Lewis Called to Task Was: ANNOUNCEMENT: Spam Cancel Moratorium
ISP_Ratings
Chris Lewis <cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca> wrote...
:
:ISP_Ratings <bou...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:: Yes--remember when Martin Hannigan was spamming the Boursy FAQ
::every day for weeks in the news.admin.* arena. Now Mr. Lewis
::enjoyed that spam so it was ok. However, when the good Dr. Grubor
::issued a series of posts that where completely different from one
::another and by no means exceeded the silly BI Lewis forged cancelled
::them simply because they critisized his employer NORTEL. Mr. Lewis
::is a content censor.
:>
:
:Really Stevie,
'Stevie'? So you've been taken debating classed with Ed Foster
I guess. And you are a leader? Of what I guess is the question.
:you forgot the entire explanation of that situation,
:didn't you? Marty's FAQ didn't set off my detector, Grubor's did.
Well of course. As I've said you've a pretty straight forward
agenda. It was right in your own back yard--was being posted
daily for weeks with many assorted followups--no way you
and your fellow despammers can claim with any credibility that
you didn't see it.
Keep in mind however that we differ on another element of all
of this. I think it would be wrong for example to prevent Hannigan
from spamming the FAQ--you in theory should have been opposed
to it and canceled them.
:And Marty stopped when we asked.
Well Martin Hannigan is a long term veteran of the net and
works in the industry as well (Bose, Firefly, TIAC, and now
XCOM if they're not in backruptcy yet). He certainly knew
it was spamming and he knew also he had your blessing. You
didn't do anything until the inconsistency was publically made
to you.
:: There you go with those charges again. You posted this
::AM that I made phone calls impersonating someone trying to
::get you caught for some kind of theft plus a whole bunch
::of other foolish charges. I addressed them at lengh yet
::I'll bet you avoid answering each point directly.
:
:And I'll bet that you really wet your panties about the fact
:that I have so much spare time on my hands right now because
:of the Moratorium (except for watching my TV appearance on CBC
:Witness),
I bit vain.
:that I've temporarily suspended my killfiles for light
:entertainment.
Hum--you've claimed I've been in your killfile only
to directly followup for years now. You read my every
word Chris--hell--you come to my front door!
:You admitted your involvement in it in your postings to
:nanau.
Completely untrue. Please post your substantiation of
the charge you made that I was impersonating another on
the telephone. This one's important Lewis--I'm going to
post your exact quote along with the entire article
accusing me of this on a regular basis (not to exceed
the BI) until you substantiate this.
:: Oh--his intent is quite malicious. As recently mentioned
::he once publically claimed on usenet to have showed up at my
::front door with a large group of people--intent no doubt to
::intimidate (can't imagine him to be intimidating!).
:
:Ah, no Stevie, I've never claimed that I visited your house.
:Didn't happen.
Oh it certainly did--you claimed to have left a can of
spam at my front door in fact. You haven't an honest bone
in your body Mr. Lewis but then again you are a forger and
forgers cannot by definition be honest.
Steve
news.admin.censorship
Ron Newman
In article <MPG.fa4f68c9...@news.earthlink.net>,
bou...@earthlink.net (ISP_Ratings) wrote:
[responding to Chris Lewis]
> Hum--you've claimed I've been in your killfile only
> to directly followup for years now. You read my every
> word Chris--hell--you come to my front door!
[snip]
> :Ah, no Stevie, I've never claimed that I visited your house.
> :Didn't happen.
>
> Oh it certainly did--you claimed to have left a can of
> spam at my front door in fact.
Chris Lewis did not visit your house. However, several other
people delivered that can of Canadian spam to your front door on
Chris Lewis's behalf.
--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/
ISP_Ratings
Ron Newman <rne...@thecia.net> wrote...
:
:bou...@earthlink.net (ISP_Ratings) wrote:
:
:[responding to Chris Lewis]
:
:: Hum--you've claimed I've been in your killfile only
:: to directly followup for years now. You read my every
:: word Chris--hell--you come to my front door!
:
:[snip]
:
:::Ah, no Stevie, I've never claimed that I visited your house.
:::Didn't happen.
::
:: Oh it certainly did--you claimed to have left a can of
:: spam at my front door in fact.
:
:Chris Lewis did not visit your house. However, several other
:people delivered that can of Canadian spam to your front door on
:Chris Lewis's behalf.
Never got it. Just for the record Ron are you claiming that
Lewis never stated he came to my front door--he posted it all
over the ne.* groups and you were his official host. One local
Boston area reporter sure noticed his claim and contacted me
about via email about it so it'll be interesting to note your
reply.
Still waiting for Mr. Lewis to substantiate his recent public
allegation that I impersonated another on the telephone trying
to get him in trouble for stealing. Of course Lewis is a forger
and forgers are by their very nature liars. Reading his recent
set of posts it's actually amusing to think some ISPs actually
work in cooperation with such a person--not what you'd call
leadership material.
And then of course he's now declared that the alt heirarchy
is dead simply because he has no control over it and on the
same token we've got the cabal's Jan Isley--the guy who used
to be a Big Eight vote counter until caught red handed riggeing
votes, stating he now disagrees with current Big Eight group
creation policies and is considering not honoring their
voting results on behalf of Mindspring (one of the most
filtered feeds in the US). The crumbling of the cabal.
Steve
news.admin.censorship
Ron Newman
In article <MPG.fa533b09...@news.earthlink.net>,
bou...@earthlink.net (ISP_Ratings) wrote:
> :: Oh it certainly did--you [Chris Lewis] claimed to have left a can of
> :: spam at my front door in fact.
> Never got it. Just for the record Ron are you claiming that
> Lewis never stated he came to my front door--he posted it all
> over the ne.* groups and you were his official host.
Personally, I don't remember whether Chris did or didn't state this.
If you claim he did, then post the message in question here.
I'm sorry you didn't find the spam can. The people who delivered
it rang your doorbell several times. When nobody answered, we left
the can on the porch near your front door.
Sam
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <353BF4BF...@jetcafe.org>,
Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> writes:
> Ron Newman wrote:
>> bou...@earthlink.net (ISP_Ratings) wrote:
>> > Never got it. Just for the record Ron are you claiming that
>> > Lewis never stated he came to my front door--he posted it all
>> > over the ne.* groups and you were his official host.
>> I'm sorry you didn't find the spam can. The people who delivered
>> it rang your doorbell several times. When nobody answered, we left
>> the can on the porch near your front door.
>
> And you call -Steve- a Kook?
Right.
> *shudder*
>
> If -I- were to see a gang of several people approach my front door,
> with any large object, I sure wouldn't be sticking around to answer
> it.
Anyone who starts filling his britches at a sight of a person carrying a
can of luncheon meat is definitely a kook.
Watch it, Dave, or I'll have someone drop off a few rolls of sausage on
your porch. That 'ought to scare you.
> By your own admission, you -are- a cybergang.
OH NO!!!! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!! The cybergang is leaving free luncheon
meat at people's doorsteps!!
WHAT IS THIS WORLD COMING TOO???????
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Peaks/5799/ for public key.
iQEVAwUBNTwXhplaALjSq209AQENrgf/UjJ9MyGeN/sqvojml9bmh+Vyap2B8rGF
Qxb3SEn+HFAZkGerBmL2LKMB5aIj7q5Zwz5ggRjBg2wrkkgY9vH5RRrmL7SCesQ+
2+dDQ9xXs/5YnAugzFC07oQ7tQuhdbqLAEyhTPXzUisttXouqbkl2al5NrRMg66a
sarq6bm88RuKhCOzzH95zL9UJdPICfsu7b0IU8I3WB3UQQdshqjsDFy58KXezeYy
m4GYKDcYTcdQ7RHF2YjDGGJ4jDrCwubI6GHLa+SpRqlwIIsL1ON9KntVs6LJcuJk
7dpmMWzDV9/r+fxHW2ikzFe4Jl+ikPa90lSuEzqx2gK3cK/eV8o1Iw==
=T492
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dave Hayes
Ron Newman wrote:
> bou...@earthlink.net (ISP_Ratings) wrote:
> > Never got it. Just for the record Ron are you claiming that
> > Lewis never stated he came to my front door--he posted it all
> > over the ne.* groups and you were his official host.
> I'm sorry you didn't find the spam can. The people who delivered
> it rang your doorbell several times. When nobody answered, we left
> the can on the porch near your front door.
And you call -Steve- a Kook?
*shudder*
If -I- were to see a gang of several people approach my front door,
with any large object, I sure wouldn't be sticking around to answer
it.
By your own admission, you -are- a cybergang.
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - (NEW!) http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
The king arrived at the resturant where Nasrudin had been left in charge. The
king ordered an omelette. After his meal, when he saw the check he raised
his eyebrows. "Eggs must be very costly here. Are they as scarce as that?"
"It is not the eggs, your majesty...it is the visits of kings."
ISP Ratings
jma...@nospam.visi.com (Jim Manson) wrote:
-
-<T...@NSA.sucks> Information Security wrote:
-
->
->I think Grubor died from diarrhea a couple years ago,
->and the Kook Cabal Leftwing replaced him with a bot.
Ah--the cabal is feeling threatened and calling in
their higher intellects!
-The posts aren't intelligent looking enough to be from a bot.
-
You see--here's yet another.
Steve
news.admin.censorship
ISP Ratings
Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
-
-Ron Newman wrote:
-
-> bou...@earthlink.net (ISP_Ratings) wrote:
->
->> Never got it. Just for the record Ron are you claiming that
->> Lewis never stated he came to my front door--he posted it all
->> over the ne.* groups and you were his official host.
->
-> I'm sorry you didn't find the spam can. The people who delivered
-> it rang your doorbell several times. When nobody answered, we
-> left the can on the porch near your front door.
-
-And you call -Steve- a Kook?
-
-*shudder*
It is rather amazing isn't it. Ron is part of the Boston area
cabal which of course includes Martin Hannigan who went
with another overweight thug directly to the offices of thecia.net
demanding that another users plug be pulled--according to
the staff on duty their intent was to intimidate.
-If -I- were to see a gang of several people approach my front
-door, with any large object, I sure wouldn't be sticking around
-to answer it.
Wasn't home.
-By your own admission, you -are- a cybergang.
Indeed. I do have the articles where Lewis boasted
of personally showing up--I'll have to search for them on
floppy.
Steve
news.admin.censorship
Ron Newman
In article <353BF4BF...@jetcafe.org>, Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
> If -I- were to see a gang of several people approach my front door,
> with any large object, I sure wouldn't be sticking around to answer
> it.
A can of Canadian Imitation Spam is a "large object" ?
ISP Ratings
rne...@thecia.net (Ron Newman) wrote:
-
-Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
-
-> If -I- were to see a gang of several people approach my front door,
-> with any large object, I sure wouldn't be sticking around to answer
-> it.
-
-A can of Canadian Imitation Spam is a "large object" ?
Sure is bigger than a simple text file which you cabal
get all bent out of shape about!! And atleast the text
files that Lewis objects to and censors do not come
to ones front door.
Steve
news.admin.censorship
Dave Hayes
> A can of Canadian Imitation Spam is a "large object" ?
It -could- be a bomb. Regardless, this is behavior I expect to see from
the teens down the street...not self-professed "role models for society".
--
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
Merely doing good to the evil may be just like doing evil to the good.
Chris Lewis
In article <353DA830...@jetcafe.org>,
Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
>Ron Newman wrote:
>> In article <353BF4BF...@jetcafe.org>, Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
>> > If -I- were to see a gang of several people approach my front door,
>> > with any large object, I sure wouldn't be sticking around to answer
>> > it.
>> A can of Canadian Imitation Spam is a "large object" ?
>It -could- be a bomb. Regardless, this is behavior I expect to see from
>the teens down the street...not self-professed "role models for society".
You mean, like the Vulis and Grubor threats about a price being
on my head circulating in Freedom Knights? You want a Cybergang,
peruse Freedom Knights where you see almost all of the kooks
virtually wetting themselves in their frenzied hatred of me.
More sad than anything else. I'd suggest you guys get a life, but,
obviously, you're too far gone for that.
--
Chris Lewis, CyberSheriff (CBC says I am, so it must be true!)
For more information on spam, see http://spam.abuse.net/spam
Fight spam, support Rep. Chris Smith's TCPA extension: http://www.cauce.org
Dave Hayes
Chris Lewis wrote:
> Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
> >Ron Newman wrote:
> >> In article <353BF4BF...@jetcafe.org>, Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
> >> > If -I- were to see a gang of several people approach my front door,
> >> > with any large object, I sure wouldn't be sticking around to answer
> >> > it.
> >> A can of Canadian Imitation Spam is a "large object" ?
>
> >It -could- be a bomb. Regardless, this is behavior I expect to see from
> >the teens down the street...not self-professed "role models for society".
>
> You mean, like the Vulis and Grubor threats about a price being
> on my head circulating in Freedom Knights? You want a Cybergang,
> peruse Freedom Knights where you see almost all of the kooks
> virtually wetting themselves in their frenzied hatred of me.
One behavior does not justify the other, either way. Why do you
not deal with the mote in your own eye before pointing out the
mote in another?
> More sad than anything else. I'd suggest you guys get a life, but,
> obviously, you're too far gone for that.
You would be more accurate if you would not lump me in with either
CyberGang.
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - (NEW!) http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
You may follow one stream.
Realize that it leads to the Ocean.
Do not mistake the stream for the Ocean.
Information Security
In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
: Chris Lewis wrote:
: >
: > You mean, like the Vulis and Grubor threats about a price being
: > on my head circulating in Freedom Knights? You want a Cybergang,
: > peruse Freedom Knights where you see almost all of the kooks
: > virtually wetting themselves in their frenzied hatred of me.
: You would be more accurate if you would not lump me in with either
: CyberGang.
: --
: 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, you are now denying you are a part of the
Internet hooligan gang called "Freedom Knights"?
---guy, Vulis Terminator
ISP Ratings
-
-> You mean, like the Vulis and Grubor threats about a price being
-> on my head circulating in Freedom Knights? You want a Cybergang,
-> peruse Freedom Knights where you see almost all of the kooks
-> virtually wetting themselves in their frenzied hatred of me.
If I recall correctly you expressed publically that you
took that to be a joke--the invasion of Canada and
all. Guess with the failed moratorium you're disposition
has soured considerably.
-One behavior does not justify the other, either way. Why do you
-not deal with the mote in your own eye before pointing out the
-mote in another?
He's not able to. I've been trying to get him to substantiate
a rather serious charge he made against me and he fails
to do so--dances back and forth and throws out other
charges to deflect. Not a decent man.
Steve
news.admin.censorship
S.P.
Dave Hayes wrote:
>
> Chris Lewis wrote:
> > You mean, like the Vulis and Grubor threats about a price being
> > on my head circulating in Freedom Knights? You want a Cybergang,
> > peruse Freedom Knights where you see almost all of the kooks
> > virtually wetting themselves in their frenzied hatred of me.
>
> One behavior does not justify the other, either way. Why do you
> not deal with the mote in your own eye before pointing out the
> mote in another?
Because it's a big mote in Chris Lewis' eye, Dave. It obscure his
vision.
SP
S.P.
ISP Ratings wrote:
>
> Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
> -
> -Chris Lewis wrote:
> -
> -> You mean, like the Vulis and Grubor threats about a price being
> -> on my head circulating in Freedom Knights? You want a Cybergang,
> -> peruse Freedom Knights where you see almost all of the kooks
> -> virtually wetting themselves in their frenzied hatred of me.
>
> If I recall correctly you expressed publically that you
> took that to be a joke--the invasion of Canada and
> all. Guess with the failed moratorium you're disposition
> has soured considerably.
I think he is looking for scapegoats to blame for his failed moratorium,
Steve.
> -One behavior does not justify the other, either way. Why do you
> -not deal with the mote in your own eye before pointing out the
> -mote in another?
>
> He's not able to. I've been trying to get him to substantiate
> a rather serious charge he made against me and he fails
> to do so--dances back and forth and throws out other
> charges to deflect. Not a decent man.
He cannot substantiate the charges, Steve. Therefore, this thread could
become quite long, and Chris Lewis quite ill, should you continue to put
him on the spot.
SP
Information Security
In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet ISP Ratings <bou...@alt.net> wrote:
: I've been trying to evade a rather serious charge
: he made against me and so I dance back and forth
: and throws out other charges to deflect.
:
: I'm not a decent man.
Yep.
---guy, Vulis Terminator
Chris Lewis
In article <3540AD2D...@jetcafe.org>,
Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
>> >> In article <353BF4BF...@jetcafe.org>, Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
>> >> > If -I- were to see a gang of several people approach my front door,
>> >> > with any large object, I sure wouldn't be sticking around to answer
>> >> > it.
>> >> A can of Canadian Imitation Spam is a "large object" ?
>> >It -could- be a bomb. Regardless, this is behavior I expect to see from
>> >the teens down the street...not self-professed "role models for society".
>> You mean, like the Vulis and Grubor threats about a price being
>> on my head circulating in Freedom Knights? You want a Cybergang,
>> peruse Freedom Knights where you see almost all of the kooks
>> virtually wetting themselves in their frenzied hatred of me.
>One behavior does not justify the other, either way. Why do you
>not deal with the mote in your own eye before pointing out the
>mote in another?
Defending myself from unsubstantiated allegations, dealing with
attempts to get me in trouble with the law, and attempts to trick
someone into killing me and my family is hardly unjustified behaviour.
>> More sad than anything else. I'd suggest you guys get a life, but,
>> obviously, you're too far gone for that.
>You would be more accurate if you would not lump me in with either
>CyberGang.
You're so quick to condemn me and others, and nary a peep about your
buddy's behaviour that proves itself daily in your own mailbox, on
mailing lists that you supply. I don't think there's any question
where you stand.
Dave Hayes
Information Security wrote:
> What, you are now denying you are a part of the
> Internet hooligan gang called "Freedom Knights"?
You misrepresent the question. The "Freedom Knights" are not an
organization, and certainly not a "gang" of any sort. This is
a fact you would have known if you had read the FAQ carefully.
In a similar vein, just because someone claims to be a Freedom
Knight, doesn't mean that they are (again, read the FAQ).
Further, just because people are on a mailing list does not mean
they are part of any sort of organization.
Finally, I am not a part of -any- hooligan gang. Period.
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - (NEW!) http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
Because you grasp labels and slogans, you are hindered by those labels
and slogans, both those used in ordinary life and those considered
sacred. Thus they obstruct your perception of objective truth, and you
cannot understand clearly. -Zen Master Linji
Dave Hayes
Chris Lewis wrote:
> Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
> >Chris Lewis wrote:
> >> Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
> >> >Ron Newman wrote:
> >> >> In article <353BF4BF...@jetcafe.org>, Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
> >> >> > If -I- were to see a gang of several people approach my front door,
> >> >> > with any large object, I sure wouldn't be sticking around to answer
> >> >> > it.
> >> >> A can of Canadian Imitation Spam is a "large object" ?
>
> >> >It -could- be a bomb. Regardless, this is behavior I expect to see from
> >> >the teens down the street...not self-professed "role models for society".
>
> >> You mean, like the Vulis and Grubor threats about a price being
> >> on my head circulating in Freedom Knights? You want a Cybergang,
> >> peruse Freedom Knights where you see almost all of the kooks
> >> virtually wetting themselves in their frenzied hatred of me.
>
> >One behavior does not justify the other, either way. Why do you
> >not deal with the mote in your own eye before pointing out the
> >mote in another?
>
> Defending myself from unsubstantiated allegations, dealing with
> attempts to get me in trouble with the law, and attempts to trick
> someone into killing me and my family is hardly unjustified behaviour.
Uh, did you mean "unjustified"? :)
You missed the point. Let me express it another way. If someone
hits you, and you hit them back, it is often considered the fault
of both people. It then stands to reason that if you don't like being
hit, perhaps you should not hit others as well?
You have pissed off lots of people you brand as "spammers". So when
people brand you as <evil description> why are you surprised? I'm not
surprised at all when they brand me a kook, and my only "crime" is not
supporting the party line.
Further, I'd say the allegations you have there are quite unsubstantiated.
"Attempts to trick someone into killing you and your family"? Over
something that happened on USENET? I have a difficult time believing that
one.
> >> More sad than anything else. I'd suggest you guys get a life, but,
> >> obviously, you're too far gone for that.
>
> >You would be more accurate if you would not lump me in with either
> >CyberGang.
>
> You're so quick to condemn me and others, and nary a peep about your
> buddy's behaviour that proves itself daily in your own mailbox, on
> mailing lists that you supply.
I don't see these actions the same way you do.
> I don't think there's any question where you stand.
Oh there's lots of questions, but answers based on factual data can only
come from me. Your presumption does not make a reality, except for your
own illusion.
--
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
Nasrudin found a weary falcon sitting one day on his window-sill. He'd never
seen a bird of this kind before. "You poor thing," he said, "how ever were
you allowed to get into this state?" He clipped the falcon's talons, cut its
beak straight, and trimmed its feathers. "Now you look more like a bird."
Information Security
: > What, you are now denying you are a part of the
: > Internet hooligan gang called "Freedom Knights"?
: You misrepresent the question. The "Freedom Knights" are not an
: organization, and certainly not a "gang" of any sort. This is
: a fact you would have known if you had read the FAQ carefully.
Hey, enjoy your plausible denyability.
There's no such group as "cypherpunks", either. ;-)
I am referring to the crowd you run with.
Care to tell everyone officially what you think
of "Dr" Grubor and "Dr" Vulis?
Ha.
---guy, Vulis Terminator
You're a bunch of Internet hooligans.
Chris Lewis
In article <35455815...@jetcafe.org>,
Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
>Chris Lewis wrote:
>> Defending myself from unsubstantiated allegations, dealing with
>> attempts to get me in trouble with the law, and attempts to trick
>> someone into killing me and my family is hardly unjustified behaviour.
>You missed the point. Let me express it another way. If someone
>hits you, and you hit them back, it is often considered the fault
>of both people.
The analogy fails because I've never "hit" anyone in retaliation. Nor
mailbombed. Nor threatened someone's life. Nor impersonated someone to
get someone else in trouble with the law. Nor posted people's home
phone numbers.
>You have pissed off lots of people you brand as "spammers". So when
>people brand you as <evil description> why are you surprised?
"There's a $50,000 reward for the death of Chris Lewis" is a rather
long way from "evil description", doncha think? And a lot more likely
to have real world consequences.
Secondly, I don't "brand" Vulis, Boursy or the rest of you as spammers.
>I'm not
>surprised at all when they brand me a kook, and my only "crime" is not
>supporting the party line.
I can think of a few more, such as blatant hypocrisy, bad science,
and a wilful dismissal of evidence simply because you don't like the taste.
>Further, I'd say the allegations you have there are quite unsubstantiated.
>"Attempts to trick someone into killing you and your family"? Over
>something that happened on USENET? I have a difficult time believing that
>one.
As you had with the story about the impersonations of John Bauer to
get me in trouble with the law, despite the fact that Boursy admits
to being involved with it. _You_ have seen the "reward"
posting several times, as well as Vulis opining that I and my
family should be killed.
You discard evidence simply because you don't like it. Simply
evidence of a closed mind.
>> You're so quick to condemn me and others, and nary a peep about your
>> buddy's behaviour that proves itself daily in your own mailbox, on
>> mailing lists that you supply.
>I don't see these actions the same way you do.
You'd think differently if it was you being attacked.
>> I don't think there's any question where you stand.
>Oh there's lots of questions, but answers based on factual data can only
>come from me. Your presumption does not make a reality, except for your
>own illusion.
Weren't you just saying that you could tell what I dislike from my
cancels?
Really Dave, more inconsistency. Are you ever going to practise what
you preach?
--
ISP Ratings
->"Attempts to trick someone into killing you and your family"? Over
->something that happened on USENET? I have a difficult time believing
->that one.
-
-As you had with the story about the impersonations of John Bauer to
-get me in trouble with the law, despite the fact that Boursy admits
-to being involved with it. _You_ have seen the "reward"
-posting several times, as well as Vulis opining that I and my
-family should be killed.
You're very dishonest Mr. Lewis--a man of no integrity. You
keep repeating this absurd charge--I've admitted no such
involvement whatsoever and have been asking you over
and over again to publically substantiate it which you
continue to fail to do. You are not of leadership material,
have serious character flaws and no decent business would
ever consider being associated with you.
Now once again Mr. Lewis--please post your
substantiation of this charge because it is indeed
as you put it just a 'story'. We'll forward the
substantiation over to misc.legal for further
comment.
Steve
news.admin.censorship
Chris Lewis
[Posted and emailed, since Boursy still refuses to substantiate
many claims made about me.]
In article <3547789f...@news.alt.net>,
ISP Ratings <bou...@alt.net> wrote:
> You're very dishonest Mr. Lewis--a man of no integrity. You
>keep repeating this absurd charge--I've admitted no such
>involvement whatsoever and have been asking you over
>and over again to publically substantiate it which you
>continue to fail to do.
Of course I have substantiated it, several times. No-one would expect you
to admit it - you'd be admitting to have committed a criminal act. And
even you aren't that stupid.
We can only stand back and watch you lie with sheer awe - the chutzpah
about denying the existance of postings, you've replied to several times.
Rather than include that whole thing all over again, I'll just
reference the last time I posted it: <Erz3G...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca>.
Getting _you_ to admit to it is a lost cause. We know that. Let's
press on. Now it's your turn to substantiate the charges you made
about me.
But you'll probably ignore it, like the last couple of times I've emailed
and posted it to you. You are a worthless pathological liar who'll
make up whatever suits your fancy, aren't you?
Post your substantiation of the following allegations you made or tacitly
agreed with about me made in January of 1996 in <DL3o6...@world.std.com>,
<DLnyC...@world.std.com>, and <DLwFw...@world.std.com>.
1) Substantiate that I've ever visited Sun Microsystems at any time
for any purpose, let alone training as you claim.
2) Substantiate that I've ever been to Korea.
3) Substantiate that there were a number of "officials" waiting
to talk to me if I entered the US. (Whoops, sorry, been there
four times, done that, no "officials" interested in talking to
me at all).
4) Substantiate that you have my travel records to publish.
5) Substantiate that I have a cottage.
6) Substantiate that I have ever worked for AT&T, let alone was
fired by AT&T.
7) Substantiate that John Macdonald and/or Elegant was:
a) threatened with being sued about me.
b) has _ever_ been contacted about me.
8) Substantiate that I stay "holed up in [my] cottage for 3 days
at a time"
[god knows why you made this one up.]
9) Substantiate that Elegant has ever been under "continuous
surveillance".
10) Substantiate that I've been under investigation by the RCMP
at this or any other time.
11) Substantiate that I've ever been under investigation by any
police force for anything, except what you yourself instigated
by impersonating John Bauer.
12) Substantiate your claim that the Canadian Privacy Council thinks
I'm a bad boy. Note that you'll first have to substantiate that
there _is_ a Canadian Privacy Council. Hint: there isn't.
13) Substantiate that I'm John Milburn (in one posting you called
him GEM).
14) Substantiate Grubor's claim that I've been arrested or under
suspicion for molesting children, _any_ children, let alone
my own.
15) Substantiate that I live in Constance Bay.
16) Substantiate that I have a daughter.
17) Substantiate that the Ontario Provincial Police is the same
thing as the RCMP.
wil...@ix.netcom.com
In <6iadu2$7...@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca> cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris
Lewis) writes:
>
>[Posted and emailed, since Boursy still refuses to substantiate
>many claims made about me.]
>
>In article <3547789f...@news.alt.net>,
>ISP Ratings <bou...@alt.net> wrote:
>
>> You're very dishonest Mr. Lewis--a man of no integrity. You
>>keep repeating this absurd charge--I've admitted no such
>>involvement whatsoever and have been asking you over
>>and over again to publically substantiate it which you
>>continue to fail to do.
Excellent description of the control freak. Lewis
blathers about "catching people" in this or that
by ferreting through people's post until he comes
up with a seeming inconsistency such as most prolific
net writers fall into if they stay around long
enough. Then, Lewis plays his little "gotcha game".
Yet, Lewis' entire scene on the net has been one
thing only: to control other people. He blathers
about spammers, but usually where he has real conflicts
with people is in situations when someone Chris doesn't
like is posting to a half-dozen highly appropriate
newsgruops and saying things that Lewis and Co. don't
wish to hear.
And Lewis proves very inconsistent himself. He gave
himself away last year, when in one post he was
blathering about "boring" I am and how I have "no
opinions"; yet in another post he was going on about
staying up late at night trying to "get through"
my articles.
I mean, think about it. How many people reading
this stay up late at night struggling to get through
"boring articles" written by people "with no opinions."
It was very clear to me then that Lewis was up to something.
Just after that lots of my articles started disappearing
right and left. Now, I can't prove Lewis was responsible,
and I'll be the first one to admit that he likely knows
so much more about that kind of activity (it being his
life, and all) than I do I couldn't catch him if I wanted
to, but the whole affair remains very suspicious, based
on Lewis' own posted inconsistencies.
[I should add that my articles in question were posted
from to between three to eight appropriate newsgroups where
they fell directlly on topic; that's scarcely spamming,
so no one had the slightest justification for cancelling
them, other than simply not wishing readers to have an
opportunity to read my opinions.]
Yet here Lewis blathers on about catching Mr. Boursy (who
has been on the net for years and who has made a great many
posts) in some "inconsistencies". Well, Chris, let's
not forget about people who live in glass stones.
Yet, if I could ask Chris Lewis a question, it would
be this: "Exactly HOW MANY articles posted by others
have you used fraudulent means to cancel, simply
because the writer got your nose out of joint with
his or her opinions?"
>Of course I have substantiated it, several times. No-one would expect
you
>to admit it - you'd be admitting to have committed a criminal act.
And
>even you aren't that stupid.
>
>We can only stand back and watch you lie with sheer awe - the chutzpah
>about denying the existance of postings, you've replied to several
times.
>
>Rather than include that whole thing all over again, I'll just
>reference the last time I posted it: <Erz3G...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca>.
As though "proof" from a master net-manipulator like Lewis
with no life outside of habitually tampering what belongs to
others means a whole lot!
>
>Getting _you_ to admit to it is a lost cause. We know that. Let's
>press on. Now it's your turn to substantiate the charges you made
>about me.
I'll say this, Lewis. I would trust Mr. Boursy a damn
site farther than I would you! Steve's thing on the net
plainly involves fighting censorship and alerting readers
about very harmful "plans for us" that outsiders who know
nothing at all about the net are cooking up for everyone.
That's no "crime" on Steve's part, at least not YET, thank-
fully.
Mr. Boursy has made people aware of plenty of other poten-
tially harmful things too. Readers should stop and consider
this, in terms of "integrity": If you noticed some of YOUR
posts being cancelled, and you did some research, and somehow
the situation came down to one of two people doing the
cancelling, either Mr. Boursy or Mr. Lewis, which one
would you suspect? You KNOW who has the smelly reputation
for things like that: None other than Lewis The Usenet
Ferret.
THAT'S the key to the whole thing: Mr. Boursy has a reputation
for getting people's nose out of joint by being outspoken. Mr.
Lewis has made his "name" on the net by interferring with what
belongs to others. It's been proven again and again that Lewis'
schtick about fighting big time spammers is just a pretext to
interfere with people holding opinions Lewis and his pals don't
wish see disseminated. He and his crony Skirvin typify junior
grade control freaks who have made the net their little
playground...
Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer
Information Security
: -
: -cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
: ->
: ->[Posted and emailed, since Boursy still refuses to substantiate
: ->many claims made about me.]
: Note that Mr. Lewis approves of email harassment--he's been
: told his mail is unwelcome.
Yet you keep posting. ;-)
---guy, Vulis Terminator
ISP Ratings
-
-
-> Your mail fortunately cannot reach my mailbox but
->it's interesting you do approve of sending email
->when you've been told it's not welcome. Nice
->role model Chris.
-
-This is pretty funny coming from you Boursy, who has sent a lot
-more mail to me, long after I told you to stop, than I've ever
-sent to you.
That's certainly untrue as well but then again even if it
were true it doesn't change the fact that you are making
a public statement--as a self styled 'leader' that it is
appropriate to send harassing email when you've been
asked not to. As with everything else you answer not
by answering but by making a counter charge.
Thus here we go again--this time either substantiate
or retract please.
Steve
news.admin.censorship
The below article will be reposted at regular intervals
(not to exceed that silly BI) much like an FAQ until
Mr. Lewis either substantiates his charges or
retracts them The man claims to be credible
to lot's of sys admins and the fact is that he is
not.
While others are more than welcome to
jump in to defend or disparage the respective
parties only specific answers from Lewis addressing
all outstanding allegations will be acceptable
in terms of ending the need to repost (not
to exceed the silly BI).
bou...@earthlink.net (ISP_Ratings) wrote:
-
-Chris Lewis <cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca> wrote...
-:
-:ISP Ratings <bou...@alt.net> wrote:
-:
-::h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) wrote:
-::
-::-bou...@shell.thecia.net (Stephen Boursy) wrote:
-::-
-::-: Now here is an official charge by Chris Lewis. OK Lewis--
-::-:where is you documentation of this charge? You do pretend to
-::-:be credible after all so put up or apologize.
-:
-:: Not that Chris Lewis made this public charge before millions and
-::has failed to substantiate it or even address it.
-:
-:Lying as usual, eh Boursy?
-
- I wouldn't call such a statement from you substantiation Mr. Lewis.
-And I note that evidently I'm not in your killfile anymore--you must
-have put me in and taken me out atleast 8 or 9 times now--means to
-me you've always followed my every word.
-
-:How about where we caught Vulis altering
-:quotes from staff at Emory?
-
- When and where. And it's the 'Good Dr. Vulis' to you. You
-really have an obsessive hatred for the Good Dr. Vulis Chris--
-most unseemly.
-
-
-:Shall we ask you about all of the claims you made about me,
-:where you've refused to substantiate?
-
- Hum--let's be specific Chris. I realize you hate doing that.
-
-:How about all those phone calls you made impersonating John Bauer,
-
- This one really puzzles me. You've made that claim before
-yet offered no substantiated and I honest made no phone calls
-impersonating anyone.
-
-:claiming that I was stealing Sparc 20s from Sun?
-
- A gentleman who claimed to be a private investigator called
-me asking questions to see if I know any information about your
-alledged involvement in this thing which was the first I ever
-heard about it. I knew nothing and couldn't help him out
-with that one. So please substantiate this charge--yet another
-from one who claims credibility.
-
-
-:Don't try to weasel out, Stevie,
-
- I'm not. I'd be happy to discuss this at length but every
-time we start doing that you back off. You've yet to
-substantiate anything and make some rather serious charges.
-
-
-:because your buddy Grubor spilled the beans. He's not
-:very bright, is he?
-
- Dr. Grubor is actually extremely bright and a joy to talk
-with on the telephone. However, if he 'spilled the beans'
-I'm certainly not responsible for the good Dr. Grubors
-statements and in any event please substantiate this claim
-because it simply doesn't make sense (and I'll bet you'll
-not substantiate anything because that would be quite
-impossible).
-
-::-If Fomin is not Vulis, he is a Vulis troll. Take my word
-::-for it, Steve.
-:
-:"Fomin" at thecia.net was Grubor.
-
- The Dr. Fomin Henrietta was referring to and which I was
-addressing, and I would think you'd realize but perhaps not,
-is the good Dr. Fomin who used to post from panix.com. We
-were discussing the great Russian flame wars which occured
-long before the thecia.net account you're talking about now.
-Here you're either a bit dense or deliberately being diahonest.
-
-
-:The admins confirmed it, when they told me "Grubor told us
-:to cancel the account at the end of the month".
-
- Shawn, the admin at thecia.net at the time, received email
-from you trying to get my plug pulled, along with Dr. Grubors,
-at the request of a local New England censor Ron Newman. You
-told them that if they did not comply you'd block their
-sites traffic--why haven't you addressed this Mr. Lewis--I've
-never spammed as you well know so why in Gods name would you
-threaten to block their traffic.
-
-
-::... He also claimed to have never forged a cancel on anything
-::that had not exceeded the BI--examples where given
-:
-:Lying again eh Stevie?
-
- Not at all--you know full well, and there was rather extensive
-open discussion on the subject at the time, that his posts that
-you cancelled did not in any way exceed the BI--the only common
-element they had was critism of NORTEL your employer. The
-content on the posts were entirely different and right on the
-mark for the most part. You're a two bit content censor
-Lewis.
-
-
-::and he failed to address that.
-:
-:Another lie in the same sentence.
-
- Not at all--in fact above you haven't addressed anything,
-haven't substantiated anything yet continue to make more
-and more wild charges.
-
-
-:Tsk tsk.
-:
-:: Merely pointing this out because Chris Lewis is dishonest
-::as is his agenda and not only will you find fewer ISPs willing
-::to associate with him but you'll find anyone with a financial
-::interest in the business keeping an arms length at a bare
-::minimum from an open and admitted email address forger--
-:
-:You mean like your buddies Vulis and Grubor who wrote and
-
- Why is it Mr. Lewis that whenever we 'debate' you always
-bring up associates alledged behaviors rather than mine?
-A bit like the old Senator McCarthy and again very
-unseemly.
-
-:distributed a version of cbcb that forged my name and many
-:others. My cancels have _my_ name on them. Your buddies
-:are so cowardly that they put other people's names on them.
-
- Your cancels forge the email addresses of other users--that's
-a fact as most here already know. As to your other charge
-it doesn't concern me or what we're discussing but once
-again you've offered no substantiation.
-
-
-::just doesn't fly on wall street.
-:
-:Strange, our stocks keep going up. More than quadruple last
-:year, they even had to split 'em.
-
- I'm talking ISPs Mr. Lewis. They can't afford to be openly
-associated with one like you--a forger and one who makes all
-sorts of charges and refuses to substantiate them. If you
-are their leader they most certainly are in trouble.
-
- Now please tell the good folks--isn't it true that you
-publically claimed on usenet that you showed up at my front
-door with a large group of people? And why would you do
-that Mr. Lewis--to intimidate?
-
- Hopefully curiuos readers will keep track of the various
-charges and keep a close eye on what is avoided.
-
-
-:Rumours of my demise are greatly exaggerated.
-
- Perhaps--but your reputation has long since died.
-
- Steve
- news.admin.censorship
Information Security
In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet ISP Ratings <bou...@alt.net> wrote:
: Thus here we go again--this time either substantiate
: or retract please.
You're not going to burst into tears again,
are you, sad clown?
---guy, Vulis Terminator
Dave Hayes
Chris Lewis wrote:
> Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
> >Chris Lewis wrote:
> >> Defending myself from unsubstantiated allegations, dealing with
> >> attempts to get me in trouble with the law, and attempts to trick
> >> someone into killing me and my family is hardly unjustified behaviour.
>
> >You missed the point. Let me express it another way. If someone
> >hits you, and you hit them back, it is often considered the fault
> >of both people.
>
> The analogy fails because I've never "hit" anyone in retaliation. Nor
> mailbombed. Nor threatened someone's life. Nor impersonated someone to
> get someone else in trouble with the law. Nor posted people's home
> phone numbers.
I never claimed you did these things. Of course, I don't know that you
-haven't- done them. I'm only talking about what you do to spammers.
That's all I can see from here.
> >You have pissed off lots of people you brand as "spammers". So when
> >people brand you as <evil description> why are you surprised?
> "There's a $50,000 reward for the death of Chris Lewis" is a rather
> long way from "evil description", doncha think?
Not at all. Wanted posters are up daily in the post office, and they
pretty much say the same thing.
> >I'm not surprised at all when they brand me a kook, and my only "crime" is not
> >supporting the party line.
> I can think of a few more, such as blatant hypocrisy,
Eh? -You- are the one blatantly disobeying the RFCs, forging cancel messages
like you do.
> >Further, I'd say the allegations you have there are quite unsubstantiated.
> >"Attempts to trick someone into killing you and your family"? Over
> >something that happened on USENET? I have a difficult time believing that
> >one.
> As you had with the story about the impersonations of John Bauer to
> get me in trouble with the law, despite the fact that Boursy admits
> to being involved with it.
Sorry. I wasn't there. Do you, for a moment, think that I trust you to be
objective at all in the face of all your anger?
> _You_ have seen the "reward" posting several times, as well as Vulis
> opining that I and my family should be killed.
And you -believed- something you read on Usenet? Oh my...
> You discard evidence simply because you don't like it. Simply
> evidence of a closed mind.
Evidence for what? For a conclusion you want me to draw because "I should"?
You want -me- to judge the situation the way you would?
Why must I be like you?
> >> I don't think there's any question where you stand.
>
> >Oh there's lots of questions, but answers based on factual data can only
> >come from me. Your presumption does not make a reality, except for your
> >own illusion.
>
> Weren't you just saying that you could tell what I dislike from my
> cancels?
I can tell what you -appear- to dislike. How many times and ways must I
say this before you will -appear- to "get it"? :)
> Really Dave, more inconsistency.
Not at all. Your cancels and these posts are the only way I even know you are a
being.
--
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
Man is most nearly himself when he achieves the seriousness
of a child at play.
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - (NEW!) http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
"If a man does keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he
Chris Lewis
In article <35499112...@jetcafe.org>,
Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
>Chris Lewis wrote:
>> Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
>> >Chris Lewis wrote:
>> >> Defending myself from unsubstantiated allegations, dealing with
>> >> attempts to get me in trouble with the law, and attempts to trick
>> >> someone into killing me and my family is hardly unjustified behaviour.
>> >You missed the point. Let me express it another way. If someone
>> >hits you, and you hit them back, it is often considered the fault
>> >of both people.
>> The analogy fails because I've never "hit" anyone in retaliation. Nor
>> mailbombed. Nor threatened someone's life. Nor impersonated someone to
>> get someone else in trouble with the law. Nor posted people's home
>> phone numbers.
>I never claimed you did these things. Of course, I don't know that you
>-haven't- done them. I'm only talking about what you do to spammers.
>That's all I can see from here.
If you have no evidence either way that I "did these things", you
shouldn't be dismissing their actions making the assumption I did.
You either have evidence and you can draw conclusions from it, or you
don't and you can't draw any conclusions.
>> >You have pissed off lots of people you brand as "spammers". So when
>> >people brand you as <evil description> why are you surprised?
>> "There's a $50,000 reward for the death of Chris Lewis" is a rather
>> long way from "evil description", doncha think?
>Not at all. Wanted posters are up daily in the post office, and they
>pretty much say the same thing.
You're getting really ridiculous Dave.
>> I can think of a few more, such as blatant hypocrisy,
>Eh? -You- are the one blatantly disobeying the RFCs, forging cancel messages
>like you do.
Yes, I am "blatantly disobeying the RFCs", but in a socially acceptable manner.
And, -you- are "blatantly disobeying the RFCs" too. Some in a socially
acceptable fashion (The "NNTP-Posting-Host" is invalid according to RFC1036),
and some in a socially unacceptable fashion (You have forged Approval lines
in the past, which is something only you, Caputo, and your buddies on
FK appear to sanction).
I've never asserted the absolute primacy of an obsolete RFC, so don't
play games about it.
>> >Further, I'd say the allegations you have there are quite unsubstantiated.
>> >"Attempts to trick someone into killing you and your family"? Over
>> >something that happened on USENET? I have a difficult time believing that
>> >one.
>> As you had with the story about the impersonations of John Bauer to
>> get me in trouble with the law, despite the fact that Boursy admits
>> to being involved with it.
>Sorry. I wasn't there. Do you, for a moment, think that I trust you to be
>objective at all in the face of all your anger?
What anger? What does your perceived level of my "anger" compare to the
level of vituperation promulgated by your friends on Freedom Knights? Who
posts and mails article after article about "killing" someone? Who posts
and mails article after article about mailbombing someone? Who posts and
emails article after article about "killing POPs", "kicking ass", long
pornographic "poetry" supposedly written by me, forgeries of Nortel abuse
addresses, etc?
Not me Dave.
>> _You_ have seen the "reward" posting several times, as well as Vulis
>> opining that I and my family should be killed.
>And you -believed- something you read on Usenet? Oh my...
Come now Dave, talk about blatant misdirection.
- It has nothing to do whatsoever with what -I- believe about the
legitimacy or not of the reward (and of course I know that
Vulis would never pay up), and everything to do with what your
buddy Vulis manages to fool someone else into believing.
The police take it as a serious threat, regardless of whether
there really is a reward or not. As they should. As most
other people do.
- It wasn't just on Usenet. It was on Cypherpunks _and_
Freedom Knights in case you've forgotten.
>> You discard evidence simply because you don't like it. Simply
>> evidence of a closed mind.
>Evidence for what? For a conclusion you want me to draw because "I should"?
>You want -me- to judge the situation the way you would?
>Why must I be like you?
Why would I want you to be? All I'm expecting from you, or from anyone else,
is the brains to understand that the level of harrassment from your buddies
is entirely out of proportion to what "I've done to them" - especially
since I've never "done anything to them".
You'll whine "but I have no evidence of that". Exactly Dave, so why
do you justify their actions?
>> >> I don't think there's any question where you stand.
>> >Oh there's lots of questions, but answers based on factual data can only
>> >come from me. Your presumption does not make a reality, except for your
>> >own illusion.
>>
>> Weren't you just saying that you could tell what I dislike from my
>> cancels?
>
>I can tell what you -appear- to dislike. How many times and ways must I
>say this before you will -appear- to "get it"? :)
That's not what you said Dave, you made assertions on what I dislike,
not on what I "appear" to dislike.
>> Really Dave, more inconsistency.
>Not at all. Your cancels and these posts are the only way I even know you
>are a being.
As I characterize you by your hypocritical postings here, your promotion
and support for your buddy's continuing attacks on me, your forging of
Approval lines, and so on.
Thanks for clearing that up.
wil...@ix.netcom.com
In <354db4a6...@news.sputum.com> Unit_...@sputum.com (CNS 180)
writes:
>
>On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 23:50:28 GMT, Steve Boursy (ISP Ratings) wrote, in
>news.admin.net-abuse.usenet:
>
>^ Yes--he publically accused me of impersonating another
>^over the telephone trying to get him in trouble for some
>^sort of theft and that's an outright lie. I've asked his
>^to substantiate this or retract and he continues to
>^dance around the issue.
>
> Chris Lewis has both posted and provided msg links to the
> evidence, and it's pretty clear that he's substantiated
> his claims. But every time he asks you to provide evidence
> of your absurb allegations, you do nothing but whine about
> him not proving his. Who's dancing? And very badly?
>
>^ You know the cabal has a wide spectrum of members
>^and they can help but notice this. I will say that for
>^any who work in cooperation with this man in the
>^future have no standards of honesty and are not
>^worth the air they breath. Note also that I've asked
>^several very respected and prominant cabal to
>^comment on this and they just remain silent.
>^That's a sad commentary on their overall standards.
>
> We're having too much fun watching you make a fool of yourself.
>
> Lewis is one of the most respected members of the antispam
> community,
You're getting a bit wild in your claims. Fact is,
Chris Lewis represents another shabby instance of
someone who hides behind a serious cause in order
to make some area of human endeavor his playpen.
Now, if all Chris Lewis was doing was trying to
get rid of big time commereical spam, I would
have no problem with him. Yet, in case after
case, he has attacked or otherwise interferred
with people who are "spammers" by no honest
stretch of an imagination.
Basically, if you post statements contrary to the
beliefs of Lewis and his pal Timmy Skirvin, your
posts are subject to begin disappearing from the
net like snowballs on a hot Death Valley summer day.
And of course, since pulling other people's posts is
all Lewis does, he has developed it into such a fine
art that for an ordinary person, such as me, with no
special expertise on the workings of the net, it is
almost impossible to catch him. Now, you might respect
Lewis' expertise, but lets not forget, the Unibomber had
"expertise" too!
Let's remember that the net was neither envisioned nor set
up as a medium for the Chris Lewises or the Tim Skirvins
to show to what extent they could control the opinions
of others.
> and certainly the most even-tempered. There aren't
> many other people who could have Remained Calm under the ongoing
> vicious attacks that you and the rest of the kook.kabal have put
> him through for, how long? It's become years, I believe. [...]
In other words, a) the ONLY thing that Chris Lewis
has ever done involves canceling posts by big time
commercial spammers, and b) he has never canceled posts
or otherwise harassed any poster simply as a result of
the person's opinions. Is THAT what you are saying?
Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer
Information Security
In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet wil...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
[snip]
Oh, look, it's that PalmJob dude again.
I wonder what he wants?
Since so few of his words appear in the first screen of
his posts, I just skip on by...
---guy, Vulis Terminator
Ed Foster
In article <6iarsf$q...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>, wil...@ix.netcom.com
(Palmjob) wrote:
> Well, Chris, let's not forget about people who live in glass stones.
Occasionally it's worth plodding through one hundred plus lines of Palmjob
blather for a statement such as the above. But what else can you expect
from someone with an IQ lower than a "glass stone."
--
Ed Foster
erRMV...@MediaOne.Net
(remove "RMV" to reply)
Information Security
: =
: -[Posted and emailed, since Boursy still refuses to substantiate
: -many claims made about me.]
: Your mail fortunately cannot reach my mailbox but
: it's interesting you do approve of sending email
: when you've been told it's not welcome. Nice
: role model Chris.
And you keep posting even though it's not welcome. ;-)
---guy, Vulis Terminator
Chollian Newsgroup User
Ed Foster (erRMV...@mediaone.net) wrote:
: In article <6iarsf$q...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>, wil...@ix.netcom.com
: (Palmjob) wrote:
: > Well, Chris, let's not forget about people who live in glass stones.
: Occasionally it's worth plodding through one hundred plus lines of Palmjob
wil...@ix.netcom.com
In <erRMVfoster-02...@24.128.32.171>
erRMV...@mediaone.net (Ed Foster) writes:
>
>In article <6iarsf$q...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>, wil...@ix.netcom.com
>(Palmjob) wrote:
>
>
>
>
Palmjob
>blather for a statement such as the above. But what else can you
expect
>from someone with an IQ lower than a "glass stone."
Actually, I DO think it was pretty original. Remind
me to make it my sig quote...
Dave Hayes
Chris Lewis wrote:
> Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
> >Chris Lewis wrote:
> >> Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
> >> >Chris Lewis wrote:
> >> >> Defending myself from unsubstantiated allegations, dealing with
> >> >> attempts to get me in trouble with the law, and attempts to trick
> >> >> someone into killing me and my family is hardly unjustified behaviour.
>
> >> >You missed the point. Let me express it another way. If someone
> >> >hits you, and you hit them back, it is often considered the fault
> >> >of both people.
>
> >> The analogy fails because I've never "hit" anyone in retaliation. Nor
> >> mailbombed. Nor threatened someone's life. Nor impersonated someone to
> >> get someone else in trouble with the law. Nor posted people's home
> >> phone numbers.
>
> >I never claimed you did these things. Of course, I don't know that you
> >-haven't- done them. I'm only talking about what you do to spammers.
> >That's all I can see from here.
>
> If you have no evidence either way that I "did these things", you
> shouldn't be dismissing their actions making the assumption I did.
By who's standards of "shouldn't"?
Most importantly, why do I -have- to take -any- action here? I don't
know you, and I'd prefer not to get involved in a bunch of humans and
their private pissing match. :)
I've been doing a good job of not getting involved as it is.
> You either have evidence and you can draw conclusions from it, or you
> don't and you can't draw any conclusions.
I'm only going on what you folks claim. I can't verify any of the claims,
but I can comment on what I see happening assuming the claims to be true.
> >> I can think of a few more, such as blatant hypocrisy,
>
> >Eh? -You- are the one blatantly disobeying the RFCs, forging cancel messages
> >like you do.
>
> Yes, I am "blatantly disobeying the RFCs", but in a socially acceptable manner.
And that makes it right?
> And, -you- are "blatantly disobeying the RFCs" too. Some in a socially
> acceptable fashion (The "NNTP-Posting-Host" is invalid according to RFC1036),
> and some in a socially unacceptable fashion (You have forged Approval lines
> in the past, which is something only you, Caputo, and your buddies on
> FK appear to sanction).
I do not recall ever forging Approval lines.
> I've never asserted the absolute primacy of an obsolete RFC, so don't
> play games about it.
Yer forging cancel messages. That's wrong, in my book. Sorry you don't
agree.
> >> >Further, I'd say the allegations you have there are quite unsubstantiated.
> >> >"Attempts to trick someone into killing you and your family"? Over
> >> >something that happened on USENET? I have a difficult time believing that
> >> >one.
> >> As you had with the story about the impersonations of John Bauer to
> >> get me in trouble with the law, despite the fact that Boursy admits
> >> to being involved with it.
>
> >Sorry. I wasn't there. Do you, for a moment, think that I trust you to be
> >objective at all in the face of all your anger?
>
> What anger? What does your perceived level of my "anger" compare to the
> level of vituperation promulgated by your friends on Freedom Knights?
I've said as much to them as well. *shrug*
> Who posts and mails article after article about "killing" someone? Who posts
> and mails article after article about mailbombing someone? Who posts and
> emails article after article about "killing POPs", "kicking ass", long
> pornographic "poetry" supposedly written by me, forgeries of Nortel abuse
> addresses, etc?
This happens all the time on Usenet. Why do you take it seriously?
> Not me Dave.
No, you just forge cancel people trying to make money. Are you really so
naive to think this doesn't piss as many off as it makes feel righteous?
See, whether or not you think your actions are justified, this means nothing
to the people you piss off. Think of it this way, Dr Grubor and others who
post those articles think -their- actions are justified....this means
nothing to you. The same holds true the other way.
Why can't you see this?
> >> _You_ have seen the "reward" posting several times, as well as Vulis
> >> opining that I and my family should be killed.
>
> >And you -believed- something you read on Usenet? Oh my...
>
> Come now Dave, talk about blatant misdirection.
It happens all the time on Usenet, but I don't think they misdirected you.
> - It has nothing to do whatsoever with what -I- believe about the
> legitimacy or not of the reward (and of course I know that
> Vulis would never pay up), and everything to do with what your
> buddy Vulis manages to fool someone else into believing.
>
> The police take it as a serious threat, regardless of whether
> there really is a reward or not. As they should. As most
> other people do.
Perhaps the police shouldn't. Too many things are said on Usenet that
are not meant seriously. Other people are a different matter.
> >> You discard evidence simply because you don't like it. Simply
> >> evidence of a closed mind.
>
> >Evidence for what? For a conclusion you want me to draw because "I should"?
> >You want -me- to judge the situation the way you would?
>
> >Why must I be like you?
>
> Why would I want you to be?
That seems to be what you are trying to accomplish.
> All I'm expecting from you, or from anyone else,
> is the brains to understand that the level of harrassment from your buddies
> is entirely out of proportion to what "I've done to them" - especially
> since I've never "done anything to them".
Surprise surprise, but I can't draw that conclusion, because there's no
evidence either way.
And they aren't "my buddies". I've only talked to them on the phone, which
at the very least verifies their humanity. That's more than I can say for you.
Plus, Dr G. appears to be a nice guy. So does Dr Vulis.
> You'll whine "but I have no evidence of that". Exactly Dave, so why
> do you justify their actions?
I'm not justifying -their specific- actions. I'm saying "Chris, you piss people
off, so expect to get harrassed". Is that clearer or do I have to break it down
some more?
> >> >> I don't think there's any question where you stand.
>
> >> >Oh there's lots of questions, but answers based on factual data can only
> >> >come from me. Your presumption does not make a reality, except for your
> >> >own illusion.
> >>
> >> Weren't you just saying that you could tell what I dislike from my
> >> cancels?
> >
> >I can tell what you -appear- to dislike. How many times and ways must I
> >say this before you will -appear- to "get it"? :)
>
> That's not what you said Dave, you made assertions on what I dislike,
> not on what I "appear" to dislike.
No I did not. If you took it like that, that's your error, which I will
admit to being a party of. Go back and look at the original posts.
I did make an effort to say "appear" as much as I could.
Sometimes I make mistakes too.
> >> Really Dave, more inconsistency.
> >Not at all. Your cancels and these posts are the only way I even know you
> >are a being.
> As I characterize you by your hypocritical postings here, your promotion
> and support for your buddy's continuing attacks on me, your forging of
> Approval lines, and so on.
*shrug*
> Thanks for clearing that up.
The problem is, nothing has been cleared up. You don't -want- to solve
the problem.
--
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
Do not look at my outward shape, but take what is in my hand. -Rumi
Chris Lewis
In article <354b3b76...@news.alt.net>,
ISP Ratings <bou...@alt.net> wrote:
>cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) wrote:
> -
> -ISP Ratings <bou...@alt.net> wrote:
> -
> -:cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) wrote:
> -
> -:-[Posted and emailed, since Boursy still refuses to substantiate
> -:-many claims made about me.]
> -
> -> Your mail fortunately cannot reach my mailbox but
> ->it's interesting you do approve of sending email
> ->when you've been told it's not welcome. Nice
> ->role model Chris.
> -
> -This is pretty funny coming from you Boursy, who has sent a lot
> -more mail to me, long after I told you to stop, than I've ever
> -sent to you.
>
> That's certainly untrue as well
Gee Boursy, not only are you trying the "dead parrot" [*] defence on
my substantiation of your impersonation of John Bauer, not only are
you failing to substantiate any of the far more numerous allegations
you've made about me, you even have to lie about this too. Or, have
you forgotten all of those email messages you've sent me over the years?
You're quite a despicable fellow, aren't you?
[*] Ee's not dead, he's just resting... Beautiful Plumage ...
Copyright Monty Python.
Chris Lewis
In article <354CD87A...@jetcafe.org>,
Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
>Chris Lewis wrote:
>> You either have evidence and you can draw conclusions from it, or you
>> don't and you can't draw any conclusions.
>I'm only going on what you folks claim. I can't verify any of the claims,
>but I can comment on what I see happening assuming the claims to be true.
Don't give me that Dave, you've seen them doing it first-hand.
>> And, -you- are "blatantly disobeying the RFCs" too. Some in a socially
>> acceptable fashion (The "NNTP-Posting-Host" is invalid according to RFC1036),
>> and some in a socially unacceptable fashion (You have forged Approval lines
>> in the past, which is something only you, Caputo, and your buddies on
>> FK appear to sanction).
>I do not recall ever forging Approval lines.
Funny, you remembered the last two times I reminded you of it.
>> I've never asserted the absolute primacy of an obsolete RFC, so don't
>> play games about it.
>Yer forging cancel messages. That's wrong, in my book. Sorry you don't
>agree.
Then why bring up the RFCs?
>> Who posts and mails article after article about "killing" someone? Who posts
>> and mails article after article about mailbombing someone? Who posts and
>> emails article after article about "killing POPs", "kicking ass", long
>> pornographic "poetry" supposedly written by me, forgeries of Nortel abuse
>> addresses, etc?
>This happens all the time on Usenet. Why do you take it seriously?
I take it very seriously when someone, who has no connection whatsoever
with me, an old and ill person, receives harrassing phone calls
about me in the middle of the night because Vulis published their
phone number in his NetScum page and encouraged people to phone it.
>> Not me Dave.
>See, whether or not you think your actions are justified, this means nothing
>to the people you piss off. Think of it this way, Dr Grubor and others who
>post those articles think -their- actions are justified....this means
>nothing to you. The same holds true the other way.
How does that explain Vulis posting death threats? Boursy impersonating
Bauer? I've never cancelled any articles from either of them. There's
even a posting somewhere back (during the previous moratorium) where
Vulis quite clearly said that he would stop attacking me if the moratorium
was permanent - not that I stop cancelling his posts - because I never
have.
>Why can't you see this?
Why can't you see the difference in degree?
>> >> _You_ have seen the "reward" posting several times, as well as Vulis
>> >> opining that I and my family should be killed.
>> >And you -believed- something you read on Usenet? Oh my...
>> Come now Dave, talk about blatant misdirection.
>It happens all the time on Usenet, but I don't think they misdirected you.
No, you're either trying to misdirect everyone here, or are being amazingly
obtuse. It has nothing to do with whether _I_ believe the reward is
for real. Of course I don't. Of course you don't. It has everything
to do with whether one person out of the 10s of millions of people on the
Internet may be tricked into believing it. And if one does, then...
>> The police take it as a serious threat, regardless of whether
>> there really is a reward or not. As they should. As most
>> other people do.
>Perhaps the police shouldn't. Too many things are said on Usenet that
>are not meant seriously. Other people are a different matter.
There are four people in Montreal who would suggest that the police _should_
take such threats on Usenet seriously. But, they can't, because they're
dead. [Read up on Valeri Fabrikant some day.]
>> Why would I want you to be?
>That seems to be what you are trying to accomplish.
Stick with the facts Dave, not with conspiracy theories you dream up.
>> All I'm expecting from you, or from anyone else,
>> is the brains to understand that the level of harrassment from your buddies
>> is entirely out of proportion to what "I've done to them" - especially
>> since I've never "done anything to them".
>Surprise surprise, but I can't draw that conclusion, because there's no
>evidence either way.
Sure there is Dave. I've _never_ tried to hide my cancels. When I've
cancelled Grubor for spamming, there's never been any problem finding
the notifications or cancels. Have there? Where are the notifications
or cancels for Boursy? Vulis? CJIII? What on earth set CJIII off,
so that he set up a procmail script to mailbomb my colleagues? I've _never_
had anything whatsoever to do with him.
>And they aren't "my buddies". I've only talked to them on the phone, which
>at the very least verifies their humanity. That's more than I can say for you.
>Plus, Dr G. appears to be a nice guy. So does Dr Vulis.
Being on parole for assault doesn't strike me as good evidence towards
the former. Posting fake rewards for my murder isn't very good evidence
for the latter, is it?
The crocodile has a nice smile too.
>> You'll whine "but I have no evidence of that". Exactly Dave, so why
>> do you justify their actions?
>I'm not justifying -their specific- actions. I'm saying "Chris, you piss people
>off, so expect to get harrassed". Is that clearer or do I have to break it down
>some more?
I've never thought I wouldn't be harrassed.
But I don't think _anyone_ would believe that harrassing sick and elderly
people who have no relationship whatsoever to me, in the middle of the night,
is a reasonable reaction.
Or do you think "pissing someone off" is a capital crime?
Perhaps you've managed to explain Grubor... Why on earth did CJIII
mailbomb people then? Explain Boursy impersonating Bauer then. Explain
Vulis then.
>> As I characterize you by your hypocritical postings here, your promotion
>> and support for your buddy's continuing attacks on me, your forging of
>> Approval lines, and so on.
>*shrug*
>> Thanks for clearing that up.
>The problem is, nothing has been cleared up. You don't -want- to solve
>the problem.
No Dave, the problem is that I'm trying to solve a different problem, and
your buddies are trying terrorism and extortion to stop what virtually
everyone else wants me to continue.
Don't worry tho, this problem will be solved too.
Dave Hayes
Chris Lewis wrote:
> Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
> >Chris Lewis wrote:
> >> You either have evidence and you can draw conclusions from it, or you
> >> don't and you can't draw any conclusions.
>
> >I'm only going on what you folks claim. I can't verify any of the claims,
> >but I can comment on what I see happening assuming the claims to be true.
>
> Don't give me that Dave, you've seen them doing it first-hand.
If I can't know what you like or dislike, how can you know what I have
seen or not seen?
You've never even seen -me-.
> >> And, -you- are "blatantly disobeying the RFCs" too. Some in a socially
> >> acceptable fashion (The "NNTP-Posting-Host" is invalid according to RFC1036),
> >> and some in a socially unacceptable fashion (You have forged Approval lines
> >> in the past, which is something only you, Caputo, and your buddies on
> >> FK appear to sanction).
> >I do not recall ever forging Approval lines.
> Funny, you remembered the last two times I reminded you of it.
I don't recall those times either.
> >> I've never asserted the absolute primacy of an obsolete RFC, so don't
> >> play games about it.
>
> >Yer forging cancel messages. That's wrong, in my book. Sorry you don't
> >agree.
>
> Then why bring up the RFCs?
Because it's wrong according to the RFCs as well.
> >> Who posts and mails article after article about "killing" someone? Who posts
> >> and mails article after article about mailbombing someone? Who posts and
> >> emails article after article about "killing POPs", "kicking ass", long
> >> pornographic "poetry" supposedly written by me, forgeries of Nortel abuse
> >> addresses, etc?
>
> >This happens all the time on Usenet. Why do you take it seriously?
>
> I take it very seriously when someone, who has no connection whatsoever
> with me, an old and ill person,
Eh? How do you know they are old and ill, if they have no connection whatsoever
with you?
> receives harrassing phone calls
> about me in the middle of the night because Vulis published their
> phone number in his NetScum page and encouraged people to phone it.
The blame, if you are going to blame, should go to the people who phoned
the number...not Vulis.
However, I should still like to know how you can know about harrassing
phone calls received by someone who "has no connection whatsoever" with you.
> >See, whether or not you think your actions are justified, this means nothing
> >to the people you piss off. Think of it this way, Dr Grubor and others who
> >post those articles think -their- actions are justified....this means
> >nothing to you. The same holds true the other way.
> How does that explain Vulis posting death threats?
It's not supposed to explain that. It's supposed to get you to see that you
are engaging in behavior which is similar to that which you denounce.
> >Why can't you see this?
> Why can't you see the difference in degree?
Because I look at direction, not magnitude.
> >> >> _You_ have seen the "reward" posting several times, as well as Vulis
> >> >> opining that I and my family should be killed.
>
> >> >And you -believed- something you read on Usenet? Oh my...
>
> >> Come now Dave, talk about blatant misdirection.
>
> >It happens all the time on Usenet, but I don't think they misdirected you.
>
> No, you're either trying to misdirect everyone here, or are being amazingly
> obtuse. It has nothing to do with whether _I_ believe the reward is
> for real. Of course I don't. Of course you don't. It has everything
> to do with whether one person out of the 10s of millions of people on the
> Internet may be tricked into believing it. And if one does, then...
Then what? Is that tricked person the responsibility of the trick-ee? You
are attempting to justify the act of manipulation as a responsible one. I will
rarely, if ever, agree with that justification.
> >> Why would I want you to be?
> >That seems to be what you are trying to accomplish.
> Stick with the facts Dave, not with conspiracy theories you dream up.
I merely go by your actions.
> >> All I'm expecting from you, or from anyone else,
> >> is the brains to understand that the level of harrassment from your buddies
> >> is entirely out of proportion to what "I've done to them" - especially
> >> since I've never "done anything to them".
>
> >Surprise surprise, but I can't draw that conclusion, because there's no
> >evidence either way.
>
> Sure there is Dave. I've _never_ tried to hide my cancels.
So if I don't try to hide the baseball bat I hit you with, it's ok to hit you?
> the notifications or cancels. Have there? Where are the notifications
> or cancels for Boursy? Vulis? CJIII? What on earth set CJIII off,
> so that he set up a procmail script to mailbomb my colleagues? I've _never_
> had anything whatsoever to do with him.
Perhaps you cancelled messages of his friends or associates? Perhaps you
made him angry, like spam makes -you- angry?
> >And they aren't "my buddies". I've only talked to them on the phone, which
> >at the very least verifies their humanity. That's more than I can say for you.
>
> >Plus, Dr G. appears to be a nice guy. So does Dr Vulis.
>
> Being on parole for assault doesn't strike me as good evidence towards
> the former.
I know plenty of good people who got jailed for assult. It happens, people
lose control. I'd be way more cautious around someone who said they never
exploded and hit people...
> Posting fake rewards for my murder isn't very good evidence
> for the latter, is it?
Could it be that he was ... joking?
But, Ok. Let's examine your degree theory here.
Was threatining to shove a hot poker up C&S's ass "being nice"? Someone did,
when C&S first spammed. Death threats? These occured as well.
Since you support anti-spammers, by your own logic, I conclude that you support
these threats as well.
Do you yet see?
> >> You'll whine "but I have no evidence of that". Exactly Dave, so why
> >> do you justify their actions?
>
> >I'm not justifying -their specific- actions. I'm saying "Chris, you piss people
> >off, so expect to get harrassed". Is that clearer or do I have to break it down
> >some more?
>
> I've never thought I wouldn't be harrassed.
Well then.
> But I don't think _anyone_ would believe that harrassing sick and elderly
> people who have no relationship whatsoever to me, in the middle of the night,
> is a reasonable reaction.
Why is this relavent?
> Or do you think "pissing someone off" is a capital crime?
Hell no. But you have to be prepared for the backlash from that.
> Perhaps you've managed to explain Grubor... Why on earth did CJIII
> mailbomb people then? Explain Boursy impersonating Bauer then. Explain
> Vulis then.
I can't explain these people. They're not -me-. I'm -me-. I can explain
myself, though not usually so others can understand. My questions to you
only have to do with what -I- have done to you.
Just what -have- I done to you? :)
> >The problem is, nothing has been cleared up. You don't -want- to solve
> >the problem.
> No Dave, the problem is that I'm trying to solve a different problem, and
> your buddies are trying terrorism and extortion to stop what virtually
> everyone else wants me to continue.
I should say that's a biased view of the situation.
--
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
Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly.
Chris Lewis
According to Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org>:
> Chris Lewis wrote:
> > Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
> > >Chris Lewis wrote:
> > >> You either have evidence and you can draw conclusions from it, or you
> > >> don't and you can't draw any conclusions.
> > >I'm only going on what you folks claim. I can't verify any of the claims,
> > >but I can comment on what I see happening assuming the claims to be true.
> > Don't give me that Dave, you've seen them doing it first-hand.
> If I can't know what you like or dislike, how can you know what I have
> seen or not seen?
Come now Dave, you're not going to try to claim that you don't read
freedom-knights do you?
I have almost a whole year's worth archived, Dave. A great introduction
to hypocrisy and mutual-masturbation on a grand scale.
Who could miss Vulis whining about that Italian web site that took his
$200 to host netscum, then reneged without refunding the $200?
Who could miss HipCrime boasting about the cancel bot he's just unleashed
on news.admin.net-abuse.email and a host of other groups, with Boursy,
Blanc, Grubor and friends cheering him on? Don't you think it a trifle
hypocritical of you to castigate me for cancelling spam without regard
for content, when you cheer on people attempting to destroy all discussion
completely?
Who could miss Grubor carrying on and on and on about kicking ass, killing
POPs etc.?
Who could miss Vulis's CC'ing the bogus reward for my demise, and opining
that me and my family should be killed? That was a bit much for
_even_ Grubor to stomach, wasn't it?
I wonder who is bragging about email bombing me now?
Is it Chris Blanc (aka goat, aka Spinoza Ray Prozak, aka the boy who needs
a good dose of Preparation H) who just recently forged ab...@nortel.ca
reply-tos via loop.com?
Is it Grubor, who occasionally wanders down the block to the Carnegie
Library of Pittsburgh and forges a binary bomb in my name on Usenet?
> You've never even seen -me-.
That's a big smelly red herring Dave, what possible relevance is whether
I know what you look like or not?
> > Then why bring up the RFCs?
> Because it's wrong according to the RFCs as well.
An interesting hypocrisy coming from one who supplies their own Approved
line in violation of RFC822.
> > I take it very seriously when someone, who has no connection whatsoever
> > with me, an old and ill person,
> Eh? How do you know they are old and ill, if they have no connection whatsoever
> with you?
He has a connection with me _now_, because he's being harrassed in my name.
Come now Dave, your attempts at evasion are transparent. Take your medicine
and be a good boy.
polt...@wilhelp.com
In newsgroup news.admin.censorship, post
<6j9p9s$h...@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca>,cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
wrote:
>I have almost a whole year's worth archived, Dave. A great introduction
>to hypocrisy and mutual-masturbation on a grand scale.
>
>Who could miss Vulis whining about that Italian web site that took his
>$200 to host netscum, then reneged without refunding the $200?
BWahahahahahahahaha! Oh shit, Chris, don't _do_ that! Now I've got
Scotch sprayed all over my keyboard. Oh dear, oh dear me. Ahem.
Did Vulis really get suckered? Sent off $200.00 to a site crooked
enough to offer to host Netscum?
I'll bet Boursy came back with one of his rants about "needing
consumer protection on the Internet" and offering the address of the
Italian attorney-general. What a bloody farce are the Freedumn-Knuts.
But come now, all of you who were honoured with a Netscum page;
Dimitri is out $200.00 and gawd knows the other Kooks don't have
enough money to help him. So, all Netscum honourees should send Vulis
a dime, anonymously, glued to a brick and postage-due.
--
Rubbing the Kook Kabal's noses in their
own shit is not only fun, it's a duty.
acs (at) inetrex.com [Craig Sherwood from Toronto, Canada]
Sam
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <spaminator-ya024080...@news.concentric.net>,
Phoenix <spami...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> Who could miss HipCrime boasting about the cancel bot he's just unleashed
>> on news.admin.net-abuse.email and a host of other groups, with Boursy,
>> Blanc, Grubor and friends cheering him on?
>
>You've got to admit it hasn't quite jammed up NANA.* as everyone had
>hoped, though. :-) The Freedom Wankers of Usenet. What a concept.
Uh huh... And the sites that are hardest hit by the cancelbot are those
shining beacons of integrity that do not process cancels, so they end up
storing two copies of each post - the original, and the resurrected one,
while everyone else keeps one copy only.
>Hmm. I thought that was Breaking the Law. But then again, the Freedom
>Knights seem to not mind that, either. One of them is even a convict.
Heh, heh, I'll keep quiet, for now, but remember this post.
>Personally I think it's time for them to start answering for their actions.
>Since none of them can afford a lawyer, it ought to be a piece of cake for
>anyone who wants to do so.
No comment.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Peaks/5799/ for public key.
iQEVAwUBNVjDvZlaALjSq209AQHKKgf+ITusIUu0390f80VIFEmKvZRoFDMINx4p
WJ0uytVwlS+zuvj5oKDCrhDAb52v8K7qOIWeBnO+h8sZouiAIinDJJ/XI5zUNlDN
LK3V3Fsf5/oIWFdU8K0v8nUB1j8aqRigxL3fGiFN9AJWSkAU+stUn31rkFW3DE/j
AMsbU5lpHzV9af5iMMQfrZfx5YwQa37Ghnq6Pey/IHP9o3ZDtLtPxwFR9Ks3b7zl
913RHXPAm2cunYCq42Hmn+x+Ma31UVNYeimtA0jaXCEdqA6gmNYtDAJL3g4tWQv7
Ro8/u8fqOSVmm8Vkg2hYRZH7LEMlojr5Bbdn1BdiXl4fhxOP7py05g==
=z8KL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
&ISP Ratings
-> Chris Lewis wrote:
->> Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
->>>Chris Lewis wrote:
->>>
->>>> You either have evidence and you can draw conclusions from it, or you
->>>> don't and you can't draw any conclusions.
-
->>>I'm only going on what you folks claim. I can't verify any of the claims,
->>>but I can comment on what I see happening assuming the claims to be true.
-
->> Don't give me that Dave, you've seen them doing it first-hand.
Mr. Lewis is getting quite paranoid lately--all sorts of false
charges and accusations and presented in such an
unprofessional fashion.
-
-> If I can't know what you like or dislike, how can you know what I have
-> seen or not seen?
-
-Come now Dave, you're not going to try to claim that you don't read
-freedom-knights do you?
-
-I have almost a whole year's worth archived, Dave.
Paranoid and obsessed I should add. The
FK list is primarily for the amusement of netscum
like you Mr. Lewis--vouyeristic fools--a tool
of misinformation which you've seemingly
swallowed whole.
- A great introduction
-to hypocrisy and mutual-masturbation on a grand scale.
And now you're getting downright nasty. You're
a very frustrated little man Lewis--your power is gone;
your exposed as being a content censor (just
read your NoCem content nonsense posted
yesterday--now that cancels are finished you've
got to grab a piece of that pityful pie), and
hopefully someday you'll be in jail for forgery.
Steve
news.admin.censorship
-
-Who could miss Vulis whining about that Italian web site that took his
-$200 to host netscum, then reneged without refunding the $200?
-
-Who could miss HipCrime boasting about the cancel bot he's just unleashed
-on news.admin.net-abuse.email and a host of other groups, with Boursy,
-Blanc, Grubor and friends cheering him on? Don't you think it a trifle
-hypocritical of you to castigate me for cancelling spam without regard
-for content, when you cheer on people attempting to destroy all discussion
-completely?
-
-Who could miss Grubor carrying on and on and on about kicking ass, killing
-POPs etc.?
-
-Who could miss Vulis's CC'ing the bogus reward for my demise, and opining
-that me and my family should be killed? That was a bit much for
-_even_ Grubor to stomach, wasn't it?
-
-I wonder who is bragging about email bombing me now?
-
-Is it Chris Blanc (aka goat, aka Spinoza Ray Prozak, aka the boy who needs
-a good dose of Preparation H) who just recently forged ab...@nortel.ca
-reply-tos via loop.com?
-
-Is it Grubor, who occasionally wanders down the block to the Carnegie
-Library of Pittsburgh and forges a binary bomb in my name on Usenet?
-
-> You've never even seen -me-.
-
-That's a big smelly red herring Dave, what possible relevance is whether
-I know what you look like or not?
-
-> > Then why bring up the RFCs?
-
-> Because it's wrong according to the RFCs as well.
-
-An interesting hypocrisy coming from one who supplies their own Approved
-line in violation of RFC822.
-
-> > I take it very seriously when someone, who has no connection whatsoever
-> > with me, an old and ill person,
-
-> Eh? How do you know they are old and ill, if they have no connection whatsoever
-> with you?
-
-He has a connection with me _now_, because he's being harrassed in my name.
-
-Come now Dave, your attempts at evasion are transparent. Take your medicine
-and be a good boy.
Chris Lewis
According to <polt...@wilhelp.com>:
> In newsgroup news.admin.censorship, post
> <6j9p9s$h...@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca>,cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
> wrote:
>
> >to hypocrisy and mutual-masturbation on a grand scale.
> >
>
> Scotch sprayed all over my keyboard. Oh dear, oh dear me. Ahem.
I sure hope it wasn't _good_ scotch.
> Did Vulis really get suckered? Sent off $200.00 to a site crooked
> enough to offer to host Netscum?
Sure did. He also lost over $200 when Cyberpromo got disconnected by AGIS.
Vulis is quite depressed about it.
Dave Hayes
> > > Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
> > > >Chris Lewis wrote:
> > > >> You either have evidence and you can draw conclusions from it, or you
> > > >> don't and you can't draw any conclusions.
>
> > > >I'm only going on what you folks claim. I can't verify any of the claims,
> > > >but I can comment on what I see happening assuming the claims to be true.
>
> > > Don't give me that Dave, you've seen them doing it first-hand.
>
> > If I can't know what you like or dislike, how can you know what I have
> > seen or not seen?
>
Some things posted there I ignore before I read, others I ignore after
reading the first paragraph.
I find it interesting that you presume that I saw anything, since you
still don't know what I ignored.
Why are you even bothering with me? Why not enjoy your private war with
those who oppose you? That -is- what you want, isn't it?
> > You've never even seen -me-.
>
> That's a big smelly red herring Dave, what possible relevance is whether
> I know what you look like or not?
Oh. Well it's a human thing. I don't expect you to understand.
> > > I take it very seriously when someone, who has no connection whatsoever
> > > with me, an old and ill person,
>
> > Eh? How do you know they are old and ill, if they have no connection whatsoever
> > with you?
>
> He has a connection with me _now_, because he's being harrassed in my name.
"So were you lying then or are you lying now?"
Now how do -you- feel when I ask you that?
Geez, Mr. Lewis. Some people say you are reasonable. I can't possibly understand
this assertion, especially when your clear intent is to attack -me- when I
haven't
even attacked you.
Do you allow your heart to be cluttered by such nonsense?
--
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
Common sense and a sense of humor are the same thing, moving at
different speeds. A sense of humor is just common sense, dancing.
Dave Hayes
Phoenix wrote:
> > > > Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
> > > > >Chris Lewis wrote:
> > > > >> You either have evidence and you can draw conclusions from it, or you
> > > > >> don't and you can't draw any conclusions.
> >
> > > > >I'm only going on what you folks claim. I can't verify any of the claims,
> > > > >but I can comment on what I see happening assuming the claims to be true.
> >
> > > > Don't give me that Dave, you've seen them doing it first-hand.
> >
> > > If I can't know what you like or dislike, how can you know what I have
> > > seen or not seen?
> >
> > freedom-knights do you?
>
> you're backed into a corner you know. :-) I'd certainly *HOPE* he's read them.
I read only parts of Freedom Knights.
> C'mon Chris, EVERYONE with half of half a brain knows the Freedom Knights
> support censorship of their enemies.
Ahem. The people -calling- themselves Freedom Knights may support this, but
none of the Freedom Knights -I- know do this.
It's interesting to note you haven't read my website, though.
--
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
Nasrudin, starving with hunger, went to a cafe and began filling his mouth
with food using both hands.
"Why eat with two hands, Mulla?"
"Because I haven't got three."
Sam
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <6jcagd$k...@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca>,
Chris Lewis <cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca> wrote:
>> Did Vulis really get suckered? Sent off $200.00 to a site crooked
>> enough to offer to host Netscum?
>
>Sure did. He also lost over $200 when Cyberpromo got disconnected by AGIS.
>Vulis is quite depressed about it.
No wonder he's upset, why, $200 is almost a month's salary for Vulis.
That math PhD sure gets the money rolling in.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Peaks/5799/ for public key.
iQEVAwUBNVoR6JlaALjSq209AQF//gf+LOX8yVJxT/+77Mgexua0P4x0kYepixO9
ZFuXqBB6MozhIVJlXGKp5blFkbDgAOlkzTuYm8CnDaqxVr6YXwIVfQ+IxtCILNit
MQRzpOuubTkaNgvlMM3Hhvz3/HpN93KP8umKByHNs0elhsPPwgirK4zM4otYX6Aa
jjgJwu/worS6pmnTJF1tfXz06jaJqfJnJK4521cFQ2zQLHgY72nyBiCikAkVGKO3
GVtKj/oZ5PtfaF/vm5pkh16LmyT0bjwxvGe0u8k7LpbfBok6Y4tfCy+Ue2g3Mf52
m8mvJyfOHZ0BQAKtT+9dbIQMzpv1DsA6biE/jMxbhBZdSqhTsO3+Kw==
=txci
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
@ISP_Ratings
da...@jetcafe.org wrote...
:::
::: Eh? How do you know they are old and ill, if they have no
::: connection whatsoever with you?
::
:: He has a connection with me _now_, because he's being
:
:"So were you lying then or are you lying now?"
A forger by definition is a liar--I would imagine
it would extend into all aspects of their life.
:
:Now how do -you- feel when I ask you that?
:
:Geez, Mr. Lewis. Some people say you are reasonable.
They've either not been reading his posts, most
especially since his failed moratorium, or they
have a blind eye based on past loyalty. He's been
making all sorts of wild accusations and posted
a couple of days ago a rather pityful NoCem post
based soley on content with a rationalization that
was downright sickening.
:I can't possibly understand this assertion, especially
:when your clear intent is to attack -me- when I
:haven't even attacked you.
Yes--but you see his kindom has crumbled and he's
more than a little bitter. And he blames you most
of all Mr. Hayes for hosting the Freedom Knights.
He's not attacking your idea's--he's attacking you
as a person. Notice how he wanted you solution to
spam (posted on your website) to fail--if he truely
believed what he said he'd be promoting it.
:Do you allow your heart to be cluttered by such nonsense?
Forgers are frauds--it must extend to the heart and
soul.
Steve
news.admin.censorship
:--
: