Remailer client war against OmniMix continuing at Wikipedia

[Anonymous]

Here we go again! I'm devastated by the serious misconduct the
Quicksilver squadron is capable of. That's just unbelievable!


With a constant IP address (72.160.2.158) the OmniMix section was
completely erased from Wikipedia's "Anonymous remailer" article at
01:20, 4 December 2013


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anonymous_remailer&diff=next&oldid=580560605

then the Quicksilver section revised three minutes later at 01:23, 4
December 2013:


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anonymous_remailer&diff=next&oldid=584455061

Afterwards an orthographic mistake within the newly added Quicksilver
text, which Mr. Christman incidentally also happens to make, got fixed
by someone else at 00:04, 20 December 2013:


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anonymous_remailer&diff=next&oldid=584455506

A truly shabby course of action!


But which ISP allocated the dynamic IP address in question?


http://www.dnswatch.info/dns/dnslookup?la=en&host=72.160.2.158&type=A&submit=Resolve

| Domain Type TTL Answer
| 158.2.160.72.in-addr.arpa PTR 86400 72-160-2-158.dyn.centurytel.net

It was centurytel.net.

| Registrant
| CenturyTel Internet Holdings, Inc.
| 100 CenturyTel Drive
| LA

Now, just out of curiosity, let's see who hosts quicksilvermail.net.


http://www.dnswatch.info/dns/dnslookup?la=en&host=quicksilvermail.net&type=A&submit=Resolve

| Domain Type TTL Answer
| quicksilvermail.net A 3600 64.91.63.155

Guess who's the ISP responsible for that static IP address.

http://www.dnswatch.info/dns/dnslookup?la=en&host=64.91.63.155&type=A&submit=Resolve

| Domain Type TTL Answer
| 155.63.91.64.in-addr.arpa PTR 86400 64-91-63-155.stat.centurytel.net.

Once again centurytel.net.

What an amazing coincidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

> Here we go again! I'm devastated by the serious misconduct the
> Quicksilver squadron is capable of. That's just unbelievable!
>
>
> With a constant IP address (72.160.2.158) the OmniMix section was
> completely erased from Wikipedia's "Anonymous remailer" article at
> 01:20, 4 December 2013

> then the Quicksilver section revised three minutes later at 01:23, 4
> December 2013:

> Afterwards an orthographic mistake within the newly added Quicksilver
> text, which Mr. Christman incidentally also happens to make, got fixed
> by someone else at 00:04, 20 December 2013:

> A truly shabby course of action!
>
>
> But which ISP allocated the dynamic IP address in question?

> It was centurytel.net.
>
> | Registrant
> | CenturyTel Internet Holdings, Inc.
> | 100 CenturyTel Drive
> | LA
>
> Now, just out of curiosity, let's see who hosts quicksilvermail.net.

> Once again centurytel.net.
>
> What an amazing coincidence.

Christman behind the OM attacks? That's pretty steep.

[Anonymous]

>Here we go again! I'm devastated by the serious misconduct the
>Quicksilver squadron is capable of. That's just unbelievable!

Recall a post earlier questionning QS authors trustworthiness which
was met with derision and flames?

When is someone going to come up with an open source, GOOD front
end(that actually works without having to be a programmer) for
posting to the net using remailers?
When is someone going to offer access to the usenet beyond two
censored/hackable m2n "gateways"? Oh I forgot, we don't want just
anyone to be able to be anonymous, only are nerd buddies (even then
highly questionnable). Kudos to tor for much faster program, now
when are you going to add code that allows one to use javascript
and STILL be anonymous, you know, such that it actually works on
most web pages?

[Anonymous]

In article <14caefff531a30e9...@breaka.net>

you're implyng that christman is behind this which i seriously doubt. if
he were i'm sure that he'd have done so without leaving such an obvious
trail.

then again, centurytel.net no doubt has tens of thousands of customers, any
one of which could be the responsible party

> When is someone going to come up with an open source, GOOD front
> end(that actually works without having to be a programmer) for
> posting to the net using remailers?
> When is someone going to offer access to the usenet beyond two
> censored/hackable m2n "gateways"? Oh I forgot, we don't want just
> anyone to be able to be anonymous, only are nerd buddies (even then
> highly questionnable). Kudos to tor for much faster program, now
> when are you going to add code that allows one to use javascript
> and STILL be anonymous, you know, such that it actually works on
> most web pages?

allowing javascript creates a hole in anonymity because, like flash and
other plugins, it allows your true i.p. to be revealed to an attacker.
anyone who allows javascript or other active plugin to be enabled when
browsing through tor might as well not bother because doing so is rather
like shooting yourself in the foot while trying to run a marathon.

[Anonymous]

This guy is sucking on a lemon again. He probably rejects offers
of candy because he can't take the exhilaration flowing through his
body.

He drinks only bitters and lemon juice with every meal.

[Dave U. Random]

In article <14caefff531a30e9...@breaka.net> Anonymous
<nor...@breaka.net> wrote:

>>Here we go again! I'm devastated by the serious misconduct the
>>Quicksilver squadron is capable of. That's just unbelievable!
>
>Recall a post earlier questionning QS authors trustworthiness which
>was met with derision and flames?

I also read those unproven accusations, which constantly try to upset
this group as a whole. But here we have evidence far beyond pure
chance. That's completely different.

BTW, has anybody ever tried to compile QS/L from the given sources?

[Anonymous]

In article <31ad9d3537a6f2ba...@foto.nl1.torservers.net>
Anonymous <anon...@foto.nl1.torservers.net> wrote:

>
> Anonymous <nor...@breaka.net> wrote:
> > When is someone going to come up with an open source, GOOD front
> > end(that actually works without having to be a programmer) for
> > posting to the net using remailers?
> > When is someone going to offer access to the usenet beyond two
> > censored/hackable m2n "gateways"?
>

> Why don't you be such a someone yourself?

+1

[Anonymous]

> Anonymous <nor...@breaka.net> wrote:

> When is someone going to come up with an open source, GOOD front
> end(that actually works without having to be a programmer) for
> posting to the net using remailers?
> When is someone going to offer access to the usenet beyond two
> censored/hackable m2n "gateways"?

> Why don't you be such a someone yourself?

When you drive a garbage truck for a living, you don't have the
skills to do so.

[Anonymous]

On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 14:05:27 +0100 Anonymous wrote:

>> Here we go again! I'm devastated by the serious misconduct the
>> Quicksilver squadron is capable of. That's just unbelievable!
>
>> Recall a post earlier questionning QS authors trustworthiness which
>> was met with derision and flames?

>> What an amazing coincidence.
>
>
>> When is someone going to come up with an open source, GOOD front
>> end(that actually works without having to be a programmer) for
>> posting to the net using remailers?

No, you don't have to be a programmer to remail messages. I always
wonder why we have much more moaning here that specific support
requests.

>> When is someone going to offer access to the usenet beyond two
>> censored/hackable m2n "gateways"?

Censored? Hackable? No proof.

> Oh I forgot, we don't want just
>> anyone to be able to be anonymous, only are nerd buddies (even then
>> highly questionnable). Kudos to tor for much faster program,

A completely different realtime system therefore considerably less
secure.

> now
>> when are you going to add code that allows one to use javascript
>> and STILL be anonymous, you know, such that it actually works on
>> most web pages?

Yes, why not develop an intelligent JS filter, which only lets
unproblematic commands pass. But there'll still remain the risk the
JS engine itself gets compromised by buffer overflows etc.

>
> This guy is sucking on a lemon again. He probably rejects offers
>of candy because he can't take the exhilaration flowing through his
>body.

He's partly right, though those persistent complaints won't motivate
anyone to sit down and program. And they won't motivate potential
users to work with the tools we have, which is bad in order to further
remailing as a whole and as a consequence to preserve free speech.

>
> He drinks only bitters and lemon juice with every meal.

Btw, check your newsreader. Quoting doesn't work correctly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous <anon...@foto.nl1.torservers.net> wrote:

>you're implyng that christman is behind this which i seriously doubt. if
>he were i'm sure that he'd have done so without leaving such an obvious
>trail.

AFAICS all kinds of proxies are systematically blocked. Possibly no
chance at all to edit articles without providing a real IP address.

>
>then again, centurytel.net no doubt has tens of thousands of customers, any
>one of which could be the responsible party

Tens of thousands? What percentage of the population do you think has
ever heard of "remailers"? And how many of those may be capable of
altering a Wikipedia article the way it was done? Got it? He may not
have been aware of the traces he left. But you're right. There's no
chance to get sure about that without the telco's connection log. Any
NSA whistleblower around here?

[QuickSilver]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <f736f5a7f2e00962...@foto.nl1.torservers.net>

Anonymous <anon...@foto.nl1.torservers.net> wrote:
>
> Here we go again! I'm devastated by the serious misconduct the
> Quicksilver squadron is capable of. That's just unbelievable!
>
>
> With a constant IP address (72.160.2.158) the OmniMix section was
> completely erased from Wikipedia's "Anonymous remailer" article at
> 01:20, 4 December 2013

Yes, I must admit I made those changes, and I knew full-well my ip
would be saved.

It was a fuckup. All the remailer clients are edited on the same
page, no break between. I thought I had selected a portion of my
clients text and deleted it. I didn't realize what had happened until
I closed the editor and looked at the page. I emailed Christian 2
days later. Why he didn't do anything about it, I don't know.

You're a better man than I to figure out how to get to that info. If
I could, I would have undone it myself.

Very sorry for my clearly stupid mistake.

Richard

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
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=wSdR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Richard Christman
https://www.quicksilvermail.net

[Anonymous]

In article <E1Vx2Qh-...@quicksilvermail.net>

QuickSilver <quick...@quicksilvermail.net> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In article <f736f5a7f2e00962...@foto.nl1.torservers.net>
> Anonymous <anon...@foto.nl1.torservers.net> wrote:
> >
> > Here we go again! I'm devastated by the serious misconduct the
> > Quicksilver squadron is capable of. That's just unbelievable!
> >
> >
> > With a constant IP address (72.160.2.158) the OmniMix section was
> > completely erased from Wikipedia's "Anonymous remailer" article at
> > 01:20, 4 December 2013
>
> Yes, I must admit I made those changes, and I knew full-well my ip
> would be saved.
>
> It was a fuckup. All the remailer clients are edited on the same
> page, no break between. I thought I had selected a portion of my
> clients text and deleted it. I didn't realize what had happened until
> I closed the editor and looked at the page. I emailed Christian 2
> days later. Why he didn't do anything about it, I don't know.
>
> You're a better man than I to figure out how to get to that info. If
> I could, I would have undone it myself.
>
> Very sorry for my clearly stupid mistake.

Ok. Tell us how to get rid of Obama and you may yet be pardoned.

[Anonymous]

nor...@breaka.net wrote:

>
> When is someone going to come up with an open source, GOOD front end(that
> actually works without having to be a programmer) for posting to the net
> using remailers?

Someone did. It is called QSL Lite. Just install it from the .exe
file. It includes mixmaster, and setting it up could not be easier.
It will take you 5 minutes to figure out how to use it to send
messages.

[Anonymous]

<snip>

> The signature is correct. I can�t believe that!
> Richard, was you drunk? Don�t gambling away your reputation!

As much as he knows about privacy, I am sure it was a mistake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous <nor...@breaka.net> wrote:

>nor...@breaka.net wrote:
>
>>
>> When is someone going to come up with an open source, GOOD front end(that
>> actually works without having to be a programmer) for posting to the net
>> using remailers?
>
>Someone did. It is called QSL Lite. Just install it from the .exe
>file. It includes mixmaster, and setting it up could not be easier.
>It will take you 5 minutes to figure out how to use it to send
>messages.

Has anyone besides the author ever compiled it from the available
sources?

[Anonymous Remailer (austria)]

In article <a37e6429692f6d73...@breaka.net>

And tell me, who has ever compiled Danner's monstrosity? Who has even
seen the source code? Why has Danner never PGP signed a post?

[Anonymous]

In article <1349dff3c02993b7...@breaka.net>

Anonymous <nor...@breaka.net> wrote:
>
> nor...@breaka.net wrote:
>
> >
> > When is someone going to come up with an open source, GOOD front end(that
> > actually works without having to be a programmer) for posting to the net
> > using remailers?
>
> Someone did. It is called QSL Lite. Just install it from the .exe
> file. It includes mixmaster, and setting it up could not be easier.
> It will take you 5 minutes to figure out how to use it to send
> messages.

You'd think that would be the case, but some people just are incapable of passing through an open door without tripping...

[Dave U. Random]

In article <b6a711c2023ccde3...@remailer.privacy.at>

A roundabout way to say no.

[Nomen Nescio]

anon...@foto.nl1.torservers.net wrote:

>Here we go again! I'm devastated by the serious misconduct the
>Quicksilver squadron is capable of. That's just unbelievable!
>
>
>With a constant IP address (72.160.2.158) the OmniMix section was
>completely erased from Wikipedia's "Anonymous remailer" article at
>01:20, 4 December 2013
>
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anonymous_remailer&diff=next&oldid=580560605
>
>then the Quicksilver section revised three minutes later at 01:23, 4
>December 2013:
>
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anonymous_remailer&diff=next&oldid=584455061
>
>Afterwards an orthographic mistake within the newly added Quicksilver
>text, which Mr. Christman incidentally also happens to make, got fixed
>by someone else at 00:04, 20 December 2013:
>
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anonymous_remailer&diff=next&oldid=584455506

And now
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anonymous_remailer&diff=next&oldid=588060949.
Christman, you made a tit outa yourself. You ruined your
reputation. At first I gave credence to your "stupid mistake" excuse.
But now I'm sure you know very well how to edit Wikipedia articles,
how to re-/move paragraphs to promote your products. You lied,
massively. You're a shame, and for a former QS user like me a bitter
disappointment.
Never believe an American when he tries to sell you security and
privacy software! That's what I've learned lately.

[Anonymous]

Only thing left for this euro-complainer to do is to go cry in
his beer.
By the way, QSL if FREE privacy software!

[Nomen Nescio]

In article <25cdaf3186feae0f...@breaka.net>

+1

[Anonymous]

In article <8b1eb4e683b39a46...@dizum.com>

Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>
> anon...@foto.nl1.torservers.net wrote:
>
> >Here we go again! I'm devastated by the serious misconduct the
> >Quicksilver squadron is capable of. That's just unbelievable!
> >
> >
> >With a constant IP address (72.160.2.158) the OmniMix section was
> >completely erased from Wikipedia's "Anonymous remailer" article at
> >01:20, 4 December 2013
> >
> >
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anonymous_remailer&diff=next&oldid=580560605
> >
> >then the Quicksilver section revised three minutes later at 01:23, 4
> >December 2013:
> >
> >
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anonymous_remailer&diff=next&oldid=584455061
> >
> >Afterwards an orthographic mistake within the newly added Quicksilver
> >text, which Mr. Christman incidentally also happens to make, got fixed
> >by someone else at 00:04, 20 December 2013:
> >
> >
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anonymous_remailer&diff=next&oldid=584455506
>
> And now
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anonymous_remailer&diff=next&oldid=588060949.
> Christman, you made a tit outa yourself.

Were you born with a penis or did you have to pay for it?

[Anonymous]

First of all:
Learn to quote correctly.

>
> Only thing left for this euro-complainer to do is to go cry in
>his beer.

I prefer independed-minded Europeans to NSA bondmen.

> By the way, QSL if FREE privacy software!

Free?
You may pay with your privacy and anonymity.
That's giving away FREEdom.

[Anonymous]

+1
No more reason to believe that NSA guy.

>
> Were you born with a penis or did you have to pay for it?

In contrast to you he was obviously born with a well-performing brain.
Your penis won't help you along here.

[Anonymous]

In article <4e9c187c1b32011d...@breaka.net>

How quaint. A sock propping his own posts.

[Anonymous]

In article <12e99f516d665efc...@hoi-polloi.org>

Anonymous <anon...@hoi-polloi.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > Only thing left for this euro-complainer to do is to go cry in
> >his beer.
>
> I prefer independed-minded Europeans to NSA bondmen.

Yah. So independent-minded that you had to band together and
create a separate united currency to support the lazy liberal
parasites who want everything for nothing.

> > By the way, QSL if FREE privacy software!
>
> Free?
> You may pay with your privacy and anonymity.
> That's giving away FREEdom.

You don't know what freedom is anymore.

[Anonymous]

In article <f736f5a7f2e00962...@foto.nl1.torservers.net>

Anonymous <anon...@foto.nl1.torservers.net> wrote:
>
> Here we go again! I'm devastated by the serious misconduct the
> Quicksilver squadron is capable of. That's just unbelievable!
>
>
> With a constant IP address (72.160.2.158) the OmniMix section was
> completely erased from Wikipedia's "Anonymous remailer" article at
> 01:20, 4 December 2013
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anonymous_remailer&diff=next&oldid=580560605
>
> then the Quicksilver section revised three minutes later at 01:23, 4
> December 2013:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anonymous_remailer&diff=next&oldid=584455061
>
> Afterwards an orthographic mistake within the newly added Quicksilver
> text, which Mr. Christman incidentally also happens to make, got fixed
> by someone else at 00:04, 20 December 2013:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anonymous_remailer&diff=next&oldid=584455506
>

> A truly shabby course of action!
>
>
> But which ISP allocated the dynamic IP address in question?
>
>
> http://www.dnswatch.info/dns/dnslookup?la=en&host=72.160.2.158&type=A&submit=Resolve
>
> | Domain Type TTL Answer
> | 158.2.160.72.in-addr.arpa PTR 86400 72-160-2-158.dyn.centurytel.net
>
> It was centurytel.net.
>
> | Registrant
> | CenturyTel Internet Holdings, Inc.
> | 100 CenturyTel Drive
> | LA
>
> Now, just out of curiosity, let's see who hosts quicksilvermail.net.
>
>
> http://www.dnswatch.info/dns/dnslookup?la=en&host=quicksilvermail.net&type=A&submit=Resolve
>
> | Domain Type TTL Answer
> | quicksilvermail.net A 3600 64.91.63.155
>
> Guess who's the ISP responsible for that static IP address.
>
> http://www.dnswatch.info/dns/dnslookup?la=en&host=64.91.63.155&type=A&submit=Resolve
>
> | Domain Type TTL Answer
> | 155.63.91.64.in-addr.arpa PTR 86400 64-91-63-155.stat.centurytel.net.
>
> Once again centurytel.net.
>
> What an amazing coincidence.

What an amazing MORON!

He never gives up with his anti-Chistman/QSL crusade.

I wonder if Frog pays him for all that overtime he puts in?

[Dave U. Random]

On Sun, 5 Jan 2014 18:46:40 +0000 (UTC), Anonymous wrote:

>In article <12e99f516d665efc...@hoi-polloi.org>
>Anonymous <anon...@hoi-polloi.org> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Only thing left for this euro-complainer to do is to go cry in
>> >his beer.
>>
>> I prefer independed-minded Europeans to NSA bondmen.
>
>Yah. So independent-minded that you had to band together and
>create a separate united currency to support the lazy liberal
>parasites who want everything for nothing.

You're scared for your declining industry and USD?

http://gigaom.com/2013/11/14/ciscos-gloomy-revenue-forecast-shows-nsa-effect-starting-to-hit

Imperialistic U$A is not the hub of the universe. It's the German
industry, which is doing very well. No wonder that the rock-solid
OmniMix system comes from there, from liberal good ol' Germany.

>
>> > By the way, QSL if FREE privacy software!
>>
>> Free?
>> You may pay with your privacy and anonymity.
>> That's giving away FREEdom.
>
>You don't know what freedom is anymore.

You mean due to U$ NSA activities? That fight isn't over yet!

[Anonymous]

>How quaint. A sock propping his own posts.

Did you read the NSA logs?

[Dave U. Random]

Anonymous <nor...@breaka.net> wrote:

>In article <f736f5a7f2e00962...@foto.nl1.torservers.net>
>Anonymous <anon...@foto.nl1.torservers.net> wrote:
>>
>> Here we go again! I'm devastated by the serious misconduct the
>> Quicksilver squadron is capable of. That's just unbelievable!
>>
>>
>> With a constant IP address (72.160.2.158) the OmniMix section was
>> completely erased from Wikipedia's "Anonymous remailer" article at
>> 01:20, 4 December 2013

>What an amazing MORON!
>
>He never gives up with his anti-Chistman/QSL crusade.
>
>I wonder if Frog pays him for all that overtime he puts in?

He made the author of QS and QSL out to be a consummate scoundrel,
who tries to eliminate competitors with dirty tricks to take the lead.

Think about it. Myself I'm very concerned about Richard's
intentions.

[Nomen Nescio]

In article <d1b9a3fdca25d0d42465108cabc65b1a@anonymitaet-im-
inter.net>

Dave U. Random <anon...@anonymitaet-im-inter.net> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2014 18:46:40 +0000 (UTC), Anonymous wrote:
>
> >In article <12e99f516d665efc...@hoi-polloi.org>
> >Anonymous <anon...@hoi-polloi.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Only thing left for this euro-complainer to do is to go cry in
> >> >his beer.
> >>
> >> I prefer independed-minded Europeans to NSA bondmen.
> >
> >Yah. So independent-minded that you had to band together and
> >create a separate united currency to support the lazy liberal
> >parasites who want everything for nothing.
>
> You're scared for your declining industry and USD?
>
> http://gigaom.com/2013/11/14/ciscos-gloomy-revenue-forecast-shows-nsa-effect-starting-to-hit
>
> Imperialistic U$A is not the hub of the universe. It's the German
> industry,

No it's not. The Brits & French failed when they started
kissing homosexual ass, now the USA is doing it and they will
fail too. They even elected a black fag president. They will
fail twice.

Stoopid Americans.

[Anonymous]

In article <d1b9a3fdca25d0d4...@anonymitaet-im-inter.net>

Dave U. Random <anon...@anonymitaet-im-inter.net> wrote:
>

> On Sun, 5 Jan 2014 18:46:40 +0000 (UTC), Anonymous wrote:
>
> >In article <12e99f516d665efc...@hoi-polloi.org>
> >Anonymous <anon...@hoi-polloi.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Only thing left for this euro-complainer to do is to go cry in
> >> >his beer.
> >>
> >> I prefer independed-minded Europeans to NSA bondmen.
> >
> >Yah. So independent-minded that you had to band together and
> >create a separate united currency to support the lazy liberal
> >parasites who want everything for nothing.
>
> You're scared for your declining industry and USD?
>
> http://gigaom.com/2013/11/14/ciscos-gloomy-revenue-forecast-shows-nsa-effect-starting-to-hit
>
> Imperialistic U$A is not the hub of the universe. It's the German
> industry, which is doing very well. No wonder that the rock-solid
> OmniMix system comes from there, from liberal good ol' Germany.

Omnimix rock solid? Really? Christian Danner trustworthy? Really? He
won't even post here under his name. He has no defense for the truth
so he won't acknowledge it.

Here's the truth.

Christian Danner refuses to open his omnimix source code for peer
review. That is troubling. Peer review is a long-standing and
respected practice in this very serious field of security software.
Omnimix is clearly sub-standard.

Something else that CANNOT be overlooked is that since omnimix was
introduced in 2006, Danner has never once PGP signed a post in this
group. That is SO troubling.

Is your security important to you? I think it must be. That's why
you're here. The question is, do you trust someone with that kind of
conduct, with YOUR secuity?

Christian Danner is a pariah here. His software easily falls within
the category of snake oil. It's a black box. It's safety cannot be
proven.

Don't use it. Don't let your friends use it.

[Anonymous]

> On Sun, 5 Jan 2014 18:46:40 +0000 (UTC), Anonymous wrote:


> In article <12e99f516d665efc...@hoi-polloi.org>
> Anonymous <anon...@hoi-polloi.org> wrote:


> Only thing left for this euro-complainer to do is to go cry in
> his beer.

> I prefer independed-minded Europeans to NSA bondmen.

> Yah. So independent-minded that you had to band together and
> create a separate united currency to support the lazy liberal
> parasites who want everything for nothing.

> You're scared for your declining industry and USD?

> http://gigaom.com/2013/11/14/ciscos-gloomy-revenue-forecast-shows-nsa-effect-starting-to-hit

> Imperialistic U$A is not the hub of the universe. It's the German
> industry, which is doing very well. No wonder that the rock-solid
> OmniMix system comes from there, from liberal good ol' Germany.

Good ol' Germany!

I'll give a big O'l Sieg Heil to that!

BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! Ack! Ack! Ack! Ack! Ack! Ack! Ack! Ack!

Your great heros:

Adolf Hitler - cowardly kill himself.
Joseph Goebbels - too much of a coward to kill himself,
had one of his staff do it for him.
Hermann G�ring - took poison after being condemned to death.
Rudolf Hess - Hanged.
Heinrich Himmler - cowardly kill himself.
Reinhard Heydrich - died after resistance attack. Rot in hell!
Adolf Eichmann - captured and executed by Israel.

And a huge host of others. Yes, you Germans certainly have a
great heritage behind you. You have every right to look down upon
and condemn Americans and others. You are so pure of heart.

[Nomen Nescio]

>Omnimix rock solid? Really?

Really!

[Anonymous Remailer (austria)]

Being a wise American, I have to give your comment a
+100.

[Anonymous]

Yea, this really sounds like something that someone would
actually be concerned about.
Maybe for someone who never got a life.

[Anonymous]

In article <889c65855c6eed8b...@breaka.net>

+1

[Anonymous]

Richard Christman aka Anonymous wrote:

>
>Omnimix rock solid? Really? Christian Danner trustworthy? Really?
He
>won't even post here under his name. He has no defense for the
truth
>so he won't acknowledge it.

You stupid fool resent him for leaving this crappy group?

>
>Here's the truth.
>
>Christian Danner refuses to open his omnimix source code for
peer
>review. That is troubling. Peer review is a long-standing and
>respected practice in this very serious field of security
software.
>Omnimix is clearly sub-standard.

As a matter of fact nobody except you has ever compiled QS or QSL.

>
>Something else that CANNOT be overlooked is that since omnimix
was
>introduced in 2006, Danner has never once PGP signed a post in
this
>group. That is SO troubling.
>
>Is your security important to you? I think it must be. That's why
>you're here. The question is, do you trust someone with that kind
of
>conduct, with YOUR secuity?
>
>Christian Danner is a pariah here. His software easily falls
within
>the category of snake oil. It's a black box. It's safety cannot
be
>proven.

Richard, when will you learn it? It's "Its safety", not "It's
safety"!

>
>Don't use it. Don't let your friends use it.

Of course, we'll all use your NSAided QSL.
Fuck off, Christman!

[Anonymous]

In article <2af463b261ac1ca3...@breaka.net>

Anonymous <nor...@breaka.net> wrote:
>
> >How quaint. A sock propping his own posts.
>
> Did you read the NSA logs?

Don't need them for VPN users.

[Anonymous]

Those are criminals like McCarthy, members of the Bush administration,
Alexander and many more of your "heroes".

>
> And a huge host of others. Yes, you Germans certainly have a
>great heritage behind you. You have every right to look down upon
>and condemn Americans and others. You are so pure of heart.
>

And now compare the development of Germany and your oh so holy United
Shit out of Asses during the past 70 years. You see the difference?
Heil NSA! Sieg Heil!

[Nomen Nescio]

In article <b4c5e2ef154257c2...@dizum.com>

Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>
> >Omnimix rock solid? Really?
>
> Really!

It's always worked for me!

[Anonymous]

> Omnimix rock solid? Really?

> Really!

When I was a geology student, we could only tell how solid rocks
were if we broke them open with our rock pick.

[Anonymous]

In article <e2bbbe1a1097f564...@breaka.net>

I'm really concerned that the world may end because of this.

[Anonymous Remailer (austria)]

In article
<5c287939b9e95391...@foto.nl1.torservers.net>

Anonymous <anon...@foto.nl1.torservers.net> wrote:

> Of course, we'll all use your NSAided QSL.
> Fuck off, Christman!

Why can't I see the NSA packets leaving my network interface
when I use the program? Is Richard really that good that he can
hide traffic?

[Anonymous]

In article <1ebd86fa81d5c136...@hoi-polloi.org>

Why don't you ever have anything bad to say about that liar Bill
Clinton?

A white man who would lie about getting a piece of ass in the
Oval Office is a piss poor excuse of a man.

> >
> > And a huge host of others. Yes, you Germans certainly have a
> >great heritage behind you. You have every right to look down upon
> >and condemn Americans and others. You are so pure of heart.
> >
> And now compare the development of Germany and your oh so holy United
> Shit out of Asses during the past 70 years. You see the difference?
> Heil NSA! Sieg Heil!

Germany is on very strong financial footing now. Do you
Americans need a loan? The rate is 5 points over prime,
adjustable.

[Anonymous]

In article <c724a168be2d516e...@hoi-polloi.org>

Anonymous <anon...@hoi-polloi.org> wrote:
>
> In article <1ebd86fa81d5c136...@hoi-polloi.org>
> Anonymous <anon...@hoi-polloi.org> wrote:
> >

Flush.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous <anon...@hoi-polloi.org> wrote:

>Why don't you ever have anything bad to say about that liar Bill
>Clinton?

Every US president has a skeleton in his closet.

>
>A white man who would lie about getting a piece of ass in the
>Oval Office is a piss poor excuse of a man.

Did Clinton start a war based on an infamous lie?
Make love not war!

[Anonymous Remailer (austria)]

McCarthy, Bush, and Alexander didn't enslave and murder 8 million
Jews.

This guy is a babbling fool. Time to 'Mark to reject/delete
thread'. Won't be seeing anymore of his crap!

[Anonymous]

In article <e5559d02cd955afa...@remailer.privacy.at>

+1

[Anonymous]

On 2014-01-06 21:52, Anonymous wrote to alt.privacy.anon-server:

> >Why don't you ever have anything bad to say about that liar Bill
> >Clinton?
>
> Every US president has a skeleton in his closet.
>

Only one? >= 100000 skeletons.

--

[Anonymous Remailer (austria)]

In article <dddecc6b4a8a2a4e...@breaka.net>

Yes, on the eve of his impeachment vote.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/cl
inton.html

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike
military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by
British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear,
chemical and biological weapons programs and its military
capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United
States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle
East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or
the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous
recommendation of my national security team, to use force in
Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer
cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called
UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of
countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's
capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass
destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild
that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the
end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its
arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this
requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction
and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big
difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly.
Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a
decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against
civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi
Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy,
but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in
Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no
doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these
terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as
Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the
inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force,
and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we
built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by
overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security
Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to
demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,
Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that
Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of
defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act
militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that
Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I
quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation
with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already
in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I
concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint
and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to
cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation
meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own
commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great
Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to
cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay,
diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have
carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The
testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's
chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-
General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to
cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on
the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites.
For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its
ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other
offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them
and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary
evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to
photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from
videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented
Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied
out the building, removing not just documents but even the
furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents
requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered
the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of
an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's
conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the
fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full
cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that
the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by
the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons
program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay
in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of
the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the
inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the
stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people
everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last
chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam
has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to
retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear
weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and
get away with it, he would conclude that the international
community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its
will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his
arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he
will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a
chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the
credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be
destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the
inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction
program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force
that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national
security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of
defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the
secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have
ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and
deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability
to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to
Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We
acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a
swift response would provide the most surprise and the least
opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman
Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to
disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For
us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be
profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would
damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we
have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving
Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action
against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of
Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope
Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now
and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions.
But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal
with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its
weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq
has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes
threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons
of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his
neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving
against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual
use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of
mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent
another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work
with the international community to maintain and enforce
economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120
billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his
military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food,
for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi
people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we
would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks,
resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food
for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he
threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region,
the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new
Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its
neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.
Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will
strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi
opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American
forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And
while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities,
there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi
civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international
opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time,
Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his
neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against
the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to
respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam
will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own
people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction.
He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face
these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and
the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious
debate currently before the House of Representatives would
distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are
never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital
interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the
difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in
the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a
future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong
against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and
protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital
mission and their families. And may God bless America.

[Anonymous]

"Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixm...@remailer.privacy.at> wrote:

> McCarthy, Bush, and Alexander didn't enslave and murder 8 million
> Jews.

No. The US administration backs Jews holding the Palestinian people
captive for more than half a century now.

This year the PLO, founded in 1964 with the objective of
establishing an independent Palestinian state, will celebrate its 50th
anniversary. It will be a day of mourning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Liberation_Organization

http://freebeacon.com/un-declares-2014-year-of-palestinian-solidarity/

[Anonymous]

In article <12fddb5f4dd088c6...@breaka.net> Anonymous
wrote:

Just one of their spheres of activity: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

[Anonymous Remailer (austria)]

In article <12fddb5f4dd088c6...@breaka.net>

Lol!

[Anonymous]

In article <e5559d02cd955afa...@remailer.privacy.at>

"Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixm...@remailer.privacy.at>
wrote:
>
>

Hitler didn't either. The Jews lied. There was no holocaust.
A simple examination of population statistics of Europe will
bear this out. Europe is much more accurate about ethic
reporting. There is no loss of "millions of jews" in any
government archive. The only fools who believe the wild
genocide tales are gullible Americans. The French laugh at them.

[Anonymous]

In article <9d6e8bc0f177ce00...@hoi-polloi.org>

Anonymous <anon...@hoi-polloi.org> wrote:
>
> "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixm...@remailer.privacy.at> wrote:
>
>
> > McCarthy, Bush, and Alexander didn't enslave and murder 8 million
> > Jews.
>
>
> No. The US administration backs Jews holding the Palestinian people
> captive for more than half a century now.

The Jews have better looking women than the Palestinians. As
long as you don't count Debbie Wasserman Shultz.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous <nor...@breaka.net> wrote:

> Did Clinton start a war based on an infamous lie?
> Make love not war!

Love doesn't boost the economy.

[Anonymous]

In article
<496444ab1030dd48...@remailer.paranoici.org>

Talk about emasculating someone. One look at her would turn the
Sphinx to rubber.

[Anonymous]

In article <653ebad66b8fa45d...@hoi-polloi.org>

War is profitable. That's why Democrats always start them as
they leave office. They get to profit off dead children and the
Republicans get blamed while they clean up the mess.

[Anonymous]

"Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixm...@remailer.privacy.at> wrote:

> ....enslave and murder 8 million
> Jews.

Not this crap again! Germany did not enslave or murder anybody.

Before the war they had the good sense to keep Jews segregated and
made sure they could not use their talent at destruction to destroy
German society.

When the war came, they put the Jews into camps because they knew
that the Jews were as good as a fifth column and would do anything
they could to cripple the German war effort.

Pretty much the same thing the USA did to Japanese on the West
Coast in 1942.

No, all those hungry people in pajamas that we see in the old
newsreels were starving, not because the Germans wanted to starve
them, but because the transportation system had been destroyed by
American and British bombers.

[Dave U. Random]

In article
<5dce68aece887534...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>
falsifier of history <fritz@spamexpire-
201401.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote:
>
> In article <e5559d02cd955afa...@remailer.privacy.at>

> "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixm...@remailer.privacy.at> wrote:
> >
> >

> You are the token Jew or the israeli minister of finance, are you
> not? 8 million was only the number for the payment of compensation.
> There did not live such a number in whole europe at this time.

That is a fact. It can be verified by looking at the census
records of European countries. But liberals are too lazy to do
that.

[Anonymous]

In article <af6752f84d759b6a...@hoi-polloi.org>

They were destroyed because of the lies of the media.