Nowhere9 Bryan Lang in trouble again

17 views
Skip to first unread message

freedom

unread,
Aug 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/7/00
to
Bryan Lang had another run-in with the law. He violated the
restraining order which stated that he was to stay away from his
ex-wife and child. Lang was intoxicated, according to the police
report, and was yelling at his ex and his child.

This stems from the case earlier this year, in which the restraining
order was issued. During an argument last year, Lang had thrown a
punch at his wife but ended up hitting his child instead.

Karl Denninger

unread,
Aug 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/7/00
to
In article <e5d768b90a82c5ff...@mixmaster.shinn.net>,
freedom <anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net> wrote:
>Bryan Lang ......


Ok folks.

I've watched this war going on in several groups now for three years.

Its time to stop it.

What do you folks think about unleashing a robotic canceller?

Anyone got the guts to run one against these groups to kill off all the
"anonymous" posts?

--
--
Karl Denninger (ka...@denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net Cost-effective solutions on the Internet
http://childrens-justice.org Working to protect children's rights

Wilbur Streett

unread,
Aug 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/7/00
to
ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger) wrote:

>In article <e5d768b90a82c5ff...@mixmaster.shinn.net>,
>freedom <anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net> wrote:
>>Bryan Lang ......
>
>
>Ok folks.
>
>I've watched this war going on in several groups now for three years.
>
>Its time to stop it.
>
>What do you folks think about unleashing a robotic canceller?
>
>Anyone got the guts to run one against these groups to kill off all the
>"anonymous" posts?

How about just resurrecting the moderated group.. and the problem is gone.

Wilbur


--------------------------------------------
Putting A Human Face On Technology ;-)
--------------------------------------------
Literally! http://www.monmouth.com/~wstreett/FaceIT/

PangK

unread,
Aug 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/7/00
to
>From: freedom anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net
>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated, alt.support.domestic-violence,
>az.general, az.jobs

>
>Bryan Lang had another run-in with the law. He violated the
>restraining order which stated that he was to stay away from his
>ex-wife and child

And WIlbur Streett will claim to have a VIDEO, film at 11..


PangK

unread,
Aug 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/7/00
to

>From: WStr...@shell.monmouth.com (Wilbur Streett)

>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated, alt.support.domestic-violence,
>az.general, az.jobs

>How about just resurrecting the moderated group.. and the problem is gone.
>

WITH, of course WILBUR STEETT as MODERATOR.....

Karl Denninger

unread,
Aug 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/7/00
to
In article <8mlk57$kan$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com>, Wotan <wotan@databasix> wrote:
>In article <8mlhgb$qg3$0...@pita.alt.net>,
>Karl Denninger <ka...@FS.Denninger.Net> posted without thought:

>
>>In article <e5d768b90a82c5ff...@mixmaster.shinn.net>,
>>freedom <anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net> wrote:
>>>Bryan Lang ......
>>
>>
>>Ok folks.
>>
>>I've watched this war going on in several groups now for three years.
>>
>>Its time to stop it.
>>
>>What do you folks think about unleashing a robotic canceller?
>>
>>Anyone got the guts to run one against these groups to kill off all the
>>"anonymous" posts?
>
>Well, we used to have an off-topic/spam cancelor in az.*. Seems to have
>ended in the past year or so.
>
>However, if someone were to send me the correct software and the regulars
>of az.* wanted it - I could probably arrange for the BS to be canceled.

I'll get working on the code (its a modification of my "clean news"
software, since that requires a real news feed to operate.)

When its done I'll make it available to anyone who wants it. Its up to you
to find a Unix box on which you can install and run it; it will work, when
done, from anywhere that can get an NNTP connection, will scan once every
few minutes for new articles in the group(s) you designate, and if it finds
articles from anonymous remailers it will issue cancels.

I'm tired of this shit.

You folks want a fix, you're gonna get a technical one that will absolutely
solve the problem.

Now we'll see if any of you have the balls to install and operate it.

BL

unread,
Aug 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/8/00
to
<anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net> writes:

>Bryan Lang had another run-in with the law. He violated the
>restraining order which stated that he was to stay away from his

>ex-wife and child. Lang was intoxicated, according to the police
>report, and was yelling at his ex and his child.
>
>This stems from the case earlier this year, in which the restraining
>order was issued. During an argument last year, Lang had thrown a
>punch at his wife but ended up hitting his child instead.
>

SO post the FULL report in a JPG scanned file! I am calling your
BLUFF! You have NOTHING on me! You are pissed that I have
called you on you bluff, and are responding in your TYPICAL way!
Put it up on your ANET site for ALL to see, that is if you REALLY
have what you claim and have the GUTS to do so! But I need not
worry because you have NOTHING and are completely GUTLESS!

When you KNOW you are caught in a LIE, you spread MOORE
LIES about your marks! You are still a chicken-shit yellowbelly
coward of a WANNABE Marine!

Karl Denninger

unread,
Aug 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/8/00
to
In article <8mnohk$f3$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com>, Wotan <wotan@databasix> wrote:
>In article <8mmp09$f3n$0...@dosa.alt.net>,

>Karl Denninger <ka...@FS.Denninger.Net> posted without thought:
>>
>>I'll get working on the code (its a modification of my "clean news"
>>software, since that requires a real news feed to operate.)
>>
>>When its done I'll make it available to anyone who wants it. Its up to you
>>to find a Unix box on which you can install and run it; it will work, when
>>done, from anywhere that can get an NNTP connection, will scan once every
>>few minutes for new articles in the group(s) you designate, and if it finds
>>articles from anonymous remailers it will issue cancels.
>>
>>I'm tired of this shit.
>>
>>You folks want a fix, you're gonna get a technical one that will absolutely
>>solve the problem.
>>
>>Now we'll see if any of you have the balls to install and operate it.
>
>Uhm, I have the nads. But at least one of the places I get news from
>won't allow it. And there is one (that uses clean feed) that may do it,
>provided its a group consensus.

The software is really quite trivial. Here's pseudocode:


1. For each group in list
a. Enter group ("group xxxx" command)
a. Request new article count since last check.
b. Retrieve each header ("head ###" command)
c. Scan each returned header for tags indicating a remailer.
d. If a remailer is detected;
1. Connect back to news server on a second socket.
2. Send "POST"
3. Transmit a pre-formed article with the added header
"Control: CMSG CANCEL <xxxxxx>" to the original
group, copying the original FROM line and subject,
appending "-robocancel" to the original message ID,
and including the original message ID in the "xxxxx"
field above.
4. Close posting connection.

That's it.

Trivial stuff, and low bandwidth (since you only need the headers) besides.
Also totally content-transparent, since you only retrieve the headers - you
don't even look at the body of the message.

If it comes from a remailer, it gets cancelled. Period.

Clean-news analyzed the message body to determine if the message was binary
in content and was NOT PGP-signed by a registered key.

This is much simpler, lower-impact, and will absolutely work.

Politically it will cause hell on earth instantly when turned on, so you
need a news admin at your site that is in agreement with the process and
implementation and will back your use. Since this design can be limited
to specific groups "permission" from an admin with brass balls (he'll need
it) should be possible to obtain.

fathers...@dragoncon.net

unread,
Aug 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/8/00
to
On 7 Aug 2000 16:43:53 GMT ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger)
wrote:

>In article <8mlk57$kan$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com>, Wotan <wotan@databasix> wrote:
>>In article <8mlhgb$qg3$0...@pita.alt.net>,


>>Karl Denninger <ka...@FS.Denninger.Net> posted without thought:
>>

>>>In article <e5d768b90a82c5ff...@mixmaster.shinn.net>,


>>>freedom <anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net> wrote:
>>>>Bryan Lang ......
>>>
>>>
>>>Ok folks.
>>>
>>>I've watched this war going on in several groups now for three years.
>>>
>>>Its time to stop it.
>>>
>>>What do you folks think about unleashing a robotic canceller?
>>>
>>>Anyone got the guts to run one against these groups to kill off all the
>>>"anonymous" posts?
>>
>>Well, we used to have an off-topic/spam cancelor in az.*. Seems to have
>>ended in the past year or so.
>>
>>However, if someone were to send me the correct software and the regulars
>>of az.* wanted it - I could probably arrange for the BS to be canceled.
>

>I'll get working on the code (its a modification of my "clean news"
>software, since that requires a real news feed to operate.)
>
>When its done I'll make it available to anyone who wants it. Its up to you
>to find a Unix box on which you can install and run it; it will work, when
>done, from anywhere that can get an NNTP connection, will scan once every
>few minutes for new articles in the group(s) you designate, and if it finds
>articles from anonymous remailers it will issue cancels.
>
>I'm tired of this shit.
>
>You folks want a fix, you're gonna get a technical one that will absolutely
>solve the problem.


And is the "problem" of all of the off-topic spew from AOL accounts
going to be addressed as well? Such as the constant flaming from PangK
and his various personas?

Or is the censorship only going to be selective?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
Any address shown in the From header is unverified.


Karl Denninger

unread,
Aug 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/8/00
to
In article <LO99KDM13674...@nuther-planet.net>,

Of course not. He posts from a verifyable address with a place that
complaints can be sent. You, Mr. Gutless wonder, do not.

>Or is the censorship only going to be selective?

Quit posting from remailers and your problem will disappear.

The only "selective" censorship is that pussies like you will have to come
out in the open and make your allegations from TRACEABLE accounts with
TRACEABLE identities.

I bet the crap drops by 90% within a day of this software going online.

Wilbur Streett

unread,
Aug 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/8/00
to
ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger) wrote:

>>And is the "problem" of all of the off-topic spew from AOL accounts
>>going to be addressed as well? Such as the constant flaming from PangK
>>and his various personas?
>
>Of course not. He posts from a verifyable address with a place that
>complaints can be sent. You, Mr. Gutless wonder, do not.

Sorry Karl, complaints to AOL about DEATH THREATS don't cause a stop to
postings.

Wilbur


--------------------------------------------
Putting A Human Face On Technology ;-)
--------------------------------------------

Literally! http://www.TheFaceOf.com

fathers-rights

unread,
Aug 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/8/00
to
>>And is the "problem" of all of the off-topic spew from AOL
accounts
>>going to be addressed as well? Such as the constant flaming
from PangK
>>and his various personas?
>
>Of course not. He posts from a verifyable address with a place
that
>complaints can be sent. You, Mr. Gutless wonder, do not.
>
>>Or is the censorship only going to be selective?
>
>Quit posting from remailers and your problem will disappear.
>
>The only "selective" censorship is that pussies like you will
have to come
>out in the open and make your allegations from TRACEABLE
accounts with
>TRACEABLE identities.
>
>I bet the crap drops by 90% within a day of this software going
online.
>
>--
>--
>Karl Denninger (ka...@denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids
Rights Activist
>http://www.denninger.net Cost-effective solutions on the
Internet
>http://childrens-justice.org Working to protect children's
rights
>
>

This Karl Denninger seems to be advocating the selected censorship of opinions posted
through anonymous remailing services. His grounds for doing so: that he has no ISP abuse
desk to bombard with complaints if he doesn't agree with the content of your post.

He is threatening to unleash a bot which will cancel any posts originating from anon
remailers, whether or not they're topical to the newsgroup....while allowing other posts
through, despite whether or not they're off topic. Oh, and he's threatening to do this in an
unmoderated newsgroup. Granted, many of the major ISPs don't even accept cancels, but
can't something be done about such blatant censorship?

Karl is yet another one of Ken Pangborn's sock-puppets. Ken Pangborn and his friends like to
get together and barrage ISPs with complaints when they don't agree with what you post.
They've sent over 300 complaints to my ISP in an effort to have my father's rights web pages
pulled.

PangK

unread,
Aug 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/8/00
to
>From: ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger)
>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,
az.general, news.admin.censorship

(Karl, Moore is a neighbor of yours)

>>And is the "problem" of all of the off-topic spew from AOL accounts


going to be addressed as well? Such as the constant flaming from PangK and his
various personas?

>Of course not. He posts from a verifyable address with a place that
complaints can be sent. You, Mr. Gutless wonder, do not.

Seems like you have Moore nailed Karl.

>>Or is the censorship only going to be selective?

>Quit posting from remailers and your problem will disappear.

Naw, Karl, he knowns that when he posts from a LEGIT ISP he gets kicked off
for his abuse.

>The only "selective" censorship is that pussies like you will have to come out
in the open and make your allegations from TRACEABLE accounts with TRACEABLE
identities.

I think you insulted the cat family there Karl.

>I bet the crap drops by 90% within a day of this software going online.
>

Probably so but the whining and CRYING will increase by 99999999999999%

Moore STILL bitches that they used a robocancel on ALL anonymous posts in
milwaukee General which effectively silenced HIM!


POOR BABY!

Mo wino

unread,
Aug 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/8/00
to
>He is threatening to unleash a bot which will cancel any posts originating
>from anon
>remailers, whether or not they're topical to the newsgroup....while allowing
>other posts
>through, despite whether or not they're off topic.

Gee, this from the putz that periodically brags about cancelling posts. Your
argument has no merit since you have none.

>Granted, many of the major ISPs don't even accept cancels, but
>can't something be done about such blatant censorship?
>

Yes! I suggest applause! Of course, the same ISP's that ignore your pitiful
attempts at cancels will probably ignore his too. But the effort should be
applauded!

>They've sent over 300 complaints to my ISP in an effort to have my father's
>rights web pages
>pulled.

Actually, I think its your libelous attacks on various individuals that people
want pulled, as they were repeatedly until you landed on Anet. Just as you've
threatened legal action on O'Connor's page, without doing anything because you
know the laughter you would face in court. So your argument is?

Karl Denninger

unread,
Aug 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/8/00
to
In article <399047c8....@news.monmouth.com>,
Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote:

>ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger) wrote:
>
>>>And is the "problem" of all of the off-topic spew from AOL accounts
>>>going to be addressed as well? Such as the constant flaming from PangK
>>>and his various personas?
>>
>>Of course not. He posts from a verifyable address with a place that
>>complaints can be sent. You, Mr. Gutless wonder, do not.
>
>Sorry Karl, complaints to AOL about DEATH THREATS don't cause a stop to
>postings.
>
>Wilbur

Try the police. REAL Death threats are felonious, and a traceable address
makes it possible to prosecute.

Karl Denninger

unread,
Aug 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/8/00
to
In article <2000080818...@anon.cotse.com>,
fathers-rights <anon...@cotse.com> wrote:

>He is threatening to unleash a bot which will cancel any posts originating from anon
>remailers, whether or not they're topical to the newsgroup....while allowing other posts

>through, despite whether or not they're off topic. Oh, and he's threatening to do this in an

>unmoderated newsgroup. Granted, many of the major ISPs don't even accept cancels, but

>can't something be done about such blatant censorship?

Technology. A wonderful thing.

(And no, nothing can be done about it. Except bitching to the user's ISP.
I *KNOW* I don't have one I can run this from, but heh, if I post the code,
it just might get used :-)

I can, of course, test it against MY OWN posts with impunity, since I can
cancel my own stuff. That's the best part - testing is easy and legitimate.

>Karl is yet another one of Ken Pangborn's sock-puppets. Ken Pangborn and his friends like to
>get together and barrage ISPs with complaints when they don't agree with what you post.

>They've sent over 300 complaints to my ISP in an effort to have my father's rights web pages
>pulled.

Bawhahahhahahahaha!

Why don't you start with posting from your own account, whoever you might
be? How can someone send 300 complaints to an ISP when we don't know who
you are?

Mr. Mythical wimp, thou are you.

As for being Pangborn's sock puppet, get a grip. Ken and I no more get
along than Dean Tong and I.

I'm just tired of your bullshit coming from anonymous remailers and making
entire groups 90% full of your trash.

Wilbur Streett

unread,
Aug 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/8/00
to
ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger) wrote:

>In article <399047c8....@news.monmouth.com>,
>Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote:
>>ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger) wrote:
>>
>>>>And is the "problem" of all of the off-topic spew from AOL accounts
>>>>going to be addressed as well? Such as the constant flaming from PangK
>>>>and his various personas?
>>>
>>>Of course not. He posts from a verifyable address with a place that
>>>complaints can be sent. You, Mr. Gutless wonder, do not.
>>
>>Sorry Karl, complaints to AOL about DEATH THREATS don't cause a stop to
>>postings.
>>
>>Wilbur
>
>Try the police. REAL Death threats are felonious, and a traceable address
>makes it possible to prosecute.

I contacted the local police, both from where the threat came from and my
local town. I contacted the FBI, with complete documentation of the threat
to me, and to the four or five other guys that had been threatened. The
local police told me that since the FBI was in it, they wouldn't do
anything about it.

Months later, no response.. and the guys making the threat were laughing in
the newsgroup.. how my reporting it didn't mean shit.. how the threats
weren't considered real, and I suggested that they post the same threat to
pres...@whitehouse.gov and I got a call from the FBI telling me that the
Secret Service knew Carlos and wanted to talk with me about it..

But when I went to have lunch with the guy that owns the local ISP, he was
busy with the FBI because they were after the guy that had released the
Melissa virus just 3 days before.. from my POP.

The Secret Service agent informed me that Carlos was a real threat, and
that I should not post to the alt.law-enforcement group. The agent
declared "Carlos" as a known entity, and even admitted that he had been
involved with actions from the FBI. But the threats didn't stop, Carlos
went on to threaten other people.. and then we got an unconfirmed message
that Carlos was a 12 year old kid and that they were going to confiscate
his computer, and the nonsense stopped.

In other words, none of them did their job, but the hunt down the kid that
took advantage of the known hole in Outlook that Microsoft didn't bother to
fix for more than 4 years.. in a few days. Death threats to multiple
people.. no response. The Melissa Virus, and they hunt the guy down in 3
days.. and he's in jail.

But then there's Bob Cheney..

Wilbur Streett

unread,
Aug 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/8/00
to
mow...@aol.com (Mo wino) wrote:

>Actually, I think its your libelous attacks on various individuals that people
>want pulled, as they were repeatedly until you landed on Anet. Just as you've
>threatened legal action on O'Connor's page, without doing anything because you
>know the laughter you would face in court. So your argument is?

He's got it on his web page.

Charlie

unread,
Aug 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/8/00
to
Wilbur Streett wrote:

> ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger) wrote:
>
> >In article <399047c8....@news.monmouth.com>,
> >Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote:
> >>ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger) wrote:
> >>
> >>>>And is the "problem" of all of the off-topic spew from AOL accounts
> >>>>going to be addressed as well? Such as the constant flaming from PangK
> >>>>and his various personas?
> >>>
> >>>Of course not. He posts from a verifyable address with a place that
> >>>complaints can be sent. You, Mr. Gutless wonder, do not.
> >>
> >>Sorry Karl, complaints to AOL about DEATH THREATS don't cause a stop to
> >>postings.
> >>
> >>Wilbur
> >
> >Try the police. REAL Death threats are felonious, and a traceable address
> >makes it possible to prosecute.
>
> I contacted the local police, both from where the threat came from and my
> local town. I contacted the FBI, with complete documentation of the threat
> to me, and to the four or five other guys that had been threatened. The
> local police told me that since the FBI was in it, they wouldn't do
> anything about it.

Sounds just like a case that I reported about the death of a woman. Didn't
include any prior threats of her death though, but she sure is now dead and the
killer walks the streets a free man because neither the locals or the FBI
wishes to do anything about it. I guess they are too involved with their sick
definitions of criminals like "all" Disenfranchised Dads who they all know
won't fight back as long as their children are kept out in front of the
guilty. Somehow they have lost all reality as to what is a crime and who
perpetrates them. Thank our illustrious judicial bullshit system and the
cowards that have immunity behind all the profits they rake in.

Chas
--
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same
Objects evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their
right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new
Guards for their future security"
Declaration of Independence

fathers...@dragoncon.net

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to
On 8 Aug 2000 15:54:23 GMT ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger)
wrote:

>In article <LO99KDM13674...@nuther-planet.net>,
> <fathers...@dragoncon.net> wrote:
>>On 7 Aug 2000 16:43:53 GMT ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger)
>>wrote:
>>

>>And is the "problem" of all of the off-topic spew from AOL accounts
>>going to be addressed as well? Such as the constant flaming from PangK
>>and his various personas?
>
>Of course not. He posts from a verifyable address

As do I.

> with a place that
>complaints can be sent. You, Mr. Gutless wonder, do not.

Ah. So you support censorship via mailbombing of ISP's abuse desks.

>
>>Or is the censorship only going to be selective?
>
>Quit posting from remailers and your problem will disappear.

I'll post how I choose. If you try to censor my postings through rogue
cancels, I suspect that it will be you who will disappear.

>
>The only "selective" censorship is that pussies like you will have to come
>out in the open and make your allegations from TRACEABLE accounts with
>TRACEABLE identities.

I already do so. "fathers...@dragoncon.net" is a replyable
address.


>
>I bet the crap drops by 90% within a day of this software going online.

I doubt it, since the majority of ISPs don't recognize cancels.

Karl Denninger

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to
In article <ERQQ7V9P3674...@nuther-planet.net>,

<fathers...@dragoncon.net> wrote:
>On 8 Aug 2000 15:54:23 GMT ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger)
>wrote:
>>>And is the "problem" of all of the off-topic spew from AOL accounts
>>>going to be addressed as well? Such as the constant flaming from PangK
>>>and his various personas?
>>
>>Of course not. He posts from a verifyable address
>
>As do I.

A lie. This post is from a remailer.

>> with a place that
>>complaints can be sent. You, Mr. Gutless wonder, do not.
>
>Ah. So you support censorship via mailbombing of ISP's abuse desks.

Irrelavent to the discussion at hand. Your diversionary tactics amuse me.

>>Quit posting from remailers and your problem will disappear.
>
>I'll post how I choose. If you try to censor my postings through rogue
>cancels, I suspect that it will be you who will disappear.

Oh really?

Since you don't exist, and can't claim your postings, you have no standing
to bitch when anonymous postings disappear.

You can anonymously post handbills on telephone poles. I can tear them
down. Since you refuse to take ownership of your words, you lack standing
to complain, since you have disavowed your posting by using that method of
doing so.

I can see it now "Karl cancelled my posting!" Of course, the complaint
will be about a posting that has in the headers "The identity of the poster
cannot be confirmed"......

The abuse desk over at Alt.Net will be amused.

Actually, I suspect Chris Caputo will laugh his ass off.

>>The only "selective" censorship is that pussies like you will have to come
>>out in the open and make your allegations from TRACEABLE accounts with
>>TRACEABLE identities.
>
>I already do so. "fathers...@dragoncon.net" is a replyable
>address.

So is "pres...@whitehouse.gov". Posting through an anonymous remailer
means that your CLAIMED from line may not be real, and there is no way for
you to take ownership of those words down the line.

Nice try, no donut.

>>I bet the crap drops by 90% within a day of this software going online.
>
>I doubt it, since the majority of ISPs don't recognize cancels.

Oh yes they do, particularly when the cancel is for the same message ID. I
happen to know how to RELIABLY block propagation of this shit provided I can
get a copy of it before it gets very far, and there isn't a thing you can
do about it.

Yes, even on those ISPs that don't honor cancels.

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
>Any address shown in the From header is unverified.

The lie is put to your words right there by the remailer's own insertion.

Kenneth Pangborn

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to

Mo wino <mow...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000808153834...@ng-cg1.aol.com...

> >He is threatening to unleash a bot which will cancel any posts
originating from anon remailers, whether or not they're topical to the
newsgroup....while allowing other posts through, despite whether or not
they're off topic.

> Gee, this from the putz that periodically brags about cancelling posts.


Your argument has no merit since you have none.

> >They've sent over 300 complaints to my ISP in an effort to have my


father's rights web pages pulled.

David, nobody on this planet gives a hoot about your father's rights web
pages. Your libel is another story.

After 4 years of trying Moore finally got my AOL account. What for?
Nailing an ANET official for lying to protect Moore.


Karl Denninger

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to
In article <a21eae93fc5aedbd...@remailer.privacy.at>,
Anonymous <nob...@remailer.privacy.at> wrote:
>On 9 Aug 2000 01:43:09 GMT ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger)
>wrote:
>
>You're an ignoramus, and what you're doing is net abuse.

Tough shit.

You're a sniveling coward without the gonads to post from your real account.

Or, as I like to say, "bite me".

>There are
>some people who use anonymity for a valid reason.

Yep.

But not in az.general, or fl.*, or most of these other groups subjected to
these flame wars. I'm tired of it and so are plenty of others. CUT THIS
SHIT OUT OR I WILL DO IT FOR YOU.

It was done in wi.*.

Successfully, I might add.

> I have posed
>questions to this group which I would not want to post from what you
>consider a "valid" address, for the simple reason that my ex-wife could
>possibly be reading and be prepared for any legal tactics I consider.

Tough tits.

>That doesn't give you the right to nuke my posts.

Sure it does. Just as you can tear down an anonymously posted flyer on a
telephone pole without repercussion.

>The guy was right, there's nothing different between anonymously
>remailing and using an AOL name, which can be set up and discarded in
>about 30 seconds, and which the author is under no obligation to "take
>ownership of".

Wrong, as the AOL post is tracable to a real person.

Further, tough tits.

The code will be developed if the crossposting and anonymous remailer abuse
does not stop. When it is done it will be made available to anyone who
wants to use it. Who runs it and on what groups will be entirely up to
THEM.

Once this genie is out of the bottle you who abuse are fucked as you will be
unable to stuff it back in. If you use anonymous remailers for legitimate
purposes you had damn well better get on the asses of those who abuse this
resource, and do it now. Your window of opportunity to keep this genie
corked up is running out.

Bluntly:
Stop the fscking flame wars in groups that are intended for regional
discussion and outnumbering, by 10:1, legitimate postings by abusing
these remailers.

You want to flame each other? Fine. Just don't use an anonymous
remailer.

You've been warned.

If you don't take this seriously I will give those who are pissed off about
the abuse the tools to nuke those who abuse all the way to Mars and leave
a thousand points of light on impact.

Just one more flame war conducted by anonymous remailer that makes a group
I read useless and I'll finish the modifications to my CLEAN-NEWS code,
which was written TWO YEARS AGO, to make this a reality. The original code
is DONE, and it WORKS, but it needs a full feed. This version will connect
by NNTP to any news server, anywhere.

That's a promise by the way, not a threat.

I figure it will take me no more than one day of coding and testing to
complete the modifications.

Your move.

Wilbur Streett

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to
"Kenneth Pangborn" <kenpa...@earthlink.net> wrote:

ROTFLMAO..

So you are trying to claim that AOL canceled your account when you told the
truth?

When was that?

fathers...@dragoncon.net

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to
On 8 Aug 2000 20:00:22 GMT ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger)
wrote:

>In article <2000080818...@anon.cotse.com>,


>fathers-rights <anon...@cotse.com> wrote:
>
>>He is threatening to unleash a bot which will cancel any posts originating from anon
>>remailers, whether or not they're topical to the newsgroup....while allowing other posts

>>through, despite whether or not they're off topic. Oh, and he's threatening to do this in an
>>unmoderated newsgroup. Granted, many of the major ISPs don't even accept cancels, but
>>can't something be done about such blatant censorship?
>
>Technology. A wonderful thing.
>
>(And no, nothing can be done about it. Except bitching to the user's ISP.
>I *KNOW* I don't have one I can run this from, but heh, if I post the code,
>it just might get used :-)
>
>I can, of course, test it against MY OWN posts with impunity, since I can
>cancel my own stuff. That's the best part - testing is easy and legitimate.
>
>>Karl is yet another one of Ken Pangborn's sock-puppets. Ken Pangborn and his friends like to
>>get together and barrage ISPs with complaints when they don't agree with what you post.

>>They've sent over 300 complaints to my ISP in an effort to have my father's rights web pages
>>pulled.
>

>Bawhahahhahahahaha!
>
>Why don't you start with posting from your own account, whoever you might
>be?

I am posting from my account. This is a legitimate, replyable address.


> How can someone send 300 complaints to an ISP when we don't know who
>you are?

My father's rights pages are being hosted by an ISP. Ken has sent over
300 complaints to that ISP, idiot.

>
>Mr. Mythical wimp, thou are you.
>
>As for being Pangborn's sock puppet, get a grip. Ken and I no more get
>along than Dean Tong and I.

Then why are you defending him by attempting to censor my posts, which
tell my side of the story?

>
>I'm just tired of your bullshit coming from anonymous remailers and making
>entire groups 90% full of your trash.

Wake up. It's an unmoderated newsgroup. Also, I don't post that
often... anon posting can be accessed by more than one person, you
know.

>
>--


>--
>Karl Denninger (ka...@denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
>http://www.denninger.net Cost-effective solutions on the Internet
>http://childrens-justice.org Working to protect children's rights
>
>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

fathers-rights

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to
On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 02:37:54 GMT "Kenneth Pangborn"
<kenpa...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Mo wino <mow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20000808153834...@ng-cg1.aol.com...

>> >He is threatening to unleash a bot which will cancel any posts
>originating from anon remailers, whether or not they're topical to the
>newsgroup....while allowing other posts through, despite whether or not
>they're off topic.
>

>> Gee, this from the putz that periodically brags about cancelling posts.
>Your argument has no merit since you have none.
>

>> >They've sent over 300 complaints to my ISP in an effort to have my
>father's rights web pages pulled.
>

> David, nobody on this planet gives a hoot about your father's rights web
>pages. Your libel is another story.
>
> After 4 years of trying Moore finally got my AOL account. What for?
>Nailing an ANET official for lying to protect Moore.

Actually it was for two years of defamation and lies. Seems AOL
investigated your claims about my military service record and my
divorce (with my permission) and found them to be false. Thus, they
booted your ass.

fathers...@dragoncon.net

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to
On 9 Aug 2000 01:43:09 GMT ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger)
wrote:

>In article <ERQQ7V9P3674...@nuther-planet.net>,
> <fathers...@dragoncon.net> wrote:
>>On 8 Aug 2000 15:54:23 GMT ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger)
>>wrote:


>>>>And is the "problem" of all of the off-topic spew from AOL accounts
>>>>going to be addressed as well? Such as the constant flaming from PangK
>>>>and his various personas?
>>>
>>>Of course not. He posts from a verifyable address
>>
>>As do I.
>
>A lie. This post is from a remailer.

Not a lie. My address is verifiable. Anyone doubting this can feel
free to send me e-mail to verify, and I'll be happy to send a response
to clear the matter up.

>
>>> with a place that
>>>complaints can be sent. You, Mr. Gutless wonder, do not.
>>
>>Ah. So you support censorship via mailbombing of ISP's abuse desks.
>
>Irrelavent to the discussion at hand. Your diversionary tactics amuse me.

Not irrelevant. As you stated above, your gripe against remailers is
that you have nobody to whine to when you disagree with what I'm
posting.

>
>>>Quit posting from remailers and your problem will disappear.
>>
>>I'll post how I choose. If you try to censor my postings through rogue
>>cancels, I suspect that it will be you who will disappear.
>
>Oh really?
>
>Since you don't exist, and can't claim your postings, you have no standing
>to bitch when anonymous postings disappear.

My postings aren't "anonymous". They have a legitimate e-mail address
behind them. I'm sorry you don't know the difference.

Kenneth Pangborn

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to

fathers-rights <anon...@cotse.com> wrote in message
news:2000080818...@anon.cotse.com...

>
> ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger) wrote:
> >In article <LO99KDM13674...@nuther-planet.net>,
> > <fathers...@dragoncon.net> wrote:
> >>On 7 Aug 2000 16:43:53 GMT ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl
> Denninger)
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>And is the "problem" of all of the off-topic spew from AOL
> accounts
> >>going to be addressed as well? Such as the constant flaming
> from PangK
> >>and his various personas?
> >
> >Of course not. He posts from a verifyable address with a place

> that
> >complaints can be sent. You, Mr. Gutless wonder, do not.
> >
> >>Or is the censorship only going to be selective?
> >
> >Quit posting from remailers and your problem will disappear.
> >
> >The only "selective" censorship is that pussies like you will
> have to come
> >out in the open and make your allegations from TRACEABLE
> accounts with
> >TRACEABLE identities.
> >
> >I bet the crap drops by 90% within a day of this software going
> online.
> >
> >--
> >--
> >Karl Denninger (ka...@denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids
> Rights Activist
> >http://www.denninger.net Cost-effective solutions on the
> Internet
> >http://childrens-justice.org Working to protect children's
> rights
> >
> >
>
> This Karl Denninger seems to be advocating the selected censorship of
opinions posted
> through anonymous remailing services. His grounds for doing so: that he
has no ISP abuse
> desk to bombard with complaints if he doesn't agree with the content of
your post.
>
> He is threatening to unleash a bot which will cancel any posts originating
from anon
> remailers, whether or not they're topical to the newsgroup....while
allowing other posts
> through, despite whether or not they're off topic. Oh, and he's
threatening to do this in an
> unmoderated newsgroup. Granted, many of the major ISPs don't even accept
cancels, but
> can't something be done about such blatant censorship?
>
> Karl is yet another one of Ken Pangborn's sock-puppets. Ken Pangborn and
his friends like to
> get together and barrage ISPs with complaints when they don't agree with
what you post.
> They've sent over 300 complaints to my ISP in an effort to have my
father's rights web pages
> pulled.

Moore you overestimate your importance in the grand scheme of things.
300? Maybe from 300 people. Most folks find out that anet shields you for
your abuse.

Kenneth Pangborn

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to
Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote in message
news:3990d3f6....@news.monmouth.com...
> "Kenneth Pangborn" <kenpa...@earthlink.net> wrote:


> >Mo wino <mow...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20000808153834...@ng-cg1.aol.com...

> >> >He is threatening to unleash a bot which will cancel any posts
originating from anon remailers, whether or not they're topical to the
newsgroup....while allowing other posts through, despite whether or not
they're off topic.

> >> Gee, this from the putz that periodically brags about cancelling posts.


Your argument has no merit since you have none.

> >> >They've sent over 300 complaints to my ISP in an effort to have my


father's rights web pages pulled.

> > David, nobody on this planet gives a hoot about your father's rights


web pages. Your libel is another story.

> > After 4 years of trying Moore finally got my AOL account. What for?
Nailing an ANET official for lying to protect Moore.

> ROTFLMAO..

> So you are trying to claim that AOL canceled your account when you told
the truth?

I think they were embarassed that I had so publicly taken on the head of
ANET for, well, fibbing when he denied Moore was or ever had been a user.
Denied to people that Moore's website was there. And they responded to
Moore's whining about being picked on and "harassed" the poor little thing.

Kenneth Pangborn

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to
fathers-rights <anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net> wrote in message
news:b8410de47a9dd732...@mixmaster.shinn.net...
> On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 02:37:54 GMT "Kenneth Pangborn"

> <kenpa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Mo wino <mow...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20000808153834...@ng-cg1.aol.com...

> >> >They've sent over 300 complaints to my ISP in an effort to have my


father's rights web pages pulled.
>
> > David, nobody on this planet gives a hoot about your father's rights
web pages. Your libel is another story.

> > After 4 years of trying Moore finally got my AOL account. What for?
Nailing an ANET official for lying to protect Moore.

> Actually it was for two years of defamation and lies. Seems AOL


investigated your claims about my military service record and my
divorce (with my permission) and found them to be false. Thus, they
booted your ass

No David, in specific they didn't like the reference to your photo on
the Gigantor website. My, isn't that interesting. They felt a reference to a
REAL photo of you was "harassment" but that your distorted photo you claim
to be of me is NOT. Well, ANET says it is not. ANET seems to approve of
invitations to rape people's wives and minor children. AOL didn't! For
whatever, AOL has shown it has FAR more class than ANET. Unlike ANET AOL
will enforce it's TOS even when it is unfair to its users.


Kenneth Pangborn

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to
<fathers...@dragoncon.net> wrote in message
news:HI09P07B3674...@nuther-planet.net...
> On 8 Aug 2000 20:00:22 GMT ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger)
> wrote:

> >In article <2000080818...@anon.cotse.com>,
> >fathers-rights <anon...@cotse.com> wrote:

> >>He is threatening to unleash a bot which will cancel any posts
originating from anon remailers, whether or not they're topical to the
newsgroup....while allowing other posts through, despite whether or not

they're off topic. Oh, and he's threatening to do this in an
unmoderated newsgroup. Granted, many of the major ISPs don't even accept
cancels, but can't something be done about such blatant censorship?

> >>Karl is yet another one of Ken Pangborn's sock-puppets. Ken Pangborn and
his friends like to get together and barrage ISPs with complaints when they

don't agree with what you post. They've sent over 300 complaints to my ISP


in an effort to have my father's rights web pages pulled.

> >Bawhahahhahahahaha!

> >Why don't you start with posting from your own account, whoever you might
>be?

> I am posting from my account. This is a legitimate, replyable address.

Uh, NO, David it is NOT. It is a fake screen name from an ANONYMOUS
REMAILER.

> > How can someone send 300 complaints to an ISP when we don't know who you
are?

> My father's rights pages are being hosted by an ISP. Ken has sent over
300 complaints to that ISP, idiot.

No I haven't David. I actually sent only a couple, LONG ago right after
you put it up. The folks at ANET responded that yuou had found a home where
your FORGED material was welcome. I and others gave up trying to reason with
those people long ago. If ANET got 300 complaints they were from 299 people
other than me!

> >Mr. Mythical wimp, thou are you.

> >As for being Pangborn's sock puppet, get a grip. Ken and I no more get
along than Dean Tong and I.

> Then why are you defending him by attempting to censor my posts, which
tell my side of the story?

> >I'm just tired of your bullshit coming from anonymous remailers and
making entire groups 90% full of your trash.

> Wake up. It's an unmoderated newsgroup. Also, I don't post that
often... anon posting can be accessed by more than one person, you
know.

__________________________________________________


> This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services. Any
address shown in the From header is unverified.

_____________________________________________________

David says "It's ME, It's Me!"

Wilbur says "No it's not, prove it."

The comedy theatre continues.


Karl Denninger

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to
In article <QYCVBDRR3674...@nuther-planet.net>,
<fathers...@dragoncon.net> wrote:
>On 9 Aug 2000 01:43:09 GMT ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger)
>wrote:
>>>>On 8 Aug 2000 15:54:23 GMT ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger)
>>>wrote:

>>>>>And is the "problem" of all of the off-topic spew from AOL accounts
>>>>>going to be addressed as well? Such as the constant flaming from PangK
>>>>>and his various personas?
>>>>
>>>>Of course not. He posts from a verifyable address
>>>
>>>As do I.
>>
>>A lie. This post is from a remailer.
>
>Not a lie. My address is verifiable. Anyone doubting this can feel
>free to send me e-mail to verify, and I'll be happy to send a response
>to clear the matter up.
>
>>
>>>> with a place that
>>>>complaints can be sent. You, Mr. Gutless wonder, do not.
>>>
>>>Ah. So you support censorship via mailbombing of ISP's abuse desks.
>>
>>Irrelavent to the discussion at hand. Your diversionary tactics amuse me.
>
>Not irrelevant. As you stated above, your gripe against remailers is
>that you have nobody to whine to when you disagree with what I'm
>posting.
>
>>
>>>>Quit posting from remailers and your problem will disappear.
>>>
>>>I'll post how I choose. If you try to censor my postings through rogue
>>>cancels, I suspect that it will be you who will disappear.
>>
>>Oh really?
>>
>>Since you don't exist, and can't claim your postings, you have no standing
>>to bitch when anonymous postings disappear.
>
>My postings aren't "anonymous". They have a legitimate e-mail address
>behind them. I'm sorry you don't know the difference.

Oh, I know the difference.

You will disclaim whatever you want, when you want.

Get off the remailers, or watch your posts start disappearing.

Karl Denninger

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00