Are you tired of Dr. G's Polution?
Dave Bullock
ratio in the newsgroups, I hope that anyone/everyone will find the
following information useful.
Please feel free to call them, mail them, and fax them, and let them
know how you feel.
DrG's service provider is at lm.com
Luce McQuillin Corporation
25 Dilworth Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15211-1913
Administrative Contact
Douglas Luce
do...@lm.net
Voice: 412-481-8566
FAX: 412-481-8568
Technical Contact:
Tod McQuillin
de...@telerama.com
Voice: 412-481-3505
Wotan
No.
When you get him off his normal rants he is rather amusing to read.
--
While money doesn't buy love, it puts you in a great bargaining
position.
Dave Bullock
Actually this morning I saw a lucid post from him and to be perfectly
honest I read it a couple of times over before I could believe it was
from him.
I actually enjoyed reading it. Makes me kind of wonder of there's
hope for him. More on that later...
:)
Bill H.
many moons ago, and only continues to appear on some poorly maintained sites
because Boursy & Co. keep trying to crosspost to it...
Followups set to alt.bonehead.john-grubor, in the interests of minizing the
damage the GruborTroll continues to inflict on these groups.
In article <30e19773...@pubxfer.news.psi.net>,
Dave Bullock <dbul...@funn.land-5.com> wrote:
>Since DrG has worked so hard to contribute to the signal to noise
>ratio in the newsgroups, I hope that anyone/everyone will find the
>following information useful.
>
>Please feel free to call them, mail them, and fax them, and let them
>know how you feel.
>
>DrG's service provider is at lm.com
Read "one of DrG's service providers". His account on nauticom.net continues
to exist (d...@nauticom.net), though it shows no logins since 12/11/95, his
account on dhp.com (a...@dhp.com) shows activity on 12/26/95, and his account
on Prodigy (VWQ...@prodigy.com, under the false name "Stanley Brown") also
continues to exist. lm.com, however, is the most deserving target for any
complaints, as they appear to be responsible for the continued existence of
the GruborTroll's very own personal domain, manus.org :-(.
If you can dig up the posts Grubor's made under his "Stanley Brown" alias,
send a copy to tro...@inetgate.prodigy.com; you might also include his
spectacular little libel under another false name "Amy Martin", to prod them
along in giving him the permanent boot-- I rather suspect they did not
appreciate his sense of humor in posting that from a Prodigy account.
You should also email postm...@dhp.com, with complaint that the Datahaven
Project doesn't even bother with the elementary step of getting a credit card
number as identification for its users. Does the word "money order" mean
anything to you? How about "mail us $10, and the login ID and password you
intend to use"? Don't expect any useful response, of course, but as long as
you're complaining to people who aid and abet this clown...
And lastly, don't forget to email postm...@nauticom.net, asking if they have
indeed finally shut down Grubor's account, and just forgot to erase it, or if
he's simply playing possum on that account.
Contact information for lm.com, from Dave's post, is included below:
>
>Luce McQuillin Corporation
> 25 Dilworth Street
> Pittsburgh, PA 15211-1913
>
> Administrative Contact
> Douglas Luce
> do...@lm.net
> Voice: 412-481-8566
> FAX: 412-481-8568
>
> Technical Contact:
> Tod McQuillin
> de...@telerama.com
> Voice: 412-481-3505
--
- Bill H. (ha...@midway.uchicago.edu)
*** finger: ha...@kimbark.uchicago.edu ***
*** a fully-commented anti-SPAM trn killfile ***
Stephen Boursy
>
>No.
Me neither. Funny how some would just love to impose their
perceptions upon all of us.
>
>When you get him off his normal rants he is rather amusing to read.
>--
And he has some interesting points as well that many of the net
establishment quite obviously feel to be quite threatening to their
self interest. He's a refreshing change.
Steve
Dave Bullock
>In article <wotanDK...@netcom.com>, Wotan <wo...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>No.
>
> Me neither. Funny how some would just love to impose their
>perceptions upon all of us.
You're overreacting Stephen.
Nobody's imposed anything on anyone. You're only spindoctoring.
The post only provides the information that I had to look up to lodge
my own complaint. It's provided to anyone who may share the same
opinion so that they may do what I did.
>>When you get him off his normal rants he is rather amusing to read.
>
> And he has some interesting points as well that many of the net
>establishment quite obviously feel to be quite threatening to their
>self interest. He's a refreshing change.
He also has a lot of blatantly wrong points, self-contradictory
points, is making these falicious legal arguments as a lawyer, is
**excessively** abusive to other users, and has the delusion that
Cyberspace is a PLACE and not a medium. He seems to think that when
you logon you're teleported to some place called Cyberspace where law
doesn't apply, conveniently ignoring that the there is no cyberspace.
Any act commited THROUGH cyberspace is committed while in a physical
locality where the user's terminal is located, and to which those laws
apply.
There is already case law on this.
He also is dead wrong on E-Mail copyright issues, however some of his
arguments do get to the correct conclusions. E-Mail is copyright,
unsolicited E-Mail is copyright. However, it is not wholly illegal to
re-publish E-Mail as long as there are no monetary damages involved
from the content of the E-Mail, as long as the E-Mail isn't expressly
labeled private or secret, and as long as it's used for fair use
reasons.
On the other hand, I've actually finally witnessed a lucid, and pretty
literate post from him on drug issues, which I fully agreed with, and
if the other 99% of his posts had half the quality of that post I'ld
be on his side vouching for him instead of making long distance calls
to his provider to make complaints.
Dave
Dan Rothschild
Grubor's way and set him straight through physical means. Boursy just
needs a laxative.
--
D a n R o t h s c h i l d [http://cache.cow.net/~dr]
geo...@bobnet.net/d...@icsi.net/ro...@bmrbbs.brewich.com/d...@cache.cow.net
ONE MICROSOFT WAY: Address and marketing strategy all in one!
D...@manus.org
> You're overreacting Stephen.
> Dave
where is the original article?
where is the article by Haze on this matter?
They were here this morning and now they are gone.
Would someone please send me the original article and
also the response from Haze. They were both pulled, and
I want a copy of the articles.
I read them this morning.
Haze gave out info about harassing four of my
ISPs. Someone please send that article to me.
thanks,
DrG
--
Manus, Inc.
D...@manus.org
Stephen Boursy
Dave Bullock <dbul...@cris.com> wrote:
>bou...@world.std.com (Stephen Boursy) wrote:
>
>>In article <wotanDK...@netcom.com>, Wotan <wo...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>> Me neither. Funny how some would just love to impose their
>>perceptions upon all of us.
>
>You're overreacting Stephen.
>
>Nobody's imposed anything on anyone. You're only spindoctoring.
>
Utter nonsense. Chris Lewis issued cancels on his posts based
on content--we've got some other bozo sys admin seriously advocating
putting him in a global killfile. Read the admin groups carefully and
you'll readily note many more than willing to censor him.
>The post only provides the information that I had to look up to lodge
>my own complaint. It's provided to anyone who may share the same
>opinion so that they may do what I did.
>
>>>When you get him off his normal rants he is rather amusing to read.
>>
>> And he has some interesting points as well that many of the net
>>establishment quite obviously feel to be quite threatening to their
>>self interest. He's a refreshing change.
>
>He also has a lot of blatantly wrong points, self-contradictory
>points,
In your opinion but in my opinion so do you. So what??
is making these falicious legal arguments as a lawyer, is
>**excessively** abusive to other users, and has the delusion that
>Cyberspace is a PLACE and not a medium.
He receives much more abuse than he dishes out and I don't see
you saying a word about that. You have your delusions as well by the
way--the point is he has a right to say anything he so chooses as do
you and those who would attempt to interfere with that are beneath contempt.
Steve
Peter da Silva
In article <DKD5H...@world.std.com>,
Stephen Boursy <bou...@world.std.com> wrote:
> Utter nonsense. Chris Lewis issued cancels on his posts based
>on content-
You keep saying this, people keep asking for proof, you never seem to be
able to provide proof. Do you really think this is going to help your
credibility?
You've proved that you can apologise when you've made a mistake, so it's
not an ego thing. I think you owe Chris one right about now...
tsa...@netcom.com
Stephen Boursy <bou...@world.std.com> wrote:
> Utter nonsense. Chris Lewis issued cancels on his posts based
>putting him in a global killfile. Read the admin groups carefully and
>you'll readily note many more than willing to censor him.
Tim baits... he shoots....and... he SCORES!
Boursy falls for another one!
Stephen Boursy
>
>Let's take this off the net and into real life. Someone needs to go
>Grubor's way and set him straight through physical means. Boursy just
>needs a laxative.
>--
>D a n R o t h s c h i l d [http://cache.cow.net/~dr]
>geo...@bobnet.net/d...@icsi.net/ro...@bmrbbs.brewich.com/d...@cache.cow.net
Now this clearly looks like Dan Rothschild is making a phyiscal
threat towards Dr. Grubor. Let's hope that those who where so quick to
jump to such conclusions before based on far less and retracted will
jump on this one. Silence here amounst those means approval.
Of course it's doubtful Dan Rothschild could physically damage
anyone--he's 4'5" and by the eyewitness reports of the two women he's
been with has one of the smallest dicks in the history of mankind.
I'm all for offline solutions to online problems by the way--but
violence is not an acceptable method.
Steve
Dave Ratcliffe
> Me neither. Funny how some would just love to impose their
>perceptions upon all of us.
Yeah. Funny. Some people try to do the same thing with their personal
perceptions of campaign contribution laws and US Codes.
--
Dave Ratcliffe da...@frackit.com
Harrisburg, Pa.
Email to this account may be posted to the net
Stephen Boursy
David L. Cathey <dav...@montagar.com> wrote:
>In article <DKD5H...@world.std.com>, bou...@world.std.com
>> In article <30e41cc2...@news.cris.com>,
>> Dave Bullock <dbul...@cris.com> wrote:
>>>You're overreacting Stephen.
>>>
>>>Nobody's imposed anything on anyone. You're only spindoctoring.
>>
>> on content--we've got some other bozo sys admin seriously advocating
>> putting him in a global killfile. Read the admin groups carefully and
>> you'll readily note many more than willing to censor him.
>
>based upon established and documented SPAM thresholds (unless you have
As usual you've no honesty on the subject. At the time that Chris
Lewis cancelled Dr. G's articles by the very difinition of spam Lewis was
using he should have also cancelled his own cancells which contained a long
repetitive diatrabe totally unnec. to his numerous cancels. Anyone who
supports lewis is in an ethical gutter.
>other evidence???),
Read Lewis's cancels from that time and explain clearly to me
what they were not considered spam yet Dr. G's where. He was cancelling
an oponant.
Steve
>- -=- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>David L. Cathey |Inet: dav...@montagar.com
>Montagar Software Concepts |UUCP: ...!montagar!davidc
>P. O. Box 260776 |Fone: (214)-578-5036
>Plano TX 75026-0772 |http://www.montagar.com/~davidc/
David L. Cathey
> In article <30e41cc2...@news.cris.com>,
> Dave Bullock <dbul...@cris.com> wrote:
>>You're overreacting Stephen.
>>
>>Nobody's imposed anything on anyone. You're only spindoctoring.
>
> Utter nonsense. Chris Lewis issued cancels on his posts based
> on content--we've got some other bozo sys admin seriously advocating
> putting him in a global killfile. Read the admin groups carefully and
> you'll readily note many more than willing to censor him.
Stephen, it appears you've been trolled again. The cancel was done
based upon established and documented SPAM thresholds (unless you have
other evidence???), and there is no such thing as a 'global killfile',
and large number of people willing to include him in their personal killfiles
does not constitute censorship.
Really, if you can't defend free speech based upon a foundation of
honesty and accurate information, you're not doing justice to the cause.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
David L. Cathey
> In article <1995Dec30.005548.21569@montagar>,
> David L. Cathey <dav...@montagar.com> wrote:
>>based upon established and documented SPAM thresholds (unless you have
>
> Lewis cancelled Dr. G's articles by the very difinition of spam Lewis was
> using he should have also cancelled his own cancells which contained a long
> repetitive diatrabe totally unnec. to his numerous cancels. Anyone who
> supports lewis is in an ethical gutter.
That was a debateable topic, and one I noted that you finally came
up with something resembling a point. Personally, I wouldn't have much trouble
with him canceling his cancel notifications, however, doing so would make it
difficult to read about various spam cancellations and end up cancelling ALL
copies of the spam. But if that would appeal to your sense of fairness, then
by all means set up a cancel for them.
Chris has also thought you made a suitable enough of a point to
remove the 'diatribe' from the posts. After all, we all know what it says
but this time, anyway.
Now, you obviously do not want to address your other gross errors,
since you failed to copy the relevant portions or discuss them. Namely:
1) There is no 'global killfile'
2) Personal killfiles do not constitute 'censorship'.
These ommissions (or your original use of them) don't do much to
enhance your credibility.
David L. Cathey
tes:
> In article <1995Dec30.105325.21571@montagar>,
> David L. Cathey <dav...@montagar.com> wrote:
>> That was a debateable topic, and one I noted that you finally came
>>up with something resembling a point.
>
> as Lewis used as an excuse to cancel Dr. G. only Lewis's use of spam was
> much more blatant and long term. Thus the excuse for cancelling Dr. G. was
> only just that--an excuse.
The posting of the BI index constituting SPAM is on par with
determining SPAM by comparing .sig files. Given that the definition of
SPAM is well posted, appearently even Chris Lewis agrees with you enough on
this point that he no longer posts the description.
>>Personally, I wouldn't have much trouble
>>with him canceling his cancel notifications,
>
> Nor would I--if he's the author he can cancel his own posts. No
> one however has the right to cancel the posts of another and that's where
> Lewis is in the ethical gutter.
And what ethical gutter is that again? First you need to explain
just why someone else has some inalienable right to deposit posts on my
server - i.e. you have no such right. Once your post leaves your server,
you have no authority or control over what happens to it. It survives only
by the hospitality of those that allow your post to sit there.
>>however, doing so would make it
>>difficult to read about various spam cancellations and end up cancelling ALL
>>copies of the spam. But if that would appeal to your sense of fairness, then
>>by all means set up a cancel for them.
>
> Cancels of anothers posts are morally wrong and illegal within
> US borders so I'll pass.
Morally wrong to you, but not to many others. And you still have
yet to prove (and even the FBI doesn't seem to agree with you here) that
cancels are illegal, since you have no legal basis to deposit your posts on
my server (or anyone elses, in the US or otherwise).
> Yes--he did respond to me on this but he also stated that this had
> been brought to his attention before and did not act upon it. It's only
> because the spotlight is on him and the hypocracy of what he was doing
> was so obvious that he finally responded. No decent sys admin will be
> associated with him after that.
So, most of Usenet is composed of indecent sys admins, now?
Interesting that you would willingly associate with us at all, isn't it?
>> Now, you obviously do not want to address your other gross errors,
>>since you failed to copy the relevant portions or discuss them. Namely:
>>
>> 1) There is no 'global killfile'
>
>
> Never said there was. There are attempts to have one though and you
> know yourself, reading the policy groups, there are quite a number of
> advocates of such. I never see you correct them with they spew this
> censorous nonsence. Why is that?
Stephen Boursey wrote:
> ...--we've got some other bozo sys admin serious advocating
> putting him in a global killfile. ...
And which global killfile would this be, Stephen? Since there isn't
one, and NNTP/UUCP/etc isn't really able to perform this, there is little
reason to 'correct' people advocating such things. I have no problem with
people _advocating_ such a thing, or is it just YOU that wants to censor
their free speach since you believe it to be 'censorous nonsence'???
Besides, generally someone else usually manages to debunk the 'global
killfile' and 'cabal' myths, and there is no reason for me to be redundant.
>> 2) Personal killfiles do not constitute 'censorship'.
>
> Of course they don't and I highly recommend them to anyone who
> wishes to not see a subset of posts.
Then why the cry of 'censorship'? If they are something you
recommend, why do you denounce others who recommend them? Seems a little
hypocritical to me. But I guess it does work to rally the uninformed masses
into an emotional frenzy.
> Personally I never use them. The
> only person or persons that has a right to filter the news is the
> individual user--no one has a right to filter it for us.
Again, you are confused upon what 'rights' are. First, you don't
have a 'right' to Usenet, filtered or not. Your argument falls apart pretty
rapidly from there.
And by who's 'authority' do you advocate the censoring of third-party
cancel messages? Censoring censorship is still censorship.
>> These ommissions (or your original use of them) don't do much to
>>enhance your credibility.
>
> Compared to Chris Lewis I'm not in the least worried about that.
Considering that Chris makes suggestions that I'm able to act upon
or not based upon my own admin policies, and you would want to dicate my
policies to me to fit your moral standards, I'll take Chris anyday.
After all, Chris is easily ignored. You have suggested throwing
people in jail for 'conspiracy'. Your position of defending freedom via
incarceration seems oxymoronic to me.
Tim Skirvin
>Let's take this off the net and into real life. Someone needs to go
>Grubor's way and set him straight through physical means. Boursy just
>needs a laxative.
No.
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@uiuc.edu)
--
<a href="http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/tskirvin">Skirv's Homepage</a>
<a href="http://arh0062.urh.uiuc.edu/killfile.html">The Daemons</a>
Bill H.
>Let's take this off the net and into real life. Someone needs to go
>Grubor's way and set him straight through physical means. Boursy just
>needs a laxative.
I didn't approve of this sort of threat, however vague, when Grubor made it
regarding Chris Lewis. I don't approve of it now, when Dan makes it regarding
Grubor. Don't respond with violence, just <plonk> the bozo. Grubor makes
it unusually hard to do that, but it can be done. See my global killfile if
you don't believe me. :-)
--
- Bill Hazelrig (ha...@midway.uchicago.edu)
** for a fully-commented anti-SPAM trn killfile **
** finger: ha...@kimbark.uchicago.edu **
Stephen Boursy
>(Stephen Boursy) writes:
>>
>> As usual you've no honesty on the subject. At the time that Chris
>> Lewis cancelled Dr. G's articles by the very difinition of spam Lewis was
>> using he should have also cancelled his own cancells which contained a long
>> repetitive diatrabe totally unnec. to his numerous cancels. Anyone who
>> supports lewis is in an ethical gutter.
>
>
>up with something resembling a point.
What was debatable about it. It was the same type of alleged spam
as Lewis used as an excuse to cancel Dr. G. only Lewis's use of spam was
much more blatant and long term. Thus the excuse for cancelling Dr. G. was
only just that--an excuse.
>Personally, I wouldn't have much trouble
>with him canceling his cancel notifications,
Nor would I--if he's the author he can cancel his own posts. No
one however has the right to cancel the posts of another and that's where
Lewis is in the ethical gutter.
>however, doing so would make it
>difficult to read about various spam cancellations and end up cancelling ALL
>copies of the spam. But if that would appeal to your sense of fairness, then
>by all means set up a cancel for them.
>
Cancels of anothers posts are morally wrong and illegal within
US borders so I'll pass.
> Chris has also thought you made a suitable enough of a point to
>remove the 'diatribe' from the posts. After all, we all know what it says
>but this time, anyway.
>
Yes--he did respond to me on this but he also stated that this had
been brought to his attention before and did not act upon it. It's only
because the spotlight is on him and the hypocracy of what he was doing
was so obvious that he finally responded. No decent sys admin will be
associated with him after that.
> Now, you obviously do not want to address your other gross errors,
>since you failed to copy the relevant portions or discuss them. Namely:
>
> 1) There is no 'global killfile'
Never said there was. There are attempts to have one though and you
know yourself, reading the policy groups, there are quite a number of
advocates of such. I never see you correct them with they spew this
censorous nonsence. Why is that?
> 2) Personal killfiles do not constitute 'censorship'.
>
Of course they don't and I highly recommend them to anyone who
wishes to not see a subset of posts. Personally I never use them. The
only person or persons that has a right to filter the news is the
individual user--no one has a right to filter it for us. Personal
killfiles are an excellent solution which I've long encouraged. That,
along with threaded newsreaders make most complaints about certain threads
utter nonsense.
> These ommissions (or your original use of them) don't do much to
>enhance your credibility.
Compared to Chris Lewis I'm not in the least worried about that.
Steve
Tim Skirvin
> And which global killfile would this be, Stephen?
http://arh0062.urh.uiuc.edu/global.html.
David L. Cathey
>>tre...@slip.net wrote:
>>> dav...@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) wrote:
>>
>>> >>Nor would I--if he's the author he can cancel his own posts. No one
>>> >>however has the right to cancel the posts of another and that's where
>>> >>Lewis is in the ethical gutter.
>>
>>> >to deposit posts on my server
>>
>>> Allisat/etc) give a coherent, logical answer to the above. Hey, I can
>>> dream, can't I?
>
> Yes--I've no problem with an ISP deciding which groups to carry.
> That's an entirely different matter from filtering the groups they
> do carry--sort of like a newstand dealer selling the NY Times and clipping
> out the articles they don't like for their customers. Canceling others
> articles is a violation of US Federal law and should be promptly reported
> to law enforcement authorities.
But the NY Times *DOES* filter authors and articles. What do you think
the Editor's job is? The NY Times even modifies the original articles for
brevity, content, spelling, language, ... even if the article comes off it's
Usenet equivalent - the AP/UPI wire services.
You still haven't told us why any article has some right to be on
any/every server. After all, the NY Times isn't legally required to publish
every article it receives, either.
Stephen Boursy
>tre...@slip.net wrote:
>> dav...@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) wrote:
>
>> >>however has the right to cancel the posts of another and that's where
>> >>Lewis is in the ethical gutter.
>
>> >to deposit posts on my server
>
>> Allisat/etc) give a coherent, logical answer to the above. Hey, I can
>> dream, can't I?
>
>
>if you censor any authors, you are acting as a censor, and interfering
>with the freedom of speech of others.
>
Yes--I've no problem with an ISP deciding which groups to carry.
That's an entirely different matter from filtering the groups they
do carry--sort of like a newstand dealer selling the NY Times and clipping
out the articles they don't like for their customers. Canceling others
articles is a violation of US Federal law and should be promptly reported
to law enforcement authorities.
>If you do not like Allisat or Boursy, just do not carry
>earth.general or news.admin.policy.
>
Yes--that's fine with me. It's nice to have a forum to respond to
where you adversaries won't read it. Conversly anyone wishing to communicate
with me has a surefire place to reach me. news.admin.policy is an
alternative news admin group that presents a differing view of news policy
from the standpoint of the consumer--not nec. business owners. Some find
that very threatening.
>But you can not censor Allisat or Boursy in alt.censorship
>or news.admin.net-abuse.misc.
>
No. But they've tried as they have with you and they'll try
again.
Steve
M.Grubor
writes:
>
>In article <1995Dec30.005548.21569@montagar>,
>David L. Cathey <dav...@montagar.com> wrote:
>> Stephen, it appears you've been trolled again. The cancel was
done
>>based upon established and documented SPAM thresholds (unless you
have
>
> As usual you've no honesty on the subject. At the time that
Chris
>Lewis cancelled Dr. G's articles by the very difinition of spam Lewis
was
>using he should have also cancelled his own cancells which contained a
long
>repetitive diatrabe totally unnec. to his numerous cancels. Anyone
who
>supports lewis is in an ethical gutter.
>
>
>
>
>>other evidence???),
>
>
> Read Lewis's cancels from that time and explain clearly to me
>what they were not considered spam yet Dr. G's where. He was
cancelling
>an oponant.
>
This is a very astute observation, which also points out
Mr. Lewis's collusion with Windigo in this entire matter.
The entire purpose of Dr.G's postings were clear, and that
was an effort to stop the Windigo girl from cutting DrG's
alt.is newsgroup from the headers.
> Steve
>
zando
Peter da Silva
> putting him in a global killfile.
Steve: would you like a clue? It's just a little one, but it'll help you
avoid looking foolish...
The Usenet Global Killfile is a joke. It's like Godwin's Law, or Murphy's
Law, or the idea that picnics attract rain, or the tooth fairy. Do you
believe in the tooth fairy, too?
--
Peter da Silva (NIC: PJD2) `-_-' 1601 Industrial Boulevard
Bailey Network Management 'U` Sugar Land, TX 77487-5013
+1 713 274 5180 "Har du kramat din varg idag?" USA
Bailey pays for my technical expertise. My opinions probably scare them
Nathan J. Mehl
pe...@nmti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>The Usenet Global Killfile is a joke.
Not merely a joke, but a joke *specifically* designed to hook in
Speedbump. Looks like he's still dangling, too.
--
"The life of a sysadmin is always intense!"
If you think I speak for my employer, they'll be happy to correct you.
Nathan J. Mehl -- BBN Planet System Operations -- nat...@bbnplanet.com
<A HREF="http://web.near.net/~nmehl">homepagesque</A>
Michael D. Phoenix
>Let's take this off the net and into real life. Someone needs to go
>Grubor's way and set him straight through physical means. Boursy just
>needs a laxative.
C'mon, Dan. That's not worthy of you. You know better than that in
practical terms, and I expected better of you in personal terms.
Threats of physical violence over an electronic medium are illegal and
immoral; I'd appreciate it if you posted a retraction and apology
immediately.
Particularly given that this threat is quite believable (there are
enough people who are angry with Mr. Grubor to the point of
irrationality that I will not be at all surprised if someone does
assault him physically), it's both unwise and unethical to make it.
Please consider what I've said above, and make the requested
retraction and apology. Neither you nor I would want to receive
threats of physical violence; by the same token, Mr. Grubor should not
be subjected to them, however objectionable you may find him.
Sincerely,
Mickey.
>D a n R o t h s c h i l d [http://cache.cow.net/~dr]
>geo...@bobnet.net/d...@icsi.net/ro...@bmrbbs.brewich.com/d...@cache.cow.net
Stephen Boursy
Michael D. Phoenix <mic...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>In article <4c1a1b$d...@degas.icsi.net>, Dan Rothschild <d...@ICSI.Net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Let's take this off the net and into real life. Someone needs to go
>>Grubor's way and set him straight through physical means. Boursy just
>>needs a laxative.
>
>
>C'mon, Dan. That's not worthy of you. You know better than that in
>practical terms, and I expected better of you in personal terms.
>
From what I've read of Mr. Rothschild it's quite in keeping
with his personality.
>Threats of physical violence over an electronic medium are illegal and
>immoral; I'd appreciate it if you posted a retraction and apology
>immediately.
>
This threat occured some time ago and I was surprised at how few
spoke up. Thank you for doing so. Perhaps other notible figures will
also do so because by their silence they are condoning or excusing his
statement. There's more than a bit of credibility at stake.
>Particularly given that this threat is quite believable (there are
>enough people who are angry with Mr. Grubor to the point of
>irrationality that I will not be at all surprised if someone does
>assault him physically), it's both unwise and unethical to make it.
>
>Please consider what I've said above, and make the requested
>retraction and apology. Neither you nor I would want to receive
>threats of physical violence; by the same token, Mr. Grubor should not
>be subjected to them, however objectionable you may find him.
>
Well said. Nice to finally agree on something--perhaps for
the last time.
Steve
The Doctor
>wo...@netcom.com (Wotan) wrote:
>
>>
>>No.
>>
>>When you get him off his normal rants he is rather amusing to read.
>>While money doesn't buy love, it puts you in a great bargaining
>>position.
>
>honest I read it a couple of times over before I could believe it was
>from him.
>
>I actually enjoyed reading it. Makes me kind of wonder of there's
>hope for him. More on that later...
>
>:)
But are you not the one who advertised by service provider's
personal e-mail addresses in an attempt to have people harass them?
I mean, we have means and channels by which complaints are to be handled,
and giving out people's personal e-mail adresses is as bad as giving out
home addresses so Rothschild can send his bullies in to break some legs.
Complaints on this UseNet should be confined to the proper channels,
and those who knowingly violate those proper channels are to be held
in as low esteem as content-related cancellers.
This "hitting below the belt" that you and Dave Haz* practice are despicable
methods which must be forbidden. I am going to be buying an ISP soon, and
I do not want any UseNet complaints going to my wife, the owner of record.
Stop this *below the belt shit* right now.
DrG
The Doctor
>In article <4c1a1b$d...@degas.icsi.net>, Dan Rothschild <d...@ICSI.Net> wrote:
>>Let's take this off the net and into real life. Someone needs to go
>>Grubor's way and set him straight through physical means. Boursy just
>>needs a laxative.
>
>regarding Chris Lewis. I don't approve of it now, when Dan makes it regarding
>Grubor. Don't respond with violence, just <plonk> the bozo. Grubor makes
It is funny how this Bill Hazelrig takes a threat of a civil lawsuit and
tries to turn it into a threat of "physical violence." Everybody on this
UseNet knows that I always threaten to sue people, and so do many other
people. Phoenix was quick to jump on an "implied" threat of physical
violence, and everybody jumped on the bandwagon.
But nobody jumped on this Bandwagon until Steve Boursy started it,
and the threat was *specific* this time.
What I want to know is why everybody condones this attitude that
ISPs are to be thrust into the midst of every UseNet dispute?
That must end at once.
I will not comment any more on this thread. I will just watch how you
rationalize this behavior, and i should hnot be commenting hereon anyway,
since my view could be called biased. please do not cut alt.is.too.
>- Bill Hazelrig (ha...@midway.uchicago.edu)
>
>** for a fully-commented anti-SPAM trn killfile **
>** finger: ha...@kimbark.uchicago.edu **
Bill Hazelrig's promotion of *complaining to ISPs* for the settlement
of UseNet disputes is the *real* form of net-abuse that must be
eliminated at once. ISPs do *not* want to hear about *any* UseNet Disputes
any more. Call your lawyer or call the cops. ISPs are not the
policemen or the abititrators of UseNet disputes.
John M. Grubor
Doctor Of Law
CyberLawMaster
Dan Rothschild
violence, by "physical means" I meant telling you to shut up to your face
when you might actually listen.
Let's drop it and get back to the usually unproductive flamewars. Apology
accepted?
--
D a n R o t h s c h i l d [http://cache.cow.net/~dr]
geo...@bobnet.net/d...@icsi.net/ro...@bmrbbs.brewich.com/d...@cache.cow.net
"The trouble with peace is that you have to make it with your
enemy. You can't make it with your friend." -- Yitzhak Rabin
John Davis
: In article <4ceasi$1...@zuul.nmti.com>,
: pe...@nmti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
: >The Usenet Global Killfile is a joke.
: Not merely a joke, but a joke *specifically* designed to hook in
: Speedbump. Looks like he's still dangling, too.
I don't know, looks to me like we're missing a golden opportunity. If we
put Boursy in the "Usenet Global Killfile" maybe he'd decide it was no
use posting, and quit. Here, let me give it a try.
Good-by Steveareno. <KEERSPLAT> Damn! Now that's a deep hole.
--
A_A
John Davis (o o) The hammer shatters glass but forges steel.
----------oOO-(^)-OOo----------------------------------------------------
~ Russian Proverb
I reserve the right to post, at my discretion, any nasty or harassing
e-mail I receive. Repeated occurrences of such e-mail will be referred to
the senders postmaster with a request for action.
Unsolicited commercial e-mail will be proofread at $100/hour (minimum one
(1) hour).
Stephen Boursy
>>
>> I've no problem with an ISP deciding which groups to carry.
>> That's an entirely different matter from filtering the groups they
>> do carry--sort of like a newstand dealer selling the NY Times and clipping
>> out the articles they don't like for their customers. Canceling others
>> articles is a violation of US Federal law and should be promptly reported
>> to law enforcement authorities.
>
>
Yes--but they are the publisher. On the usenet the individual
poster is the publisher--the ISP is merely transmitting the news much
like the phone company.
>What do you think
>the Editor's job is? The NY Times even modifies the original articles for
>brevity, content, spelling, language, ... even if the article comes off it's
>Usenet equivalent - the AP/UPI wire services.
Well--as I said sys admins are not publishers and once they
assume control over one aspect of the usenet--such as filtering
alleged spam--they become legally responsbibly for all content they
carry (as well they should) which is not very bright given the nature
of the usenet.
Finally--even if one where to accept yoru publisher argument the
NY Times would certainly not be associated with someone of the character
of Chris Lewis and allow him to edit for them nor would they accept JEM's
cancels which state right in them that they are unverified--the bozo actually
puts a disclaimer on his cancels! You'd have to be nuts to assume
liablity for them which is what some sys admins are presently doing.
>
> You still haven't told us why any article has some right to be on
>any/every server. After all, the NY Times isn't legally required to publish
>every article it receives, either.
>
The newspaper anology doesn't work at all. As far as the property
thing I've addressed that but here it goes again. I private business that
does not sell access to the general public can censor its news however it
wishes but an ISP, or a private business that is a link in the newsfeed
chain that then sends the news it just filtered on to other sys admins
does not have that right.
Steve
Jens Hage
: In article <1996Jan3.104952.21599@montagar>,
: David L. Cathey <dav...@montagar.com> wrote:
: >In article <DKL7A...@world.std.com>, bou...@world.std.com
: >(Stephen Boursy) wrote:
: >>
: >> I've no problem with an ISP deciding which groups to carry.
: >> That's an entirely different matter from filtering the groups they
: >> do carry--sort of like a newstand dealer selling the NY Times and clipping
: >> out the articles they don't like for their customers. Canceling others
: >> articles is a violation of US Federal law and should be promptly reported
: >> to law enforcement authorities.
: >
: >
: > But the NY Times *DOES* filter authors and articles.
:
:
: Yes--but they are the publisher. On the usenet the individual
: poster is the publisher--the ISP is merely transmitting the news much
: like the phone company.
Got it. So my newsstand that doesn't carry all of the newspapers in the
world is guilty of censorship. Okay. This makes *so* much more sense now.
The ISP does not transmit everything. Never has, never will. I defy you
to get a non-.io access to io.* groups.
It's been explained before. You choose to ignore it. Are you that stupid
that you think others don't remeber that clues have been flung at you?
Jens "email all you want" Hage
Stephen Boursy
>
>Okay, Grubor et al, I'm sorry for what I said. I wasn't implying physical
>violence, by "physical means" I meant telling you to shut up to your face
>when you might actually listen.
>
>Let's drop it and get back to the usually unproductive flamewars. Apology
>accepted?
>
I hope he accepts it. It's not easy to apologize and that
ability indicates a strengh of character. We all go overboard at
times and I regret having done so with you all well.
Now back to the 'usually unproductive flamewars'.
Regards,
Steve
David L. Cathey
> In article <1996Jan3.104952.21599@montagar>,
> David L. Cathey <dav...@montagar.com> wrote:
>> But the NY Times *DOES* filter authors and articles.
>
> Yes--but they are the publisher. On the usenet the individual
> poster is the publisher--the ISP is merely transmitting the news much
> like the phone company.
Not true. Most usenet servers are not ISP's. And no ISP has common
carrier status. You argument is based entirely upon some fallacious
assumption all usenet news servers are both. You are right that the individual
POSTER is the PUBLISHER, but there is no requirement that all "news stands"
carry any particular publication. Much like 7-11 decided to drop all
publications by Playboy are few years back.
If no one wants to carry your post, you have no legal recourse to
demand that they do. And if someone wants you to 'boycott' a set of posts,
you can make that decision yourself. Chris and JEM both actively encourage
this, you want to make the decision for everyone.
>>What do you think
>>the Editor's job is? The NY Times even modifies the original articles for
>>brevity, content, spelling, language, ... even if the article comes off it's
>>Usenet equivalent - the AP/UPI wire services.
>
> Well--as I said sys admins are not publishers and once they
> assume control over one aspect of the usenet--such as filtering
> alleged spam--they become legally responsbibly for all content they
> carry (as well they should) which is not very bright given the nature
> of the usenet.
They _already_ have that burden, ISP or not. And since they are
not publishers, but news stands, they can determine which publishers they
wish to stock their shelves with... or not.
> Finally--even if one where to accept yoru publisher argument the
> NY Times would certainly not be associated with someone of the character
> of Chris Lewis and allow him to edit for them nor would they accept JEM's
> cancels which state right in them that they are unverified--the bozo actually
> puts a disclaimer on his cancels! You'd have to be nuts to assume
> liablity for them which is what some sys admins are presently doing.
You have proof the the NY Times thinks this way? Interesting.
>> You still haven't told us why any article has some right to be on
>>any/every server. After all, the NY Times isn't legally required to publish
>>every article it receives, either.
>
> The newspaper anology doesn't work at all.
Then why did you bring it up? I think what you mean is that it
doesn't work they way you want it to.
> As far as the property
> thing I've addressed that but here it goes again. I private business that
> does not sell access to the general public can censor its news however it
> wishes but an ISP, or a private business that is a link in the newsfeed
> chain that then sends the news it just filtered on to other sys admins
> does not have that right.
Why? 7-11 sells magazines to the public, but has the right to
determine which publishers to stock on their shelves.
Why does your article have a right to be on my server? Given me
one instance in the US Code that states this. Whether it mentions 'Common
Carrier' or not.
It comes down to: You can't. Because it isn't there. You have
every reason to expect your post to be on YOUR server, but beyond that all
expectations are based upon mutual cooperation. Your post is a guest on
my server, and if I feel your posts are offensive/abusive, I can remove
them and reject all future posts if I wish. I can allow a third-party
to clean up SPAM from my system if wish (if I do not wish this, I can
reject his posts, too).
Your 'right' to reject and ignore Chris and JEM's cancels is exactly
the same right I have to ACCEPT their articles. The sad thing, is that I'm
probably more free speach than you, since I don't reject ANY articles from
ANYONE, as long as they are of the proper form. You would have me start
censoring.
Again, you must be very proud of the legal restrictions upon
CompuServe. They have succumbed to exactly the forces and threats you
want to inflict upon the rest of us.
DrG
>Okay, Grubor et al, I'm sorry for what I said. I wasn't implying physical
>violence, by "physical means" I meant telling you to shut up to your face
>when you might actually listen.
>
>Let's drop it and get back to the usually unproductive flamewars. Apology
>accepted?
Only if you go and help Phoenix do a RFD on
a new sci.med.cannabis group.
If not, than your appology is not accepted.
DrG
Hardrock
> Okay, Grubor et al, I'm sorry for what I said. I wasn't implying physical
> violence, by "physical means" I meant telling you to shut up to your face
> when you might actually listen.
> Let's drop it and get back to the usually unproductive flamewars. Apology
> accepted?
Anyone can get irrational at times and overreact. It is nice to see
that most of those who do are willing to admit such, and appologize for it.
Too bad the likes of Grubor, Boursy, et al. can't learn from this example.
Way to go Dan. Nice to have people like you around.
--
*** The opinions expressed herein are MINE Dammit! Get your own! ***
Unsolicited commercial and mass email messages will be subject to a receival,
processing, and/or archiving fee of $1 US per byte. Payable upon demand.
*** Sending such to this address constitutes acceptance of these terms. ***
Dark-Heart Darling
On Thu, 04 Jan 96 15:34:17 GMT The Doctor (d...@manus.org) wrote:
: What I want to know is why everybody condones this attitude that
: ISPs are to be thrust into the midst of every UseNet dispute?
You tell 'em, Dad! I know they're wussies too! :-(
: ISPs do *not* want to hear about *any* UseNet Disputes
Not even mine, who'll say "So killfile the moron!" as long as I pay my
bills and don't do or advocate anything really illegal. Hell, I've posted
my address so y'all can come gun me down instead. Leave my overworked
sysadmins alone!
OB-NSA-bait: ASSASSINATION, TERROR, PEDOPHILIA, MRS. NEWT WEARS NAVY SHOES!
Yours,
TheDavid(TM)
- -Son Of Grubor
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
iQCVAwUBMO8I3u5bJgnmjCuBAQHK3wQAxoSzll90i+SFHg07By0UcrRobHQdXvRA
h/wMGNVkegUimfxVRWcdhAFYXSLKqsnaSaKOc7YYzkNc2s9vVzhqOlkEU6CPdfgF
RCdK8eefKlwug1b7uy4FYvsVJlifFroKmsT6nE9Lj/igE1txSlHpsJCBHgayIXlO
CdTCCE4mCHg=
=MlYl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Michael D. Phoenix
>d...@ICSI.Net (Dan Rothschild) wrote:
>>Let's drop it and get back to the usually unproductive flamewars. Apology
>>accepted?
>
>a new sci.med.cannabis group.
I take this to be approval of my suggestion for creating new groups
sci.med.cannabis and talk.politics.cannabis.medical-legalization, and
acceptance of my offer to write the RFD for them.
I therefore request the assistance of the more technologically
knowledgeable on n.a.n-a.m in learning how to write an RFD. Pointers
to sources on how to write an RFD, and examples of well-written RFDs,
are much appreciated.
Please communicate with me on this matter via email, rather than
posts; no need to clog the newsgroup with what is, at this point, a
private matter (informing me about RFDs to the point where I can write
one effectively).
I'd like to see this RFD pass (I see a real need for both groups), so
any serious assistance will be much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Mickey.
Jmarken
>Only if you go and help Phoenix do a RFD on
>a new sci.med.cannabis group.
But cannabis is gooood mahn! You no like de cannabis, stey-wey fom de
cannabis talk.
Dr.G
says...
>
>Since DrG has worked so hard to contribute to the signal to noise
>ratio in the newsgroups, I hope that anyone/everyone will find the
>following information useful.
>
>Please feel free to call them, mail them, and fax them, and let them
>know how you feel.
We at the usenet cabal are taking care of the problem.
We have contracted with some little green men from
Alpha Centauri to kidnap the good doctor from his
bedroom late at night with a flying saucer. After
that, you will hear no more from this man. As always
the Secret Usenet Cabal is on the job.
ALL HAIL THE USENET CABAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and Happy New Year
Michael D. Phoenix
>In article <30e19773...@pubxfer.news.psi.net>, dbul...@funn.land-5.com
>says...
>
>We have contracted with some little green men from
>Alpha Centauri to kidnap the good doctor from his
>bedroom late at night with a flying saucer. After
>that, you will hear no more from this man. As always
>the Secret Usenet Cabal is on the job.
>
>ALL HAIL THE USENET CABAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>and Happy New Year
Absolutely lovely. My compliments, Dr.G.
Excellently well done.
Happy New Year to you, too!
Mickey "long live satire" Phoenix.
There Is No Cabal.
John Grubor
mic...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Michael D. Phoenix) wrote:
>In article <4d29ig$s...@news.computek.net>, Dr.G <snow...@computek.net> wrote:
>>In article <30e19773...@pubxfer.news.psi.net>, dbul...@funn.land-5.com
>>says...
>>
>>We at the usenet cabal are taking care of the problem.
>>We have contracted with some little green men from
>>Alpha Centauri to kidnap the good doctor from his
>>bedroom late at night with a flying saucer. After
>>that, you will hear no more from this man. As always
>>the Secret Usenet Cabal is on the job.
>>
>>ALL HAIL THE USENET CABAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>and Happy New Year
>
>Absolutely lovely. My compliments, Dr.G.
>
go getting him mixed up with the trademark DrG(c) without the dot.
DrG(c) is owned by John M. Grubor, Doctor Of Law.
DrG
>Excellently well done.
>
>Happy New Year to you, too!
>
>Mickey "long live satire" Phoenix.
>
>There Is No Cabal.
>
The fuck there ain't -- right now. They are a.k.a. the "scumbags!"
Don't be so uninformed, mickey!
But Boursy and I and a few more of us will make your
statement come true within the next few months, hopefully.
End *ALL* 3rd party cancellations!
-CyberGod(c)1996
-DrG
David L. Cathey
"We have met the enemy, and it is us"
M.Grubor
>
>In article <4debco$b64...@slip.lm.com>, Doctor Grubor <d...@manus.org>
wrote:
>>The "cabal-elimination" brigade has come.
>
>*what* cabal? You're going to spend a lot of time chasing clouds...
>
>Yes, there was a real reason for this posting...
>I got some mail from you (grubor) this morning and tried to respond,
>but at this point manus.org seems to have no NIC whois entry, so the
>domain has gone away. I am under the impression that it used to have
>a real entry, so I'm wondering what happened...
>Someone at lm.com want to respond?
>
No George -- every good ISP is tired of responding
to your little "cabal" group, and you will all be eliminated by
the end of this year.
The manus.org was wiped out by a forged message from
da Silva & his cabal punks. The old "cabal crew" has lost all
credibility at this point and the new GruBoursyNewtopian society is now
coming into existance. Davis Lawrence and da Silva muast be the first
to go. Jan Isley, Chris Lewis and Bill Hazelrig must all be removed
because of their incompetent ruination of UseNet thus far.
John M. Grubor
Doctor Of Law
3rd party cancellatrions will be completely
banned by August.
Steve, Is this another entry for the UseNet Scumbag list?
Looks that way to me.
Dan Rothschild
>
>The manus.org was wiped out by a forged message from
>da Silva & his cabal punks. The old "cabal crew" has lost all
No, it was a drunk JD. :)
> 3rd party cancellatrions will be completely
>banned by August.
By whom?
>Steve, Is this another entry for the UseNet Scumbag list?
>Looks that way to me.
So, GruBoor, who is on this list? I'm sure that da Silva is on and so
is Isley and Franquemont-Guillory. Post the list
Stephen Boursy
M.Grubor <za...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <4demfg$b...@crl3.crl.com> gher...@crl.com (George Herbert) writes:
>>
>>In article <4debco$b64...@slip.lm.com>, Doctor Grubor <d...@manus.org>
>wrote:
>>>The "cabal-elimination" brigade has come.
>>
>>*what* cabal? You're going to spend a lot of time chasing clouds...
>>
>>Yes, there was a real reason for this posting...
>>I got some mail from you (grubor) this morning and tried to respond,
>>but at this point manus.org seems to have no NIC whois entry, so the
>>domain has gone away. I am under the impression that it used to have
>>a real entry, so I'm wondering what happened...
>>Someone at lm.com want to respond?
>>
>No George -- every good ISP is tired of responding
>to your little "cabal" group, and you will all be eliminated by
>the end of this year.
>
And some less than ethical ISP's as well such as panix.com. They
just bent right over to the cabal--shameful.
>The manus.org was wiped out by a forged message from
>da Silva & his cabal punks. The old "cabal crew" has lost all
>credibility at this point and the new GruBoursyNewtopian society is now
>coming into existance. Davis Lawrence and da Silva muast be the first
>to go. Jan Isley, Chris Lewis and Bill Hazelrig must all be removed
>because of their incompetent ruination of UseNet thus far.
>
>John M. Grubor
>Doctor Of Law
>
>
> 3rd party cancellatrions will be completely
>banned by August.
>
>Steve, Is this another entry for the UseNet Scumbag list?
>Looks that way to me.
>
I'd agree with that Dr.
Steve
fre...@indy.net
soon will be cancelled like his other morph accounts, amy martin, manus,
zeus and drmacho.
M.Grubor
In <4e45ll$n...@degas.ICSI.Net> d...@ICSI.Net (Dan Rothschild) writes:
>
>M.Grubor <za...@ix.netcom.com> spewed the following drek to usenet:
>>
>>The manus.org was wiped out by a forged message from
>>da Silva & his cabal punks. The old "cabal crew" has lost all
>
>No, it was a drunk JD. :)
>
Oh yeah? That may be a possibility.
I know that J.D. Falk just used the cais remailing service
to mailbomb this address with over 100 mailbombs.
I will be in touch with interNIC as soon as the whois starts
working again.
>> 3rd party cancellatrions will be completely
>>banned by August.
>
>By whom?
>
By consent.
>>Steve, Is this another entry for the UseNet Scumbag list?
>>Looks that way to me.
>
>So, GruBoor, who is on this list? I'm sure that da Silva is on and so
>is Isley and Franquemont-Guillory. Post the list
>
Where have you been, dan? It was posted a week ago.
click "older articles" if you are on Ntescape, and look for
the "UseNet Scumbags"
I had not included Abbey -- i did not know
she was a needed addition.
>--
>D a n R o t h s c h i l d [http://cache.cow.net/~dr]
>geo...@bobnet.net/d...@icsi.net/ro...@bmrbbs.brewich.com/d...@cache.cow.net
>
DrG
M.Grubor
I seriously doubt that any account wil be cancelled, Freeman.
None ever have been of me. We do move form unacceptable ISPs to
the good ones, however. And you have discovered that I have a morph
Dr. Fomin account, so what? Nothing wrong with pen names.
-DrGodFuck
Hardrock
> I seriously doubt that any account wil be cancelled, Freeman.
> None ever have been of me. We do move form unacceptable ISPs to
> the good ones, however. And you have discovered that I have a morph
> Dr. Fomin account, so what? Nothing wrong with pen names.
In other words, He had several accounts nuked by responsible ISPs, so he
just keeps moving to new rouge sites that haven't had action taken
against them by the greater Usenet community.
And i don't believe Fomin is Grubor. The style is too different.
--
"And Lady Stardust sang his songs of darkness and dismay" --David Bowie
Hardrock Llewynyth, despiser of Perkys, Keeper of the Small Furry Animals(tm)
dhar...@telebyte.com http://kendaco.telebyte.com/dharland/mainpage.html
KC: Fomin+ (Grubor+)*2 KC2: Boursy++ Fomin+ (Grubor!)*2 KN:2 KN2:8
fre...@indy.net
the creep behind the infamous UseNet Scumbags black list. This should answer
the question of those who wondered who fomin really was and the answer is
that fomin is John Martin Grubor, a disbarred attorney from Pennsylvania.
M.Grubor (za...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <4e4naf$f...@news.indy.net> fre...@indy.net () writes:
: The Grubworm posted the black list under his morph Fomin account which
: soon will be cancelled like his other morph accounts, amy martin, manus,
: zeus and drmacho.
: I seriously doubt that any account wil be cancelled, Freeman.
: None ever have been of me. We do move form unacceptable ISPs to
: the good ones, however. And you have discovered that I have a morph
: Dr. Fomin account, so what? Nothing wrong with pen names.
: -DrGodFuck
David Sewell
>In the below exchange Grubor Grubworm confesses to being the infamous fomin,
>the creep behind the infamous UseNet Scumbags black list. This should answer
>the question of those who wondered who fomin really was and the answer is
>that fomin is John Martin Grubor, a disbarred attorney from Pennsylvania.
Freeman, Grubor can claim anything he wants. But unless he reads and
writes Russian and knows more about the technical details of Usenet
feeds than his other posts indicate, vfomin is not a morph account
operated solely by Grubor.
It doesn't help to muddy these waters any more than they already are.
--
David Sewell * ds...@packrat.aml.arizona.edu | "Night-walkers, wizards,
Dep't of Geosciences, University of Arizona | bacchanals, revellers,
http://packrat.aml.arizona.edu/~dsew/ | sharers in the mysteries."
| --Heraclitus
Stephen Boursy
M.Grubor <za...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>"information goatpath" --- hehehehehe -- good one . . .
>
>In <4e45ll$n...@degas.ICSI.Net> d...@ICSI.Net (Dan Rothschild) writes:
>>
>>M.Grubor <za...@ix.netcom.com> spewed the following drek to usenet:
>>>
>>>The manus.org was wiped out by a forged message from
>>>da Silva & his cabal punks. The old "cabal crew" has lost all
>>
>>No, it was a drunk JD. :)
>>
>Oh yeah? That may be a possibility.
>I know that J.D. Falk just used the cais remailing service
>to mailbomb this address with over 100 mailbombs.
>I will be in touch with interNIC as soon as the whois starts
>working again.
>
Well if you take Falk to court Dr. Grubor you've got
Rothschild on record as a witness against him. Seems they
find manis.org to be quite the threat--this is the time
to get the feds involved on the ground floor there--we should
discuss this privately.
>>> 3rd party cancellatrions will be completely
>>>banned by August.
>>
>>By whom?
>>
>By consent.
>
Yes--consent as opposed to fear of the cabal. When the cabal falls
sys admins will be free from their intimidation. Some like panix of course
will continue to bend to whoever (seems like they enjoy it) but most will
enjoy.
In any event Dr., Dan will make a good witness--he talks a lot
and his name sounds important.
Steve
Steven Proffitt
: The Grubworm posted the black list under his morph Fomin account which
: soon will be cancelled like his other morph accounts, amy martin, manus,
: zeus and drmacho.
Why, of course! If Grubor has been exercising his freedom of speech,
then we MUST remove his vocal cords. NOT!
You idiot! Why is it that you use your freedom of speech in your
attempts to remove the very same freedom from someone else?
M.Grubor
(David Sewell) writes:
>
>In article <4e78bp$g...@news.indy.net>, <fre...@indy.net> wrote:
>>In the below exchange Grubor Grubworm confesses to being the infamous
fomin,
>>the creep behind the infamous UseNet Scumbags black list. This should
>Freeman, Grubor can claim anything he wants. But unless he reads and
>writes Russian and knows more about the technical details of Usenet
>feeds than his other posts indicate, vfomin is not a morph account
>operated solely by Grubor.
>
>It doesn't help to muddy these waters any more than they already are.
>--
Yes it *DOES* David! It shows that you do not know what
you are talking about. Why do you want all of the "technical details"
to be accurate? Now, I *MUST BE* fomin, if fomin does not say that
I am not him, right? My 1-800 reverse tel-net ISBN/ATM/SONet modem
was just installed, and now I am faster than anybody else on earth!
and we are getting the venerable Davis Hayes back to explain some
things to you, David. . .
grubor/fomin
ps; does Kurcheway still run that hook-up net?
M.Grubor
(Steven Proffitt) writes:
>
>fre...@indy.net wrote:
>: The Grubworm posted the black list under his morph Fomin account
which
>: soon will be cancelled like his other morph accounts, amy martin,
manus,
>: zeus and drmacho.
>
I had nothing to do with any Amy Martin! You seem to think that
just because my middle name is "Martin" that I was her! You are crazy!
Now, manus is our corporation, and zeus was a law firm account that you
destroyed, so we had to change the name. And DrMacho *IS* a
cyropractor, and very much alive -- he is just not on UseNet with me
any more because he moved to another county.
Now stop being such an asshole and calling me other people!
the fomin account is for freedom of speech! dig?
and stop denying that you are a half-jew, too. That is
disgusting! Abraham would be ashamed of you!
fre...@indy.net
the question of those who wondered who fomin really was and the answer is
that fomin is John Martin Grubor, a disbarred attorney from Pennsylvania.
: M.Grubor (za...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: I seriously doubt that any account wil be cancelled, Freeman.
: None ever have been of me. We do move form unacceptable ISPs to
: the good ones, however. And you have discovered that I have a morph
: Dr. Fomin account, so what? Nothing wrong with pen names.
: -DrGodFuck
Note: this was originally under a heading called, "Grubor keeps wasting
space on the information." and was on a thread started by someone else,
in alt.is.too.
fre...@indy.net
: fre...@indy.net wrote:
: : The Grubworm posted the black list under his morph Fomin account which
: : soon will be cancelled like his other morph accounts, amy martin, manus,
: : zeus and drmacho.
: Why, of course! If Grubor has been exercising his freedom of speech,
: then we MUST remove his vocal cords. NOT!
: You idiot! Why is it that you use your freedom of speech in your
: attempts to remove the very same freedom from someone else?
Proffitt you are just an asslicking Grubor clone, who the hell said anything
about removing Grubworm's vocal cords? Also I only have one account to post
from and absolutely no power to take anyone's freedom of speech away but,
you are truly a moron who can write in perfect Gruborspeak. Grubor is net
psycho who has used multiple morph accounts to spread lies and has posted no
fewer than 4 of his enemies lists since last summer and I have appeared on
three of them so just who is trying to silence who, dickhead Proffitt ?
Maybe you will keep quiet if Grubworm lies and calls your Mother a whore and
you a gay kike but I won't shut up for either creeps like you or psycho's
like your girlfriend Grubby. I heard you two were gay lovers in prison,
is that true ? I assume you won't mind if I post that rumour all over UseNet
because after all I am just using my freedom of speech, like your girlfriend
Grubworm.
Stephen Boursy
M.Grubor <za...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>and we are getting the venerable Davis Hayes back to explain some
>things to you, David. . .
>
Yes--and I imagine David has been storing it up for quite some
time--he's a thoughtful planner.
>grubor/fomin
>
>ps; does Kurcheway still run that hook-up net?
Now there's a question for you.
Steve
Vladimir Fomin
>fre...@indy.net wrote:
>: The Grubworm posted the black list under his morph Fomin account which
>: soon will be cancelled like his other morph accounts, amy martin, manus,
>: zeus and drmacho.
> Why, of course! If Grubor has been exercising his freedom of speech,
> then we MUST remove his vocal cords. NOT!
> You idiot! Why is it that you use your freedom of speech in your
> attempts to remove the very same freedom from someone else?
Homos like freemanshit define "freedom of speech" as freedom from any
speech they don't like.
--
----
Vladimir Fomin, vfo...@panix.com. <http://users.aol.com/antisas/oasash.html>
Tom Evans
M.Grubor <za...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <1996Jan25.2...@netnews.wku.edu> pro...@pulsar.wku.edu
>(Steven Proffitt) writes:
>>
>>fre...@indy.net wrote:
>>: The Grubworm posted the black list under his morph Fomin account
>which
>>: soon will be cancelled like his other morph accounts, amy martin,
>manus,
>>: zeus and drmacho.
>>
>
>I had nothing to do with any Amy Martin! You seem to think that
>just because my middle name is "Martin" that I was her! You are crazy!
Liar
--
This program posts news to thousands of machines throughout the entire
civilized world. Your message will cost you hundreds if not thousands
of dollars to send everywhere. Please be sure you know what you're doing.
M.Grubor
>
>In <1996Jan25.2...@netnews.wku.edu> pro...@pulsar.wku.edu
(Steven Proffitt) writes:
>
>>fre...@indy.net wrote:
>>: The Grubworm posted the black list under his morph Fomin account
which
>>: soon will be cancelled like his other morph accounts, amy martin,
manus,
>>: zeus and drmacho.
>