...@giant.intranet.com (Chris Westbury) wrote:
>Mind you, the answer itself is irrelevant! The point of the exercise is
>not to give you an answer but to trick you into opening your eyes. The
>answer is merely the bait, used because Western rationalists have been
>known to seek after answers.
Well so do Eastern irrationalists and all that other cosmic debris.
The bottom line is that hayes wants to allow spammers to
destroy USENET and the rest of the folks don't. No need to
drag in Mao, Marx, Gandhi, Budda or any other space-cadet
distractions. It may be masterbatory, but it serves no logical
purpose.
Henrietta Thomas
The article is so long, I'm just going to respond to what I think
are the most important points:
In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on Wed, 10 Jun 1998 09:02:19 GMT,
see_a...@my-sig.com (rrevved) wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 00:15:44 GMT, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) wrote:
>
>>In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on Tue, 09 Jun 1998 17:42:14 GMT,
>>see_a...@my-sig.com (rrevved) wrote:
speaking of Dave....
>>>He believes that servers have unlimited space
>>
>>Definitely NOT true.
>>
>That's a new one on me. How does he propose to store the unfettered spew
>that would result from no further regulation? I really would like to know.
You misread my statement. I was saying that it is NOT true that servers
have unlimited space. IOW, I was disagreeing with Dave.
I have no idea how he would store the "unfettered spew" -- that's one
of the questions I want to ask him if I get a chance.
>>>and that people who attempt to use the newsgroups have
>>>unlimited patience.
>>
>>Also NOT true.
>>
>
>Help me with this one. I don't get it. Do you not believe that newsgroups
>would fill up with off-topic, multi-posted spew of all kinds if Dave had his way?
>I do.
Again, you misread me. I was disagreeing with Dave. I do not believe
people have unlimited patience. There's another thread here about
Dr. Doug/Dr. Dork which clearly indicates that the folks in soc.singles
do NOT like being spammed. They did show patience at first, but ran
out of it after the spammer gave them a hard time.
As to the other question, I think I would need to know more about how
Dave handles his news server to avoid being inundated with spam.
[snip].....
>My mind is open. I would like to know why you feel that Dave's solution
>to the ills of Usenet, (allowing it to fix itself) has any merit of any kind.
I do not think Usenet should be required to "fix itself," but as I stated
in another thread, I think that's pretty much what's happening already.
People in positions of influence know Usenet is broken, but nobody
knows how to fix it, so everything just drifts. Usenet is a rudderless
ship without a captain or a crew.
[snip]....
>If you scream vacuum cleaner ads in a movie theatre, you will be tossed out
>in any jurisdiction in America, or the world for that matter. That's because
>the medium becomes unusable when the screaming begins. That vacuum cleaner
>salesman has a right to market his product, yet society has told him that he
>can't do it, if it damages the rights of the patrons, or renders the medium unusable.
>
>Dave says that the vacuum cleaner salesmen can scream anywhere they want.
>
>Why is Usenet any different? Please think about this and tell me your thoughts.
>If you can't recognize this analogy, we are so far apart as to make our conversation
>useless.
The key word here appears to be "screaming." It need not be a vacuum
cleaner salesman. It could be anybody making any kind of noise that
disturbs the audience. These kinds of people will be ejected from the
theater by the ushers.
It follows, then, that Usenet may have "ushers' who have authority to
eject disruptive posts from newsgroups. These "ushers" would be
either retromoderators of the unmoderated groups or spamcancellers
like Cosmo Roadkill, who basically cancels articles which have already
been posted.
Going back to the theater, though, I wonder how the salesman got
in there in the first place. Wasn't there anyone in the lobby who could
have kept him out? A doorman, perhaps? This would have avoided
the problem of having to eject him after he disturbed the audience.
This "doorman" would be the moderator of a moderated group or
a spamcanceller like <spam...@pacbell.net>, who tries not let any
spam get off of any open server.
Dave is opposed to these methods because he thinks they violate
the principles of free speech. I am opposed because I think they
haven't solved the problem. But right now, it's all we've got, and so
I have to live with it until we can come up with better ways of doing
things. Dave apparently thinks he knows some better ways, and
I would like to know what they are. So I am willing to talk with him
to see if I can find common ground. This does not mean I agree
with everything he says.
Henrietta
? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
>cwes...@giant.intranet.com (Chris Westbury) wrote:
>>Mind you, the answer itself is irrelevant! The point of the exercise is
>>not to give you an answer but to trick you into opening your eyes. The
>>answer is merely the bait, used because Western rationalists have been
>>known to seek after answers.
>Well so do Eastern irrationalists and all that other cosmic debris.
>The bottom line is that hayes wants to allow spammers to
>destroy USENET and the rest of the folks don't.
If you think this then you don't understand Mr Hayes. If he wished to do
this why did he create the exponialial backoff system[1]. What he is
worrying about is something that may be more inportent then spam, that is
the nature of free speech, enlightenment and the quest to be a better
person.
The problem is because Mr Hayes dosn't support spam canceleration [2] and
limmit server based filters to a strict content-blind/nutrial form peaple
think that he is prospam.
In addtion peaple seem to dislike his "redefintion" of words, however
often the way he redefinse words seems to just be a means of correcting
his argument so that it dosn't lead to the missunderstanding peaple come
up with.
Further to this I actuly like the way he defines "Censorship", "Ethics",
"Morals" and "Responsibility". Indeed philosphicly his meanings for these
words are quite neet.
Personaly I don't have the faith in humainities ability to act in a
responable mannor that Mr Hayes posseses however that dose legitmise the
actions taken by some peaple on this newsgroup.
[1] If it dose or dosn't work is beside the point. The fact that he
created a system that was intended to limmit spam prooves that his intents
are other then allowing spam to take over Usenet.
[2] Which is becomming more popular these days due to the volume of
cancels.
--
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
Information Security
PlatPlatPlatPlatPlatypus wrote:
: >>Mind you, the answer itself is irrelevant! The point of the exercise is
: >>not to give you an answer but to trick you into opening your eyes. The
: >>answer is merely the bait, used because Western rationalists have been
: >>known to seek after answers.
: >Well so do Eastern irrationalists and all that other cosmic debris.
: >The bottom line is that hayes wants to allow spammers to
: >destroy USENET and the rest of the folks don't.
: If you think this then you don't understand Mr Hayes. If he wished to do
: this why did he create the exponialial backoff system[1].
It is historically consistent that the most pro abuse people
are also the most technically proficient and simultaneuosly
helpful in building anti-abuse mechanisms.
For example, the Vulis.
Highly knowledgeable, helpful to Igor in designing group moderation
software, yet a flaming telepath bent on destroying everything when
Dr. Jekyll becomes Mr. Hyde - when the Vulis becomes the Golem.
Similarly, Greg Fluffholio: highly knowledgeable of Usenet groups
and news software and answering questions for people thereon, but
also a flaming telepath who chooses groups to invade for petty
retribution reasons, crossposting destructively against groups
signal-to-noise ratios.
Hayes "infiltrated" Earthlink's abuse department with his anti-abuse
Usenet posting software, to the point that when SP started posting,
Earthlink abuse replied they would "talk with Dave Hayes" to get
a grip on the situation.
We know what Hayes' thinks of SP posting in obsessive-compulsive mode.
He loves it.
And then there are the lesser kooks like meow meow Henrietta meow Thomas.
She's working hard on resurrecting the us.* hierarchy, and is a strong
civility advocate, yet simultaneously she'll be very uncivil by sending
a false complaint (to my ISP) and be entirely uncaring that the complaint
WAS COMPLETELY FALSE. Do as she says, but not as she does...she even
posted in a "fuckhead" cascade here in NANAU recently.
---guy, Vulis Terminator
KABLAMMO! dm.com was gone...Vulis never to post in his own name again
Information Security
Henrietta Thomas <h...@wwa.com> wrote:
: see_a...@my-sig.com (rrevved) wrote:
: >I am including some of the answers and comments that people who tried
: >to 'converse' with Dave got in the last few days. Maybe YOU understand
: >where he's coming from, but I can safely say, many of us don't.
: >
: >: <3575BBE8...@jetcafe.org>
: >: If you are going to exact guilt based on association, then John Grubor
: >: is my personal friend and I like him.
: Guilt by association makes Dave responsible for everything John
: Grubor does just because John Grubor is his friend. Would *you*
: like to be judged guilty of everything *your* friends do?
It's called hanging out with a bad crowd.
Ever hear of the concept?
Try subscribing to his "Freedum Knights" mailing list.
: I disapprove of SPUTUM's publication of the 'hacks' list.
Your approval is irrelevant.
: Note: A friend is someone who cares for you even when s/he thinks
: you are wrong.
You're wrong to make false abuse claims.
: Sometimes we get so fixated on certain ideas that we close our minds
: off to everything else. This is another common human affliction, very
: difficult to cure.
<snerkle PKB>
: >: I don't -want- their account pulled for cancelling me. I -want- people's
: >: accounts to be sacred, and not get pulled for typing arbitrary characters
: >: into a message and posting them.
: I don't like "pulling plugs" either, and think such acts should be
: reserved for the most egregious cases.
Ahem. False complaints to ISPs...
: >: "Those external standards of conduct by which one thinks others should
: >: adhere to."
: i.e., The Ten Commandments, The Golden Rule, etc., which come
: primarily from religion.
And plutonium.
: >: 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.
: Agree. S.P. was wrong to hand over the archive and SPUTUM was
: wrong to publish it.
The same thing SP did to us - publish private email.
: ...Dave is opposed to 3rd party cancels.
: It does not matter to him that Chris Lewis follows the $alz convention
: and is willing to answer for any mistakes he makes. I would have
: made a distinction between the two, and would have told the rogue
: to follow the guidelines or quit cancelling.
Why don't *you* take up this neverending "conversation" with Dave,
instead of telling everyone else to do it?
---guy
Archimedes Plutonium: One day he'll kill the president of Dartmouth College.
Jeffrey Smith
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998 08:02:34 GMT, see_a...@my-sig.com (rrevved)
wrote:
>It has a sort of rudder with Chris Lewis/Spamless/Cosmo and others
>assistance, but like you I would like a more permanent solution to ensuring
>the future viablity of the newsgroups. Dave's ?method? appears to me, and
>others, to merely allow anyone to do what feels good with no rules of any kind.
>If Dave's ?plan? has *any* rules of behavior, he hasn't told me so.
You can't understand Dave's plan, because 'words aren't an effective
means of communication'. Of course, that means no one but DAVE can
understand his plan either....
**** **** **** ****
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/
Information Security
Fluffy the Poisonous Cat <flu...@meow.org> wrote:
: see_a...@my-sig.com (rrevved) wrote:
: /*
: * Do you believe he would have remained on the list, which discussed,
: * planned and DOS attacks and newsgroup terrorism, if he had no interest
: * in these topics?
: */
: Sure. I've been on mailing lists where I've stongly opposed the
: activities being discussed, even considered dropping those lists. I
: decided it might be better to try to get a word of reason in edgewise.
<snicker!>
Ah, yes, Greg Fluffholio: the voice of reason. <FART>
Information Security
Henrietta Thomas <h...@wwa.com> wrote:
: Well, I am talking to him, anyway, to see if he will be a little
: more clear as to what he's talking about.
Hayes stated you were an illusion.
Grubor wants to fuck you live on the Net.
Boursy wants to see Rebecca added to the live mix.
Any questions?
No, Boursy can't actually type with his penis.
Sam
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <6loter$7...@news1.panix.com>, <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:
>software, yet a flaming telepath bent on destroying everything when
"Telepath"??? Sociopath, probably, but definitely not a telepath.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Peaks/5799/ for public key.
iQEVAwUBNYBN55laALjSq209AQHjnwf+LWl5swVUutWffNJ+yx/P4cWobnXPDD2o
Hw+ZQZ2+CkGOA7lBJMBkKcBhRHjVVSeHT9vvkUyS2TuAJrhkQz0AcnwqjMlw49qu
NfrEtXUmsl9kLD3Cc5lKJlsTBwMHMqq+5Qwho+bEy/qygLzgJnk5NcB+5fRU1Jwe
7s1Y0LEjcMHC9bFvApuXBeqTezsnl04rfPTEvbwZDtIP0ydWCioc1dZ8bLXCm1iF
K7nYYOvxQKNSjwgY4Owb6AsiXvdXPXA50hFCCyWaD/s/7qt0Sk/JM0hCzcEDp0f1
b9gF0l/K7TLAfTIXjN9lo9AIsC0y8M39h9H2zm7ojYFiXCM8kB1pTg==
=OLxD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rebecca Ore
see_a...@my-sig.com (rrevved) writes:
>
> Dave, I have been unable to double-verify through a second source in the matter
> of whether you actually signed on to PGH.ORG to retrieve your mail from the
> 'Grubor hacks list'.
>
> For making that statement and for accusing you of being a liar, in that instance,
> I am sorry and I apologize profusely. I am very serious. I don't like being accused
> of activity which can't be positively verified and I am sure you feel the same.
>
> I apologize.
Some of us have been trying to tell Dave that we're not like
the Sputum Units. You've proved that those of us doing that also fell
for a stereotype that you've proved wrong.
I also apologize.
Perhaps a dialogue or several of them will be posssible now.
I hope so.
--
Rebecca Ore
Wilhelm Reich
<T...@NSA.sucks> Information Security wrote:
-
-Henrietta Thomas <h...@wwa.com> wrote:
-
-: Well, I am talking to him, anyway, to see if he will be a little
-: more clear as to what he's talking about.
-
-Hayes stated you were an illusion.
-
-Grubor wants to fuck you live on the Net.
-
-Boursy wants to see Rebecca added to the live mix.
-
-Any questions?
-
-No, Boursy can't actually type with his penis.
Sure I can--do it all the time. Had to buy one of those
special keyboards with the large keys though.
Steve
news.admin.censorship
Information Security
Sam <sam...@dpinc.ml.org> wrote:
: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
: In article <6loter$7...@news1.panix.com>, <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:
: >software, yet a flaming telepath bent on destroying everything when
: "Telepath"??? Sociopath, probably, but definitely not a telepath.
"Flaming Telepath"...doesn't refer to real telepaths: it is not a
term of endearment, from the Blue Oyster Cult album "Secret Treaties".
A classic heavy-metal album.
"Yes I know the secrets of the circuitry mind,
it's a flaming wonder telepath"
Yep: that's the Vulis...a flaming wonder telepath. Way way out there.
Other songs include Cagey Cretins, Subhuman, Dominance and Submission,
ME 262, Harvester of Eyes, and of course, Astronomy.
Well worth picking up if you don't have it.
Henrietta Thomas
In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on 11 Jun 1998 18:30:19 GMT,
<T...@NSA.sucks> Information Security wrote:
>Henrietta Thomas <h...@wwa.com> wrote:
>
>: Well, I am talking to him, anyway, to see if he will be a little
>: more clear as to what he's talking about.
>
>Hayes stated you were an illusion.
He may be right. Who knows? No one in this newsgroup has
ever seen me face to face.
>Grubor wants to fuck you live on the Net.
That was his way of avoiding the questions I asked. He knows
very well I would never even respond to such a suggestion, let
alone go along with it.
>Boursy wants to see Rebecca added to the live mix.
Ditto. Boursy was helping Grubor evade the questions.
A couple o' two-bit comedians.
>Any questions?
Yes, but you can't answer them. So you might as well stop
following me around.
Sam
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <6lpvlh$g...@news1.panix.com>,
<T...@NSA.sucks> Information Security writes:
> Other songs include Cagey Cretins, Subhuman, Dominance and Submission,
> ME 262, Harvester of Eyes, and of course, Astronomy.
>
> Well worth picking up if you don't have it.
Thanks for the recommendation (and the clarification), but I'm afraid I
don't have the requisite amount of antacid, at hand, to be able to digest
something like that.
I think I'll just stick to classical pop rock. Easier on the stomach,
easier on the ears.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBNYCekZlaALjSq209AQGUSwf/X00+VlMjpVGncmr6maKQlV3BYprtlXjN
7dlstWKCHSiyf5CdW1aERk7lMEnAXyN/GlAsV+YX3KnHRS2vIWikRcbyJouRxVBt
lCf/XTEYpHXB+BXDIa9IJql7q5rdoSdCmX++NSMtKvI0q1uRsc9E21SwavTuXYf2
MAmSpioXfTEd3NTfRyO+cL93wMi5XgqHCH5ASuYASBlLrv4qzSy0EFF0AmNsYQnR
SN9rzP91LvYlTntWGqy0BlsaWpXHb1RAanC+bR8I8XrZ4AhWGhe3Dju6WtkGbeyn
hXJ7pQ3mjH9MsfldDRnKibMOitYXzFPeLbyFgg5zo0RNg/pmfDlGRQ==
=REqL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dave Hayes
rrevved wrote:
> Dave, I have been unable to double-verify through a second source in the matter
> of whether you actually signed on to PGH.ORG to retrieve your mail from the
> 'Grubor hacks list'.
>
> For making that statement and for accusing you of being a liar, in that instance,
> I am sorry and I apologize profusely. I am very serious. I don't like being accused
> of activity which can't be positively verified and I am sure you feel the same.
>
> I apologize.
Apology accepted. :)
> For now, from your posts, I assume that your position is that you unwittingly
> received the mail from the 'Grubor hacks list' through an alias, or other mechanism,
> at PGH.ORG and that you did not attempt to remove yourself from the 'Grubor hacks list'
> of which you are a member to this day.
"Not getting involved" actually -does- mean doing nothing.
While it is my entertainment to post to newsgroups, I don't have time for the
rest of the BS...as I told S.P.
--
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
It is our ability to act as ourselves, freely and of our own choosing,
that is the greatest gift to mankind; my Creator, the sole being in the
universe who legitimately had power over me, gave me that power freely
in order to enable me to become what I am. -- Russ Allbery
König Preuße, GmbH
Rebecca Ore wrote:
> see_a...@my-sig.com (rrevved) writes:
>
> >
> > Dave, I have been unable to double-verify through a second source in the matter
> > of whether you actually signed on to PGH.ORG to retrieve your mail from the
> > 'Grubor hacks list'.
> >
> > For making that statement and for accusing you of being a liar, in that instance,
> > I am sorry and I apologize profusely. I am very serious. I don't like being accused
> > of activity which can't be positively verified and I am sure you feel the same.
> >
> > I apologize.
>
> Some of us have been trying to tell Dave that we're not like
> the Sputum Units. You've proved that those of us doing that also fell
> for a stereotype that you've proved wrong.
>
> I also apologize.
>
> Perhaps a dialogue or several of them will be posssible now.
>
> I hope so.
>
> --Yes.
We must make the Internet safe for nigger-loving lesbians
> Rebecca Ore
Rebecca Ore
"König Preuße, GmbH" <bbom...@erols.com> writes:
> > --Yes.
>
> We must make the Internet safe for nigger-loving lesbians
>
Just because you didn't get laid that weekend.....
--
Rebecca
Who still wonders vaguely if you're a spy for Sputum
but who has nothing to hide, so I'll still see you on the Fourth.
Information Security
Henrietta Thomas <h...@wwa.com> wrote:
: In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on 11 Jun 1998 18:30:19 GMT,
: <T...@NSA.sucks> Information Security wrote:
: >Henrietta Thomas <h...@wwa.com> wrote:
: >
: >: Well, I am talking to him, anyway, to see if he will be a little
: >: more clear as to what he's talking about.
: >
: >Hayes stated you were an illusion.
: He may be right. Who knows? No one in this newsgroup has
: ever seen me face to face.
: >Grubor wants to fuck you live on the Net.
: That was his way of avoiding the questions I asked.
Henrietta, you're overdoing this "charity viewpoint" thing.
Grubor meant it.
Henrietta Thomas
In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on 12 Jun 1998 14:04:40 GMT,
<T...@NSA.sucks> Information Security wrote:
>Henrietta Thomas <h...@wwa.com> wrote:
>: In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on 11 Jun 1998 18:30:19 GMT,
>: <T...@NSA.sucks> Information Security wrote:
>: >Grubor wants to fuck you live on the Net.
>
>: That was his way of avoiding the questions I asked.
>
>Henrietta, you're overdoing this "charity viewpoint" thing.
>
>Grubor meant it.
Doesn't change the fact that he said it on purpose to avoid
answering my questions. He knew what my reaction would
be in advance.
Henrietta
Henrietta Thomas
In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on Thu, 11 Jun 1998 08:02:34 GMT,
see_a...@my-sig.com (rrevved) wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Jun 1998 07:13:37 GMT, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) wrote:
>
>>The article is so long, I'm just going to respond to what I think
>>are the most important points:
>>
>>In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on Wed, 10 Jun 1998 09:02:19 GMT,
>>see_a...@my-sig.com (rrevved) wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 00:15:44 GMT, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on Tue, 09 Jun 1998 17:42:14 GMT,
>>>>see_a...@my-sig.com (rrevved) wrote:
>>
>>speaking of Dave....
>>
>>>>>He believes that servers have unlimited space
>>>>
>>>>Definitely NOT true.
>>>>
>>>That's a new one on me. How does he propose to store the unfettered spew
>>>that would result from no further regulation? I really would like to know.
>>
>>You misread my statement. I was saying that it is NOT true that servers
>>have unlimited space. IOW, I was disagreeing with Dave.
>>
>
>Oh! Sorry.
No problem. It is easy to misread a post and get the wrong
impression of what the other person is saying.
>>I have no idea how he would store the "unfettered spew" -- that's one
>>of the questions I want to ask him if I get a chance.
>>
>
>I haven't a clue either and many have tried to pry this info from him
>to no avail.
>
>>>>>and that people who attempt to use the newsgroups have
>>>>>unlimited patience.
>>>>
>>>>Also NOT true.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Help me with this one. I don't get it. Do you not believe that newsgroups
>>>would fill up with off-topic, multi-posted spew of all kinds if Dave had his way?
>>>I do.
>>
>>Again, you misread me. I was disagreeing with Dave. I do not believe
>>people have unlimited patience. There's another thread here about
>>Dr. Doug/Dr. Dork which clearly indicates that the folks in soc.singles
>>do NOT like being spammed. They did show patience at first, but ran
>>out of it after the spammer gave them a hard time.
>>
>>As to the other question, I think I would need to know more about how
>>Dave handles his news server to avoid being inundated with spam.
>>
>
>Why don't you (try) to get that info from him? FWIW, he said in another
>thread that you, too, were just an imaginary entity.
>
>I consider you a real, breathing person, FWIW.
Well, FYI, I *am* a real, breathing person, but Dave appears to be
the kind of guy who doesn't believe anything until and unless he can
see it for himself. He is skeptical of some of the "people" he meets
on Usenet. That is not a bad idea sometimes, when you stop and
think of all the trolls floating around this place.
>>[snip].....
>>
>>>My mind is open. I would like to know why you feel that Dave's solution
>>>to the ills of Usenet, (allowing it to fix itself) has any merit of any kind.
>>
>>I do not think Usenet should be required to "fix itself," but as I stated
>>in another thread, I think that's pretty much what's happening already.
>>People in positions of influence know Usenet is broken, but nobody
>>knows how to fix it, so everything just drifts. Usenet is a rudderless
>>ship without a captain or a crew.
>>
>
>It has a sort of rudder with Chris Lewis/Spamless/Cosmo and others
>assistance, but like you I would like a more permanent solution to ensuring
>the future viablity of the newsgroups. Dave's ?method? appears to me, and
>others, to merely allow anyone to do what feels good with no rules of any kind.
>If Dave's ?plan? has *any* rules of behavior, he hasn't told me so.
He hasn't told anybody much of anything. But he *is* talking to a few people
now who are better qualified than I to discuss technical matters. I am
hopeful that he will communicate with them in terms they can understand.
Then maybe we will make more progress in understanding his "plan."
>>[snip]....
>>
>>>If you scream vacuum cleaner ads in a movie theatre, you will be tossed out
>>>in any jurisdiction in America, or the world for that matter. That's because
>>>the medium becomes unusable when the screaming begins. That vacuum cleaner
>>>salesman has a right to market his product, yet society has told him that he
>>>can't do it, if it damages the rights of the patrons, or renders the medium unusable.
>>>
>>>Dave says that the vacuum cleaner salesmen can scream anywhere they want.
>>>
>>>Why is Usenet any different? Please think about this and tell me your thoughts.
>>>If you can't recognize this analogy, we are so far apart as to make our conversation
>>>useless.
>>
>>The key word here appears to be "screaming." It need not be a vacuum
>>cleaner salesman. It could be anybody making any kind of noise that
>>disturbs the audience. These kinds of people will be ejected from the
>>theater by the ushers.
>>
>
>RIGHT ON!! If this is the case, Henrietta, how can *anyone* ally themselves
>with people who think that this disruptive activity is permissible?
>I am speaking now of the so-called Freedom Knights which INCLUDE D.Hayes?
I do not think Dave Hayes *allied* himself with them. Even in the archive,
SP clearly states that Dave "more or less condemned" what they were
planning to do. Dave's own words confirm that to me. He made several
suggestions to them of other things they might do, and made it quite
clear he had no interest in destroying Usenet or "killing" Chris Lewis.
>>It follows, then, that Usenet may have "ushers' who have authority to
>>eject disruptive posts from newsgroups. These "ushers" would be
>>either retromoderators of the unmoderated groups or spamcancellers
>>like Cosmo Roadkill, who basically cancels articles which have already
>>been posted.
>>
>
>Agreed!
>But the Freedom Knights and Dave Hayes VEHEMENTLY disagree.
I am not so sure of that. Dave doesn't think cancels are the answer.
A lot of people, despammers included, agree. This is why they are
pushing for ISPs to filter. Dave may be helpful in this regard if he
will tell Russ and other technical people how he runs his own news
server to eliminate the crap (if that is, in fact, what he does).
>>Going back to the theater, though, I wonder how the salesman got
>>in there in the first place. Wasn't there anyone in the lobby who could
>>have kept him out? A doorman, perhaps? This would have avoided
>>the problem of having to eject him after he disturbed the audience.
>>This "doorman" would be the moderator of a moderated group or
>>a spamcanceller like <spam...@pacbell.net>, who tries not let any
>>spam get off of any open server.
>>
>
>Good idea, but I wish there was a way to allow everyone to have access
>to open and free communication on topics they enjoy. This, though, is
>probably as much of a pipe dream as Dave's ?ideas?.
All things are possible to those who have faith. We just haven't found
the right formula yet. And we're stuck with a system that no longer
works "the way it used to be."
>Sadly, we may be seeing the dawn of many moderated groups, but if it
>saves the medium, I'm for it. Count me in.
I would not support moderation for the sake of moderation, but I do
agree there is a trend in that direction.
>>Dave is opposed to these methods because he thinks they violate
>>the principles of free speech. I am opposed because I think they
>>haven't solved the problem. But right now, it's all we've got, and so
>>I have to live with it until we can come up with better ways of doing
>>things.
>
>Yep.
>
>>Dave apparently thinks he knows some better ways, and
>>I would like to know what they are.
>
>So would lots of us.
>
>>So I am willing to talk with him
>>to see if I can find common ground. This does not mean I agree
>>with everything he says.
>>
>
>Please let us know what you find out.. :)
You will probably not hear it from me, but from some more technically
qualified person. Stay tuned.......
Henrietta
Jeffrey Smith
On Fri, 12 Jun 1998 18:03:24 GMT, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas)
wrote:
>Well, FYI, I *am* a real, breathing person, but Dave appears to be
>the kind of guy who doesn't believe anything until and unless he can
>see it for himself. He is skeptical of some of the "people" he meets
>on Usenet. That is not a bad idea sometimes, when you stop and
>think of all the trolls floating around this place.
...but, like all good ideas, can be taken to extremes...
Rebecca Ore
Pr...@ni.net (Jeffrey Smith) writes:
>
> You can't understand Dave's plan, because 'words aren't an effective
> means of communication'. Of course, that means no one but DAVE can
> understand his plan either....
If I understand correctly, and of course, I may just be
projecting, one of Dave's fears is that if he creates something that
can be used to curb excess posting, people will use the program to censor.
I've seen people howl for people's accounts for trolling.
Could this potential misuse of his program perhaps be something Dave
has an at least understandable reason to be nervous about?
--
Rebecca Ore
Russ Allbery
rrevved <see_a...@my-sig.com> writes:
> Let me get this straight... Dave 'more or less condemned' a DOS attack?
> What kind of person would do that? If he had the interest of Usenet at
> heart, would he have not 'SERIOUSLY condemned' that action and removed
> himself from the company of those that planned and executed the attack?
> He didn't end his alliance then, and he has not ended it, as we speak.
So we now not only require people not to engage in DoS attacks, we require
them to actively condemn DoS attacks or we consider them enemies as well?
What the hell is this place turning into?
We don't even hold murder to that standard.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Russ Allbery
Jeffrey Smith <Pr...@ni.net> writes:
> I have no idea. It would, of course, depend on his programming skills.
> I was referring, however, to his strange standards of evidence -
> basically, he seems to think that everything is illusion and nothing is
> real. Tripe like that offends my sense of right,
You must have had an amazingly difficult time getting through comparative
religion classes. You do realize that a reasonably large percentage of
the world has based whole philosophical schools on this notion, don't you?
> and since he isn't willing to either engage in a reasonable debate or
> accept other people's unwillingness to go along with him,
Heh.
Russ Allbery
rrevved <see_a...@my-sig.com> writes:
> Huh?? If you have knowledge that a murder is going to be committed and
> do nothing to dissuade the perp, you are complicit...
Read what I said. That isn't it.
I am not required to actively condemn murder. If someone says "I think it
would be a good idea if someone killed Bob Smith," I am not required to
condemn that when I hear it. That's very different than explicit plans to
execute Bob Smith at a particular day and time -- that's also not what was
in that list from the archives that were made availble. Nor do you have
any idea if Dave was actually reading any of that mail after he stopped
responding to it or if he was simply procmailing it out.
> Usenet abuse is a LONG way from murder, but DOS attacks are illegal
> under the law, AFAIK.
Yup.
> Forgetting the legal side, though, don't you think your mentor, D.Hayes
Jeez, you're clueless.
> should have objected strongly?
No. I don't believe in thought crimes, newspeak, or Big Brother. Sorry.
> He didn't. How about removing himself from the 'hacks list'. He's still
> there. How about blowing the whistle, even covertly, to someone who
> possibly could have stopped the abuse. He didn't.
So what? He's not required to do any of that. You haven't even realized
that Grubor has been saying things like this for *years*. You haven't
realized that there is nothing new here, nothing that hasn't been said
thousands of times before. You don't even know if Dave's reading any of
that mail. You don't know *anything at all*, and yet you're willing to
draw conclusions on lack of knowledge and condemn people for your
perceptions.
How incredibly repugnant.
Russ Allbery
brian moore <b...@news.cmc.net> writes:
> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>> So we now not only require people not to engage in DoS attacks, we
>> require them to actively condemn DoS attacks or we consider them
>> enemies as well? What the hell is this place turning into?
>> We don't even hold murder to that standard.
> Speak for yourself, white man.
> I expect that everyone I deal with will behave in a responsible and
> ethical manner, and when they cease to do so, they shall either be
> responsible for their actions or I shall cease dealings with them.
I think you missed the point of what I was saying, Brian. There's a huge
difference between refusing to deal with a person further and condemning
them as equivalent to one's enemies.
I'm not requiring anyone to continue dealing with Dave Hayes who doesn't
want to. Shun him all you want. I'm saying that launching a public smear
campaign against him because Grubor included him in a Cc list is nuts, and
furthermore is a rather interesting insight into the mindset of the people
willing to pull stunts like that.
I'm saying that one does not suddenly become a net abuser simply because a
group of nutcases start sending one mail out of the blue related to their
plans.
> I hold a lot of things to that standard. So far, none of the people I
> deal with has murdered anyone, but I've certainly disasociated myself
> from people for many other reasons.
Granted. I'm not arguing moral high ground here. I'm pointing out a
rather marked discrepency between what someone *actually did* and what the
reaction in this group is. Not to mention the automatic assumption that
everyone should agree with them on this score....
Russ Allbery
Jeffrey Smith <Pr...@ni.net> writes:
> Ah, but you see, there is a different standard for a religion, since
> religions by thier very nature are about the worship of the
> supernatural, and not suject to logic.
*sigh*
You have a limited experience with religions and spiritual matters, in my
opinion. I know of several that aren't about any such thing, and I know
many that rank logic quite high. Western religions are a very limited
subset of religion in general.
> With Mr. Hayes, it is just a personal belief
All religions are personal beliefs.
> And I got a C in that class too - we had some guy who was, shall we say,
> a member of a major monotheistic faith prevalent in North America, who
> felt the need to give give long monologs on his beliefs to the teacher
> whenever the opportunity arose. I only attended about 1/2 the sessions
> ;)
I detested comparative religions. Teacher was a moron. Watching real
life people has proven considerably more interesting. ;)
Russ Allbery
>> I'm not requiring anyone to continue dealing with Dave Hayes who
>> doesn't want to. Shun him all you want. I'm saying that launching a
>> public smear campaign against him because Grubor included him in a Cc
>> list is nuts, and furthermore is a rather interesting insight into the
>> mindset of the people willing to pull stunts like that.
> Russ, we aren't "lauching a public smear campaign", because that implies
> that we are either not telling the truth, or twisting the facts to meet
> out needs.
Incorrect. People are doing precisely that, by claiming that he supports
DoS attacks, claiming that he's obviously satisfied with the hacks list,
and other things along these lines. Not to mention other things that have
thankfully at least been apologized for.
Again, the reason why this is relevant is that this appears to be the way
that anyone who enters this group without full support for stopping spam
is being treated. All people are being classified as "anti-spam" or
"enemy" and then treated accordingly.
> The simple fact is, Dave Hayes had made statements in the past, but the
> actions he has taken are in opposition to those statements.
Not that I've seen.
> And the implication that I am nuts is not appreciated, especially since
> you are misrepresenting the facts.
Where did this come from? I didn't mention you.
And I'd be much more willing to believe apologies from people if they
weren't immediately followed by spin control attempting to continue the
same sorts of slams.
If you want my advice, you folks would be best off dropping this as fast
as you can, because this is been an absolute public relations *disaster*
for SPUTUM. I've *yet* to see anyone actually explain what the *point* of
any of this was; as near as I can tell, people have violated netiquette,
posted private e-mail, posted incorrect information about people, and made
vague insinuations about things people didn't do for absolutely no purpose
or effect whatsoever.
Russ Allbery
>> You have a limited experience with religions and spiritual matters, in
>> my opinion. I know of several that aren't about any such thing, and I
>> know many that rank logic quite high. Western religions are a very
>> limited subset of religion in general.
> I agree, but I'm honestly not very interested in religion. My apologies
> to any who I may have offended.
I've got no problems with that; I'm just taking some issue with dismissing
Dave's ideas out of hand as loony when things very similar to them have
been widely taught in a lot of cultures for many years.
>> All religions are personal beliefs.
> True, but there is a seperate emotional *feel* to religion and something
> like, say, politics. I don't know how to coherently explain the
> difference.. need sleep.... must work tomorrow.... zzzzzz...
Heh. :) Well, that's true in some cases, but I'm not sure you can tell
the difference in all cases. Some people's spiritual beliefs are
considerably more integrated into their daily lives than others.
> Since we are in the heart of Orange County, California, it is safe to
> say our beliefs on this subject differed ;) Got a B there, since I
> refused to parrot him.
Good. :) Parroting is bad. This is (to pull the digression I started
back a bit more towards the topic) why I think Dave is valuable for this
group. He doesn't think like most people. He doesn't have the same
opinion on a lot of issues as most people here.
This is something to be treasured, listened to, and used as a benchmark
and a reality check, not something to be ridiculed and driven away.
I've learned things about dealing with people from Grubor before, although
admittedly usually in backhanded or reversed sorts of ways. One can find
knowledge in the oddest places, if one's paying attention and not
rejecting things out of hand. Keeping this group open-minded is important
if we're going to make real progress towards fixing things and not just
auger in on a "war."
Jeffrey Smith
On 12 Jun 1998 17:54:40 -0400, Rebecca Ore <rebec...@op.net> wrote:
> If I understand correctly, and of course, I may just be
>projecting, one of Dave's fears is that if he creates something that
>can be used to curb excess posting, people will use the program to censor.
> I've seen people howl for people's accounts for trolling.
>Could this potential misuse of his program perhaps be something Dave
>has an at least understandable reason to be nervous about?
I have no idea. It would, of course, depend on his programming skills.
I was referring, however, to his strange standards of evidence -
basically, he seems to think that everything is illusion and nothing
is real. Tripe like that offends my sense of right, and since he isn't
willing to either engage in a reasonable debate or accept other
people's unwillingness to go along with him, I twit him about it.
Hey, we all have our hobbies....
Henrietta Thomas
In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on Fri, 12 Jun 1998 21:11:43 GMT,
see_a...@my-sig.com (rrevved) wrote:
>Henrietta, if someone says to you the things that Grubor and Boursey did,
>why would you EVER want hear ANYTHING else they had to say, or give
>them the benefit of ANY doubt.... ?
>
>Inquiring mind wants to know.. :)
Because they are the only ones who can answer my questions:
1. How did all this stuff get started five years ago?
2. Why is John Grubor so obsessed with Chris Lewis?
3. What will it take to make Grubor et al cease and desist
in these mad schemes?
>Really.
Grubor and Boursy were saying the same thing in 1995 when
I first came into contact with them in soc.culture.russian. I didn't
think it was funny then; I don't think it is funny now. But I have no
way of stopping them from making those remarks. The best I
can do is just consider the source.
Henrietta
brian moore
On 12 Jun 1998 18:55:21 -0700,
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> rrevved <see_a...@my-sig.com> writes:
>
> > Let me get this straight... Dave 'more or less condemned' a DOS attack?
> > What kind of person would do that? If he had the interest of Usenet at
> > heart, would he have not 'SERIOUSLY condemned' that action and removed
> > himself from the company of those that planned and executed the attack?
> > He didn't end his alliance then, and he has not ended it, as we speak.
>
> them to actively condemn DoS attacks or we consider them enemies as well?
> What the hell is this place turning into?
>
> We don't even hold murder to that standard.
Speak for yourself, white man.
I expect that everyone I deal with will behave in a responsible and
ethical manner, and when they cease to do so, they shall either be
responsible for their actions or I shall cease dealings with them.
I hold a lot of things to that standard. So far, none of the people
I deal with has murdered anyone, but I've certainly disasociated myself
from people for many other reasons.
--
Brian Moore Kill A Spammer For Jesus
Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker, Usenet Vandal
Information Security
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
: brian moore <b...@news.cmc.net> writes:
: > I hold a lot of things to that standard. So far, none of the people I
: > deal with has murdered anyone, but I've certainly disasociated myself
: > from people for many other reasons.
: Granted. I'm not arguing moral high ground here.
Usenet 2 is more like a hole in the ground.
A good place to leave logs. ;-)
: I'm pointing out a rather marked discrepency between what someone
: *actually did* and what the reaction in this group is.
In other words, you're trying to bore us to death.
"It wasn't murder, it was suicide"
---guy
"The clothes you were wearing shoulda been on her." ---ABC
Henrietta Thomas
In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on Sat, 13 Jun 1998 01:56:39 GMT,
see_a...@my-sig.com (rrevved) wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Jun 1998 01:51:38 GMT, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) wrote:
>
>>1. How did all this stuff get started five years ago?
>>
>>2. Why is John Grubor so obsessed with Chris Lewis?
>>
>
>John Grubor is a convicted felon, a disbarred attorney and net-abuser.
>His 'stance', re: Usenet is to do whatever feels good, at the expense of others.
>That's also the stance that got him behind bars, up in Pennsylvania.
That does not tell me how it all got started. Nor does it tell me why
Grubor is so obsessed about Chris Lewis. And besides, I need the
answers from Grubor, not from anybody else.
>>3. What will it take to make Grubor et al cease and desist
>>in these mad schemes?
>>
>Jail ?
Temporary, at best.
Henrietta
Henrietta Thomas
In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on Fri, 12 Jun 1998 21:20:11 GMT,
see_a...@my-sig.com (rrevved) wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Jun 1998 18:03:24 GMT, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) wrote:
>
>>In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on Thu, 11 Jun 1998 08:02:34 GMT,
>>see_a...@my-sig.com (rrevved) wrote:
>>
>>>RIGHT ON!! If this is the case, Henrietta, how can *anyone* ally themselves
>>>with people who think that this disruptive activity is permissible?
>>>I am speaking now of the so-called Freedom Knights which INCLUDE D.Hayes?
>>
>>I do not think Dave Hayes *allied* himself with them.
>
>WHA?? Henrietta, Dave is cc:'d on the 'hacks list' to this day.
How do you know that? And why does it matter?
>He counts John Grubor as his 'friend'.
Yes, that's what he said. I count some people in this newsgroup
as friends, but that doesn't mean I always agree with them, or that
I always know what they are doing.
>Please re-think what you said.
>Please?
I don't really believe in 'guilt by association.' Smacks of McCarthyism
to me.
>>Even in the archive,
>>SP clearly states that Dave "more or less condemned" what they were
>>planning to do. Dave's own words confirm that to me.
>
>Let me get this straight... Dave 'more or less condemned' a DOS attack?
I did not say Dave Hayes condemned a DOS attack. I was quoting
SP, who told the list that Dave had 'more or less condemned' all of
their activities. You are misreading again.
>What kind of person would do that? If he had the interest of Usenet at heart,
>would he have not 'SERIOUSLY condemned' that action and removed himself
>from the company of those that planned and executed the attack?
>He didn't end his alliance then, and he has not ended it, as we speak.
Would you kindly point me to the place in the archive where the
DOS attack was planned and executed?
Henrietta
Information Security
Rebecca Ore <rebec...@op.net> wrote:
: I've seen people howl for people's accounts for trolling.
AAARROOOOOOO ...werewolves of London...
---guy, Vulis Terminator
In demon.local.
Information Security
rrevved <see_a...@my-sig.com> wrote:
: On Sat, 13 Jun 1998 01:51:38 GMT, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) wrote:
: >1. How did all this stuff get started five years ago?
: >
: >2. Why is John Grubor so obsessed with Chris Lewis?
: >
: John Grubor is a convicted felon, a disbarred attorney and net-abuser.
: His 'stance', re: Usenet is to do whatever feels good, at the expense of others.
: That's also the stance that got him behind bars, up in Pennsylvania.
Reminder:
# Subject: Re: Usenet Spam Forecast: "Horrific"
# From: d...@pgh.org
# Date: 1998/04/04
# Message-ID: <35262790...@news.alt.net>
# Newsgroups: alt.fan.doctor,
# alt.webgod,
# alt.wired,
# news.groups,
# alt.censorship,
# alt.fan.dimitri-vulis,
# alt.fan.goat
#
# Usenet is made to shit on and kill.
Any questions?
Yes, Grubor did blubber blubber blubber at his sentencing.
: >3. What will it take to make Grubor et al cease and desist
: >in these mad schemes?
: >
: Jail ?
I'm netcopping Vulis to the Crosspost Police.
They're coming to take him away, to the funny farm.
MUHAHAHEEHEEHOHO!
Jeffrey Smith
On 12 Jun 1998 18:58:07 -0700, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>You must have had an amazingly difficult time getting through comparative
>religion classes. You do realize that a reasonably large percentage of
>the world has based whole philosophical schools on this notion, don't you?
Ah, but you see, there is a different standard for a religion, since
religions by thier very nature are about the worship of the
supernatural, and not suject to logic. If someone says to me he
believes in something because God says so, there isn't a hell of a lot
to debate unless I want to poke fun at his religion - which I prefer
not to do. [1]
With Mr. Hayes, it is just a personal belief - and I have no
compuntion against making fun of people's wierd habits I find strange
in absense of actual mental illness.
And I got a C in that class too - we had some guy who was, shall we
say, a member of a major monotheistic faith prevalent in North
America, who felt the need to give give long monologs on his beliefs
to the teacher whenever the opportunity arose. I only attended about
1/2 the sessions ;)
[1] Unless they belong to the Church of Sceintology. Morons.
Jeffrey Smith
On 12 Jun 1998 19:48:15 -0700, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>I'm not requiring anyone to continue dealing with Dave Hayes who doesn't
>want to. Shun him all you want. I'm saying that launching a public smear
>campaign against him because Grubor included him in a Cc list is nuts, and
>furthermore is a rather interesting insight into the mindset of the people
>willing to pull stunts like that.
Russ, we aren't "lauching a public smear campaign", because that
implies that we are either not telling the truth, or twisting the
facts to meet out needs. The simple fact is, Dave Hayes had made
statements in the past, but the actions he has taken are in opposition
to those statements. At the very least this is hypocritical.
And the implication that I am nuts is not appreciated, especially
since you are misrepresenting the facts.
**** **** **** ****
Jeffrey Smith
On Sat, 13 Jun 1998 05:01:00 GMT, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas)
wrote:
>That does not tell me how it all got started. Nor does it tell me why
>Grubor is so obsessed about Chris Lewis. And besides, I need the
>answers from Grubor, not from anybody else.
I don't think you are going to get an answer of any type, let alone an
honest one. I *think* Grubor has singled out Mr. Lewis because he is
the most prominent anti-spammer, but to be honest I find him and his
ilk so boring I'm not sure about this. The only people I'm responding
to at this point in this group are those who can THINK, even if I may
not agree with them (well, I like to tweak Hayes and Speedbump, but
I've given up attempting to can use elementary logic and reason)
Jeffrey Smith
On 12 Jun 1998 22:21:01 -0700, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>You have a limited experience with religions and spiritual matters, in my
>opinion. I know of several that aren't about any such thing, and I know
>many that rank logic quite high. Western religions are a very limited
>subset of religion in general.
I agree, but I'm honestly not very interested in religion. My
apologies to any who I may have offended.
>> With Mr. Hayes, it is just a personal belief
>
>All religions are personal beliefs.
True, but there is a seperate emotional *feel* to religion and
something like, say, politics. I don't know how to coherently explain
the difference.. need sleep.... must work tomorrow.... zzzzzz...
>> And I got a C in that class too - we had some guy who was, shall we say,
>> a member of a major monotheistic faith prevalent in North America, who
>> felt the need to give give long monologs on his beliefs to the teacher
>> whenever the opportunity arose. I only attended about 1/2 the sessions
>> ;)
>
>I detested comparative religions. Teacher was a moron. Watching real
>life people has proven considerably more interesting. ;)
Actually, my teacher in that class was pretty good - come to think of
it, once I got out of high school most of my teachers were good
(except that Chemistry guy - I'd love to know how the hell he got a
teacher's license). The *worst* teacher I've ever had was Poli Sci
101 in JC. Among his other views, he thought that anyone making over a
million dollars a year should be taxed 110%. When I pointed out there
wasn't a hell of a lot of motivation to invent new things, he said
something to the effect that people should invent stuff and give it to
the government.
Since we are in the heart of Orange County, California, it is safe to
say our beliefs on this subject differed ;) Got a B there, since I
refused to parrot him.
**** **** **** ****
Information Security
Henrietta Thomas <h...@wwa.com> wrote:
: In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on Sat, 13 Jun 1998 01:56:39 GMT,
: see_a...@my-sig.com (rrevved) wrote:
: >On Sat, 13 Jun 1998 01:51:38 GMT, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) wrote:
: >
: >>1. How did all this stuff get started five years ago?
: >>
: >>2. Why is John Grubor so obsessed with Chris Lewis?
: >>
: >
: >John Grubor is a convicted felon, a disbarred attorney and net-abuser.
: >His 'stance', re: Usenet is to do whatever feels good, at the expense of others.
: >That's also the stance that got him behind bars, up in Pennsylvania.
: That does not tell me how it all got started.
You just *had* to ask, didn't you?
Rare NANAU appearance from Information Security's Cryptography Manifesto.
---guy
************** Begin Cryptography Manifesto excerpt ***********************
Cybernetic control of society
---------- ------- -- -------
You are about to encounter the true use of the 'cyber' prefix.
Cybernetics is a cross-disciplinary science. The name was coined by
Norbert Wiener [pron. whiner], who was a professor of mathematics at
MIT, and did radar and firing-feedback mechanisms for the U.S. in
World War II. Cybernetics describes the complex of sciences dealing
with communication and control in the living organism AND in the
machine. Its application is sometimes called operations research.
I personally rank Norbert Wiener above Albert Einstein.
Operations research is a difficult discipline --- I certainly don't understand
it --- but when it was desperately needed during World War II, the U.S. Dept.
of War went for it gung-ho, rightfully. Signals intelligence (SIGINT) is the
first step...the NSA grew out of these wartime operations research efforts.
To seek out information from noise, then act on the information.
Target accuracy for precision high altitude bombing requires
a complex feedback mechanism to control deployment (pre-GPS WW II).
* My dad:
*
* Norden bombsights revolutionized aerial bombing.
*
* They were so accurate we stopped putting explosives
* in the bombs and just aimed for people.
Communications, Command and Control. The above wasn't really the best
example of OR, but I did get to quote my dad again. ;-)
* "The Future of War - Power, Technology, and American World Dominance in
* the 21st Century", by George & Meredith Friedman, 1996, ISBN 0-517-70403-X
*
* A discipline named operations research had begun to develop prior to World
* War II that aspired to use quantitative methodologies to develop a science
* of management. [snip]
*
* For the physicists and mathematicians of the Rand Corporation, the
* intuitions of common sense were utterly insufficient as a guide to
* management. Mathematical precision was necessary, and operations
* research promised to supply that precision. [snip]
*
* It had not jumped from the management of particular, limited areas of
* warfare to the structuring of entire campaigns and wars. Operations
* research had not penetrated to the very marrow of conventional warfare,
* that is, not until an attempt was made in 1961 to revolutionize the idea
* of war. This was done by an industrialist named Robert McNamara, who had
* been president at Ford Motor Company.
Stafford Beer is a British cybernetician, and a 'research philosopher'.
In 1970, a Dr. Salvador Allende became president of Chile.
He was a democratically elected Marxist, with 37% of the vote.
Allende immediately embarked on a massive nationalization of
the banks and major companies/industries in Chile.
In 1971, Stafford Beer began a project for Allende
to put the Chilean economy under cybernetic control.
As far as I know, this is the only documented instance of someone
attempting this; deploying cybernetic controls nationwide.
* "Brain of the Firm", Stafford Beer, 1986, ISBN 0 471 27687 1
*
* All of this involved a massive and continuing exercise in (what I should
* call, in the original World War II sense) operational research. That is
* exactly what it was: research by highly qualified interdisciplinary teams,
* into operations, namely production companies, with the prospect of
* discovering models and sets of measures.
*
* We needed a group who understood the operational research techniques of
* data capture that were needed for project Cybersyn. As a Briton I knew
* whom I wanted --- they were a group of consultants within the London
* branch of the international firm of Arthur Anderson and Co.
*
* Project Cybercyn objective: To install a preliminary system of information
* and regulation for the industrial economy that will demonstrate the main
* features of cybernetic management and begin to help in the task of actual
* decision-making by March 1st 1972.
Under the circumstances of a nationalized economy, it was a positive thing.
It was a massive application of cybernetic feedback to help each industry
and each factory keep track of itself through a central location. All
communications flowed through the central location.
This is what Stafford Beer refers to as 'Brain of the Firm'. It was located
in Santiago, Chile.
For NSA, it is Fort Meade in Maryland, USA.
* "Brain of the Firm", Stafford Beer, 1986, ISBN 0 471 27687 1
*
* Project Cybercyn consisted of four major tools:
*
* Cybernet, a national network of industrial communications to a centre
* in Santiago, through which anyone could consult anyone else.
*
* Cyberstride, the suite of computer programs needed to provide
* statistical filtration for all homeostatic loops at all levels
* of recursion, and provide alerts via an 'arousal filter'.
*
* Checo, the model of the Chilean economy, with simulation capacity.
*
* Opsroom, a new environment for decision, and dependent for its
* existence on the existence of the other three.
*
* Cybernet was a system whereby every single factory in the country,
* contained within the nationalized social economy, could be in
* communication with a computer.
*
* The intention of Cybernet was to make computer power available to the
* workers' committees in every factory.
*
* How could this be done?
*
* The basic idea was that crucial indices of performance in every plant
* should be transmitted daily to the computers, where they would be
* processed and examined for any kind of important signal that they
* contained. If there was any sort of warning implied by these data,
* then an alerting signal would be sent back to the managers of the
* plant concerned.
What are 'arousal filter' and 'homeostatic loops'?
The scope of Cybernetics is, in a word, awesome.
A cyberneticist can talk from atoms to cells to nervous systems, to
management of a company, country, world, solar system.
Whether an organism is mechanical, biological or social, it requires
a feedback mechanism to survive.
Your nervous system does some amazing things to fight off infections.
It creates custom anti-bodies to attack foreign microbes.
Custom living cells created through a system of feedback to spot that
there was a problem, analysis of the problem, action on the problem.
This is a life-sustaining feedback 'homeostatic' loop.
[bracket comments are mine]
When Stafford Beer says Cyberstride needed to filter 'homeostatic loops':
* "The Human Use of Human Beings - Cybernetics and Society"
* by Norbert Wiener, 1954, pre-ISBN
*
* The process [such as that employed by our nervous system] by which we
* living beings resist the general stream of corruption and decay is
* known as homeostasis.
Stayin' alive, stayin' alive...
So, "statistical filtration for all homeostatic loops" means one is checking
on the health of the monitored system.
The cybernetician uses the same language for feedback of weapons systems
(picking out a submarine from the background noise of the ocean) as they
do for describing human life, as they do for the political organization
of a country.
Like I said, an awesome scope.
Norbert Wiener even came up with a physics-based
description of how life is formed by information.
Check it out. Hang in there too, it's worth it.
* "Platform for Change", by Stafford Beer, 1978, ISBN 0 471 06189 1
*
* The term 'entropy' began life as a subtle measure of energy flow.
*
* When something hotter is systemically bound to something cooler, the
* greater energy of the hotter stuff migrates---inexorably migrates---
* into the cooler stuff. This is one manifestation of the Second Law of
* Thermodynamics, which everyone of education has encountered.
*
* This is sometimes referred to as 'the universe is running down'.
Okay, 'entropy', yeah I remember that kinda. Keep going:
Our solar system is a lot of matter that is NOT sitting in a situation of
entropy: the sun is radiating heat at the planets. Instead of just matter
smoothing out to a common low-energy state, a burning fireball is at work.
Cybernetics states that under conditions
like this, matter does something special.
* "Platform for Change", by Stafford Beer, 1978, ISBN 0 471 06189 1
*
* If we have a universe, which is improbable though it exists, it is
* because the Second Law of Thermodynamics has two forms. One is concerned
* with the pressure to even out energy; that is the form which belongs to
* our stereotyped conception of the universe. It betokens death.
*
* The other form is about information content, which leads to greater
* organization and increasing complexity. That form betokens life.
What would be a specific example of energy causing matter
to be formatted by information, becoming "more complex"?
* "The Human Use of Human Beings", by Norbert Wiener
*
* A light quantum is a very small thing, but it turns out the energy
* transfer which is necessary for an effective information coupling
* is quite small.
*
* Thus, for the leaf of a tree, photosynthesis uses radiation from the
* sun to form starch and other complicated chemicals necessary for life,
* out of the simpler atoms of water and the carbon dioxide of the air.
*
* An enormous local decrease in entropy may be associated with quite a
* moderate energy transfer.
Sunshine on a photosynthesising leaf. The Sun as direct life-giver.
Causing matter to become more complex: simple atoms transformed to
more complex molecules. On purpose, to sustain life.
Ground zero, a soup-of-life mixture zapped with energy:
Scientists have absolutely no problem creating amino acids - the building
blocks of all life - from constituent chemicals. It takes a Darwinian
amount of time to get higher-evolved life forms, but it eventually happens.
This property of matter to spontaneously become more complex is called
negentropy (negative entropy), and it means 'matter formatted by information'.
* "Platform for Change", by Stafford Beer, 1978, ISBN 0 471 06189 1
*
* We human beings mean more than the few-pence-worth of our chemical
* constituents, because information *informs* those component chemicals
* by means of a genetic blueprint.
*
* Life itself is a negentropy pump. The universe means more than a
* collapsed energetic equation of 'x-heat = x-cold = nothing', because
* information structures the balance. The result is the sun, moon and
* stars...
We have a lot of different kinds of cells in our bodies; hair, bone, eye,
brain, toenail, teeth, lung, skin... And they all started from ONE CELL.
And they all knew where to go and which type to become. And how to operate
together in a large complex system.
A single cell, in its DNA strands, holds a MASSIVE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION.
Every cell in our body is structured by information, the DNA helix.
This information structuring is why we don't just splash to the
ground in a muddy puddle of our constituent chemicals.
We are matter structured by information.
"We are starshine" ---Woodstock
************** End Cryptography Manifesto excerpt ***********************
Henrietta Thomas
In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on Sat, 13 Jun 1998 05:59:35 GMT, Pr...@ni.net
(Jeffrey Smith) wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Jun 1998 05:01:00 GMT, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas)
>wrote:
>
>>That does not tell me how it all got started. Nor does it tell me why
>>Grubor is so obsessed about Chris Lewis. And besides, I need the
>>answers from Grubor, not from anybody else.
>
>I don't think you are going to get an answer of any type, let alone an
>honest one. I *think* Grubor has singled out Mr. Lewis because he is
>the most prominent anti-spammer, but to be honest I find him and his
>ilk so boring I'm not sure about this. The only people I'm responding
>to at this point in this group are those who can THINK, even if I may
>not agree with them (well, I like to tweak Hayes and Speedbump, but
>I've given up attempting to can use elementary logic and reason)
Well, I'm glad you're responding to me, because we *do* need
to talk.
I didn't even know there was a Usenet five years ago. That was
1993, the year Gene Spafford quit and appointed David Lawrence
to succeed him. Grubor made a reference to this in one of the
emails, so I need to know what life was like before and after Gene
Spafford quit, and I need to know just what it was that set John
Grubor off. At another point, Grubor said he wanted to restore the
system to the way it was in 1994, so I need to know what it was like
in 1994. It was already pretty messy when I came to Usenet in
1995.
Now, other people may be able to give me some background
on this, but only Grubor can tell me what set him off, and why he
is *still* so incensed about the whole thing.
Henrietta
Henrietta Thomas
In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on Sat, 13 Jun 1998 05:34:47 GMT,
see_a...@my-sig.com (rrevved) wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Jun 1998 05:01:00 GMT, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) wrote:
>
>>In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on Sat, 13 Jun 1998 01:56:39 GMT,
>>see_a...@my-sig.com (rrevved) wrote:
>>>John Grubor is a convicted felon, a disbarred attorney and net-abuser.
>>>His 'stance', re: Usenet is to do whatever feels good, at the expense of others.
>>>That's also the stance that got him behind bars, up in Pennsylvania.
>>
>>That does not tell me how it all got started. Nor does it tell me why
>>Grubor is so obsessed about Chris Lewis. And besides, I need the
>>answers from Grubor, not from anybody else.
>>
>
>From the last 'conversation' you had with Grubor, I think his only answers
>might be faster, faster....
I think so too. That's why I made no effort to respond.
Burntcake
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>If you want my advice, you folks would be best off dropping this as fast
>as you can, because this is been an absolute public relations *disaster*
>for SPUTUM.
I don't think so Russ. SPUTUM has taken a bold step to uncover the
fact that Boursy and Gruber conspired and executed criminal DOS
attacks and revenge cancels. As for Hayes's silence on the crimes,
well he can just redefine 'honor' and play word math to write it off.
If anyone needs condeming, it's the perps doing the criminal acts.
Russ Allbery
Burntcake <burn...@aol.com> writes:
> SPUTUM has taken a bold step to uncover the fact that Boursy and Gruber
> conspired and executed criminal DOS attacks and revenge cancels.
You realize that this is like producing evidence that Charles Mansen is a
murderer, don't you?
I'm horribly impressed.
*ISP_Ratings
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
-
-Burntcake <burn...@aol.com> writes:
-
-> SPUTUM has taken a bold step to uncover the fact that Boursy and Gruber
-> conspired and executed criminal DOS attacks and revenge cancels.
-
-You realize that this is like producing evidence that Charles Mansen is a
-murderer, don't you?
-
-I'm horribly impressed.
That remark is quite beneath you Russ--there's no such
evidence at all and coming from you it's surprising.
Steve
news.admin.censorship
Sam
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <358202dc...@news.wwa.com>,
h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) writes:
> In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on Sat, 13 Jun 1998 01:56:39 GMT,
> see_a...@my-sig.com (rrevved) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Jun 1998 01:51:38 GMT, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) wrote:
>>
>>>1. How did all this stuff get started five years ago?
>>>
>>>2. Why is John Grubor so obsessed with Chris Lewis?
>>>
>>
>>John Grubor is a convicted felon, a disbarred attorney and net-abuser.
>>His 'stance', re: Usenet is to do whatever feels good, at the expense of others.
>>That's also the stance that got him behind bars, up in Pennsylvania.
>
> That does not tell me how it all got started. Nor does it tell me why
> Grubor is so obsessed about Chris Lewis.
Jealousy. Chris Lewis can cancel posts, Grubor can't.
> And besides, I need the
> answers from Grubor, not from anybody else.
As Grubor himself said, he isn't interested in talking to you.
>>>3. What will it take to make Grubor et al cease and desist
>>>in these mad schemes?
>>>
>>Jail ?
>
> Temporary, at best.
Not if there's no chance of parole.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Peaks/5799/ for public key.
iQEVAwUBNYKPOZlaALjSq209AQEdxgf8CzTGLHE6b0lE7cl4ySaJTSxZEL2kpkjF
2E6nyQtXOW2a9tMhd9FIQ1rtWCkRrFA4vL6uyc/RPJpmwcoxG3kIek88B0bOj76Z
KGCOXvTM4iykFUmGLAuRBAZ6nfM6bsWpFwUkHgjI97OczO3rHzR+t+XvZWdIaro4
znERSjoBdhBgXLnm2oqjVeKRcEyu9clNWDke56m7tappFQqJtosZn12BTvc/inEP
Bz5nF/CSgMNPZmjaofftRCT4FKT70MIF2f8+32b8GTcCSDRt9iAsOZwatCTBLVDN
vPX3+ijMTqq/NB0T5dR9tNCYRuUY//PfWmwBM//cozsGRS4rv9Czmw==
=lqCS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Sam
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
[ Newsgroups deboursificated and adjusted ]
In article <35848aed...@news.alt.net>,
bou...@alt.net (*ISP_Ratings) writes:
> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> -
> -You realize that this is like producing evidence that Charles Mansen is a
> -murderer, don't you?
> -
> -I'm horribly impressed.
>
> That remark is quite beneath you Russ--there's no such
> evidence at all and coming from you it's surprising.
I'm sure you just hurt his feelings real bad, Speedbump.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Peaks/5799/ for public key.
iQEVAwUBNYKPoplaALjSq209AQH0kgf7B2vkfeyguQ2Ho4ME9kLW3jN0521vLtb1
EqeZsJE1yVW4XW7vHezSPHWLWeBwuZf8s7Y5a28B9+IQzohdSsou5QIUfvIxUu4S
hv2A5q8r/6xFJgdWA7sg7xWFpdVdRAez7Vj5Bb9JQEMaa4Q7VMNH7hUx2CaEN26n
5VQNsxeioqakGI9o4gXGi7Kb+0VdLCGaz9jIy6XBXcPKSTLEUtKjEGd7qZYhv+gB
Qmeu/W1gSz08wOPeJbsW8UuLmAJ6PU6EtyKQ1X/umOcffzdGr9Szb9IcFd9joEqK
Ix/Vtrl3kGVxxQBM2rJamKv1t4po/pLqKBma04XoqVcqtWcy3XRlnA==
=aZC5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_ISP_Ratings
-
-> Let me get this straight... Dave 'more or less condemned' a DOS attack?
-> What kind of person would do that?
I didn't see him 'condemn' a DOS attack--that would surprise me
greatly and cause me to re-evaluate his opinions in other areas.
-> If he had the interest of Usenet at heart, would he have not 'SERIOUSLY
-> condemned' that action and removed himself from the company of those
And this from the crowd who for years has been pulling plugs based
on content, forging the email addresses of other users to cancel
their posts in a systematic fashion and engaging in such large scale
unsavory actions as globally blocking entire sites and backbones
(UDP's). I realize you won't see this but your indignation is both sad
and amusing even if the nonsense you cite where true.
-> that planned and executed the attack?
-> He didn't end his alliance then, and he has not ended it, as we speak.
Well--I engage politely with many cabal who engage in the actions I
mentioned above--it doesn't mean I respect them in that area or that I
agree with them. What a very odd take on the world. Do you live in the
USA?
-So we now not only require people not to engage in DoS attacks, we require
-them to actively condemn DoS attacks or we consider them enemies as well?
-What the hell is this place turning into?
It's just more of the same Russ. Now please substantiate your very false
statement posted this AM that stated I engaged in planning (or carrying
out--can't recall) a DOS attack with the good Dr. Grubor--that one amazed
me.
As to my position if I were on a list, or overheard in the street or whatever,
a plan to blow up Chris Lewis with high explosives I certainly wouldn't
engage in that activity but I most certainly would not 'turn them in' nor
would it terribly upset me. This is the USA that most of us here live in
and we do have such basic human rights.
It's so very odd that politicians and commentators talk all the time
in the press (as posters do on usenet) about blowing away this country
or that, or that this leader should be assasinated, etc. and that's
perfectly acceptable (as well it should be) but when it touches upon
the sacred cabal cows suddenly honesty goes out the window, facts
becomes irrelevant, Dinasaur (in collaboration with SP no less) become
credible citations, etc. It's a truely amazing event that is very
revealing--right down to the very bowels of the cabal.
-
-We don't even hold murder to that standard.
Well the cabal has always thought themselves very special Russ--
one just called herself a 'moral compass' while forging others email
addresses!!! Now please publically substantiate or retract your
remark regarding my complicity in any DOS attack.
Steve
news.admin.censorship
Information Security
Boursy the Boston Penis <cca...@alt.net> wrote:
: -
: -> SPUTUM has taken a bold step to uncover the fact that Boursy and Gruber
: -> conspired and executed criminal DOS attacks and revenge cancels.
: -You realize that this is like producing evidence that Charles Mansen is a
: -murderer, don't you?
: -
: -I'm horribly impressed.
: That remark is quite beneath you Russ--there's no such
: evidence at all and coming from you it's surprising.
Boursy: "I'm SHOCKED, SHOCKED to hear this."
<snicker><snicker><snicker>
Try not to post without persmission from your shrink.
---guy, Vulis Terminator
"What is spam?" ---Chris Caputo, owner of Altopia
Information Security
Henrietta Thomas <h...@wwa.com> wrote:
: Now, other people may be able to give me some background
: on this, but only Grubor can tell me what set him off, and why he
: is *still* so incensed about the whole thing.
Yawn.
use...@grubor.net
In article <35821d01...@news.wwa.com>,
h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) wrote:
>
> In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on Sat, 13 Jun 1998 05:59:35 GMT, Pr...@ni.net
>
> >On Sat, 13 Jun 1998 05:01:00 GMT, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>That does not tell me how it all got started. Nor does it tell me why
> >>answers from Grubor, not from anybody else.
> >
> >honest one. I *think* Grubor has singled out Mr. Lewis because he is
> >the most prominent anti-spammer,
And that is the reason that Dr. Grubor is getting rid of
Chris Lewis. Anybody who cancels articles deserves to be eliminated.
but to be honest I find him and his
> >ilk so boring I'm not sure about this. The only people I'm responding
> >to at this point in this group are those who can THINK, even if I may
> >not agree with them (well, I like to tweak Hayes and Speedbump, but
> >I've given up attempting to can use elementary logic and reason)
>
> Well, I'm glad you're responding to me, because we *do* need
> to talk.
>
> I didn't even know there was a Usenet five years ago. That was
> 1993, the year Gene Spafford quit and appointed David Lawrence
> to succeed him. Grubor made a reference to this in one of the
> emails, so I need to know what life was like before and after Gene
> Spafford quit, and I need to know just what it was that set John
> Grubor off. At another point, Grubor said he wanted to restore the
> system to the way it was in 1994, so I need to know what it was like
> in 1994. It was already pretty messy when I came to Usenet in
> 1995.
>
> Now, other people may be able to give me some background
> on this, but only Grubor can tell me what set him off, and why he
> is *still* so incensed about the whole thing.
>
> Henrietta
>
If you want to speak with Doctor Grubor, you better write to
him at his mailbox. He is too busy with all of those kids and
all of those computers to come out here any more.
Dr. Grubor is the boss and pays the bills.
Usenet Administration
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
ISP_Ratings
<T...@NSA.sucks> Information Security wrote:
-
-Henrietta Thomas <h...@wwa.com> wrote:
-
-: Now, other people may be able to give me some background
-: on this, but only Grubor can tell me what set him off, and why he
-: is *still* so incensed about the whole thing.
-
-Yawn.
Well quite obviously Henrietta enjoys it when John talks
dirty to her--she certainly dwells on the memory.
Steve
news.admin.censorship
PatientRus
bou...@alt.net (_ISP_Ratings) puked:
>As to my position if I were on a list, or overheard in the street or
>whatever,
>a plan to blow up Chris Lewis with high explosives I certainly wouldn't
>engage in that activity but I most certainly would not 'turn them in' nor
>would it terribly upset me. This is the USA that most of us here live in
>and we do have such basic human rights.
You really are a lowlife Boursy. Kook is too polite a name for
your sorry excuse of a human.
Henrietta Thomas
In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on Sat, 13 Jun 1998 06:05:11 GMT,
see_a...@my-sig.com (rrevved) wrote:
>Henrietta, you seem to take a neutral stance whenever we discuss Grubor?
>I feel that he has no redeeming social value. How do you feel? Is he just
>like any other acquaintance you have here, or is he different from most
>in that 'k00Ky special' kinda way?? I think he is. What do you think?
>I think John's really special...
I am "neutral" toward Grubor and Boursy because taking sides for
or against them doesn't help promote peace -- and I am about the
business of peace, not the business of war. It would be very easy
for me to join the crowd of people who follow up their posts with
snide remarks, but I do not see how that will lead to peace. All it
does is reinforce their negative attitude and make them more
determined to succeed. I prefer to go in the opposite direction
and look for opportunities to dialogue with them. I cannot do this
unless I leave the door open and occasionally invite them in to talk.
If they refuse the invitation, it is their problem, not mine. Every man
is redeemable at the right time when he is ready to be redeemed.
>>>Please re-think what you said.
>>>Please?
>>
>>I don't really believe in 'guilt by association.' Smacks of McCarthyism
>>to me.
>>
>
>How about 'knowledge by association'. You're in a group and the discussions
>there become part of your consciousness. Have you ever heard the old saw:
>"You are what you eat"?
I assume that SPUTUM has its own mailing list. Shall I blame
you for everything you have "knowledge" of because it was
discussed on the list?
>>>>Even in the archive,
>>>>SP clearly states that Dave "more or less condemned" what they were
>>>>planning to do. Dave's own words confirm that to me.
>>>
>>>Let me get this straight... Dave 'more or less condemned' a DOS attack?
>>
>>I did not say Dave Hayes condemned a DOS attack. I was quoting
>>SP, who told the list that Dave had 'more or less condemned' all of
>>their activities. You are misreading again.
>>
>
>Did Dave report the DOS attack to anyone you know, either before,
>during or after the fact of the attack? We would still be in the dark
>on that one had the list not been released.
I think we are still in the dark because (based on posts in other
threads) there appears to be some confusion as to when the
DOS attack occurred. Until we get better info on that, it would
not be wise to speculate too much as to what Dave knew or
should have known about them.
[snip].....
>================================================================
>
>From DOC7:
>
>From - Tue May 12 23:45:43 1998
>Return-Path: pro...@anus.com
>Received: from stevie.loop.com (stevie-inet.loop.com [207.211.60.71]) by www3.localweb.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id
>NAA02165; Tue, 12 May 1998 13:03:14 -0400
>Received: from satan (p24.hwts05.loop.net [207.211.61.189])
> by stevie.loop.com (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id KAA20179;
> Tue, 12 May 1998 10:02:19 -0700 (PDT)
>Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980512...@paranoia.com>
>X-Sender: go...@paranoia.com
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
>Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 10:02:08 -0700
>To: "Dr.G" <d...@pgh.org>
>From: Spinoza Ray Prozak <pro...@anus.com>
>Subject: Re: IRS Agent
>Cc: "S.P." <s...@pgh.org>, hipc...@pgh.org, 1Hacks <0...@pgh.org>, 8...@pgh.org,
> a...@pgh.org, bou...@pgh.org, cl...@pgh.org, da...@pgh.org, go...@pgh.org,
> r...@pgh.org, scum...@pgh.org
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
>Content-Length: 1389
>
>howdy,
>
>>If that can be done, let's DO IT.
>>All we need is one server at a time to run
>>NewsAgent from. Make the first target ALL
>>of Chris Lewis's Articles, then move to
>>Tim Skirvin and J.D. Falk.
This appears to be a plan to cancel articles, not to mount a DOS
attack.
>Falk and Lewis are probably still cleaning megabytes of bouncin' binaries
>from their teeth. So is Nortel. Probably not a big issue on that giant
>pipe, but an act of aggression is definitive provocation.
I assume these were mailbombs similar to what was visited on Karen
Lofstrom, as described in the post below.
Does mailbomb=denial of service?
I am looking for a definitive source which will describe the difference
between a mailbomb and a DOS attack.
Thanks for looking this up for me. I remember reading these articles
before, but did not equate mailbombing with DOS attacks.
Henrietta
>I believe Karen Lofstrom is talking to her provider now about help in
>deleting the mounds of shit that slammed into her mailbox.
>
>take care,
>SRP
>=======================
>From - Wed May 13 03:17:50 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
>DAA10363; Wed, 13 May 1998 03:01:08 -0400
>Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 03:01:08 -0400 (EDT)
>From: "Dr.G" <d...@pgh.org>
>X-Sender: d...@www3.localweb.com
>To: pgh835 <8...@pgh.org>
>cc: "S.P." <s...@pgh.org>, hipc...@pgh.org, 1Hacks <0...@pgh.org>, a...@pgh.org,
> bou...@pgh.org, cl...@pgh.org, da...@pgh.org, go...@pgh.org, r...@pgh.org,
> scum...@pgh.org
>Subject: Re: Karen Lofstrom is irritated ...
>In-Reply-To: <000001bd7e08$743c7800$76cbffd0@default>
>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: 1886
>Nice Job on this mailbombing of Karen!
>On Tue, 12 May 1998, pgh835 wrote:
>> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 14:45:41 -1000
>> From: pgh835 <8...@pgh.org>
>> To: "S.P." <s...@pgh.org>
>> Cc: hipc...@pgh.org, "Dr.G" <d...@pgh.org>, 1Hacks <0...@pgh.org>,
>> a...@pgh.org, bou...@pgh.org, cl...@pgh.org, da...@pgh.org, go...@pgh.org,
>> r...@pgh.org, scum...@pgh.org, 8...@pgh.org
>> Subject: Karen Lofstrom is irritated ...
>>
>> > Path: ...!news.he.net!news.lava.net!lofstrom
>> > Subject: Re: BTINTERNET.COM used for posting forgeries
>> > Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,
>> > alt.forgery,news.admin.censorship,alt.internet.services
>> > From: lofs...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom)
>> > Organization: Electric Teeth
>> > Message-ID: <6jaftm$4...@mochi.lava.net>
>> > NNTP-Posting-Host: malasada.lava.net
>> > Date: 12 May 1998 21:45:26 GMT
>> >
>> > Hmm. Things are getting interesting. I diss Jai Maharaj, and that
>> > same evening, I get mailbombed. I post about the mailbombing, my post
>> > is evidently cancelled. Part of the general attack on nanau, I'm
>> > sure, but still irritating.
>> >
>> > I got 11 megs of binaries shunted into my mailbox by a bot that was
>> > apparently injecting stuff at a uu.net POP in Sherman Oaks CA --
>> > possibly belonging to MSN, because any headers that showed the uu.net
>> > POP also showed MSN as the next in the chain. The binaries were
>> > forged to appear as if they came from me, and sent to invalid
>> > addresses, so that they bounced back to me.
>> >
>> > Anyone have the phone numbers for the NOCs for MSN and uu.net?
>> >
>> > --
>> > Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Because I could not stop for Death
>> > He kindly left a message on my voice mail system -- Bryan O'Sullivan
>> >
Rebecca Ore
h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) writes:
> I think we are still in the dark because (based on posts in other
> threads) there appears to be some confusion as to when the
> DOS attack occurred. Until we get better info on that, it would
> not be wise to speculate too much as to what Dave knew or
> should have known about them.
Couple of things. Since I jumped to conclusions about this as
another great conclusion-jumper did about how someone ended up with X's
phone numbers, I'll say that Chris Lewis, who I do trust, said the
Nortel DOS attack happened before SP joined the list. So, let's drop
that one.
What's happened here is that we're asking Dave Hayes to do
something about the actions proposed on the list. Let's assume he
doesn't have an ideological problem with this (I've met ghetto people
who had serious problems with turning people over to the man but no
problems at all with breaking a thief's arms and tossing him down the
stairs). Here we are, reading our email and low and behold, someone
proposes cancelling all the posts of another party, or maybe setting
up a T-3 or two and aiming them at at ISP they don't particularly
like.
1. How interested are the cops in dealing with DOS attacks?
If not, where is Dave or anyone else taking this information? If it's
not a dos attack, but rather cancels, I suppose one complains to the
ISP that hosts the canceller.
"Hi, I'm on a mailing list with a bunch of hacks and one of
the people on it is going to be ebombing various nanae contributors at
5:30 Monday afternoon."
Anyone have another scenario? We've got some real ISP news
managers here. What happens when someone calls to warn you that a new
subscriber is planning to ebomb someone? How seriously would you take
it? What could you do about it in advance?
2. How often do people on the hack list propose actions and
never follow through with them? In Virginia, making a death threat is
considered a misdeamenor -- too high a noise to action ratio.
Threatening to burn a house, on the other hand, is serious because it's
*not* a common bullshit threat. I knew a guy in the security business
who said if anyone ever called to threaten to kill you, try to lure
them into threatening arson, too. Then the cops would pay attention.
3. Third practical matter -- so, Dave breaks off contact with
them. Nobody reminds them every now and again that what they're doing
is problematic. How is this good?
--
Rebecca Ore
Russ Allbery
>>> SPUTUM has taken a bold step to uncover the fact that Boursy and
>>> Gruber conspired and executed criminal DOS attacks and revenge
>>> cancels.
>> You realize that this is like producing evidence that Charles Mansen is
>> a murderer, don't you?
> That remark is quite beneath you Russ--there's no such evidence at all
> and coming from you it's surprising.
As far as Grubor is concerned, there's plenty of evidence, and I stand by
what I said. As far as you're concerned... you're correct, actively
encouraging is the most I've seen you do. I haven't seen evidence you're
participating.
I apologize. I should have been more precise.
gregory byshenk
Henrietta Thomas <h...@wwa.com> wrote:
> I do not think Usenet should be required to "fix itself," but as I stated
> in another thread, I think that's pretty much what's happening already.
> People in positions of influence know Usenet is broken, but nobody
> knows how to fix it, so everything just drifts. Usenet is a rudderless
> ship without a captain or a crew.
Usenet isn't "_a_ ship" -- even metaphorically.
Usenet is a _fleet_ of ships, each with their own captain and crew, but
without an admiral having the power to command them all. Though this
can lead to coordination problems, many think that it is a _good_ thing,
overall.
--
+ 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>
gregory byshenk
? the platypus {aka David Formosa} <dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au>
wrote:
> If you think this then you don't understand Mr Hayes. If he wished to do
> this why did he create the exponialial backoff system[1]. What he is
> worrying about is something that may be more inportent then spam, that is
> the nature of free speech, enlightenment and the quest to be a better
> person.
As already noted in a different thread, this is part of the problem:
some seem to see "free _speaking_" as an end in itself. I believe this
to be a horrendous mistake, and further believe that just about anyone
who gives the issue a bit of thought will recognize themselves that it
is a horrendous mistake.
Free _speaking_ is only a means to that end for which people engage in
speaking: communication.
Henrietta Thomas
[posted and mailed]
In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on Sat, 13 Jun 1998 22:15:21 GMT,
use...@grubor.net wrote:
>In article <35821d01...@news.wwa.com>,
> h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) wrote:
>>
>> In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on Sat, 13 Jun 1998 05:59:35 GMT, Pr...@ni.net
>> (Jeffrey Smith) wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 13 Jun 1998 05:01:00 GMT, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>That does not tell me how it all got started. Nor does it tell me why
>> >>Grubor is so obsessed about Chris Lewis. And besides, I need the
>> >>answers from Grubor, not from anybody else.
>> >
>> >I don't think you are going to get an answer of any type, let alone an
>> >honest one. I *think* Grubor has singled out Mr. Lewis because he is
>> >the most prominent anti-spammer,
>
>And that is the reason that Dr. Grubor is getting rid of
>Chris Lewis. Anybody who cancels articles deserves to be eliminated.
Does that include hipcrime? Why don't you tell that guy to stop
now?
[snip].....
>If you want to speak with Doctor Grubor, you better write to
>him at his mailbox. He is too busy with all of those kids and
>all of those computers to come out here any more.
I don't want to talk to Grubor by email unless he makes a statement
like SP did that I can post to the group on the same terms and
conditions that I agreed with SP.
>Dr. Grubor is the boss and pays the bills.
He may be boss in his own home, but he's not the boss of Usenet.
We're going to have an end to these stupid wars one way or another.
I would prefer to have a peaceful end. What will it be, John Grubor?
Peace or war?
Henrietta Thomas
h...@wwa.com