Peter is lying about Tim's ATT account (was: STOP SERENITY SPAM!)
Tim Martin
where in the ATT message you attach does it say my account
was closed. The message is an automatic reply which says
AT&T is looking into the incident. READ IT CLOSELY.
Yes, I was forced to resort to a second and even a third
ISP account to get back on the 'Net but it wasn't because
AT&T had closed my account. It was because no matter
how hard I tried all I got was a "Denial of Service" message.
THOUSANDS of AT&T customers got the same DOS message.
Why? Because John Poltorak incited a large group of
people into 'pinging' the AT&T IP address and as they did
so they overloaded that particular server costing thousands
of AT&T customers the inability to use their access accounts.
I had to give a statement to AT&T that I did not ask John
Poltorak to publicly ping me and I gave a statement of
fact surrounding the mass attack - that it was started by
Nick Knight of Secant.com and followed by John Poltorak's
public demand that everyone 'ping' my IP address. AT&T
sees the latter as a criminal act as, I'm sure, so do thousands
of AT&T customers who were denied service.
You people have simply got to grow up and stop these petty
"we'll destroy him" tirades. If you don't like reading my
posts then filter them out just as I do your posts. Trying
to destroy a person's access through illegal means or by
filing mass false complaints will only come back to bite you
in the butt.
Now everyone reading these messages is fully aware of the
extent a small group of fanatics will go to harm another - and
in turn - harm thousands of non-suspecting Internet users. I
warned you before, for ever action there is a reaction and
you've proven my point clearly. The action of just a few has
caused problems for many.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"M.P. van Dobben de Bruijn" wrote:
> > John Poltorak <j...@eyup.org> wrote:
>
> >>> That's a lie. Look at my headers. They are still the very
> >>> same as they were before.
> >>>
> >>> If you're going to spread lies then do it when your
> >>> lies can be disproven.
>
> >> More nonsense. I am not the one who is lying here. I have
> >> the email from the postmaster of ATT here on this eCS notebook.
>
> > Peter,
> >
> > Why not show us a copy of this email...
>
> I don't like throwing emails into usenet, but as Tim is
> continuously telling around that I am lying I have no other
> option left I think. So it is below my signature for everyone to
> establish that I am not the one lying here. I'll leave it at that.
>
> > And maybe reply that he is continuing to abuse his PRSERV
> > account in spite of the account 'apparently' being cancelled...
>
> Am not convinced he is using the SAME account, he may have
> arranged a new one rather easily or is borrowing one or faking it.
>
> The facts are that the headers now suggest that he is coming
> to us through ATT again, he sure used a SFO.com route for a
> few days in the mean time. Perhaps it took him some time to get
> a new account lined up or borrow one or to learn how to fake the
> headers. As he is not making the OS/2 newsgroups unusable with
> his crusade's at the moment I hope he has learned a lesson that can
> happen to him what he tried to do to various others over the years:
> lose
> the account you are posting from.
>
> I do not intend (as he has calmed down and is behaving in such a way
> that these newsgroups work the way they were intended) to start a
> crusade
> against Tim. He is entitled to his opinion and to voice that allthough
> within
> the netetiquette and acceptable use policy limits. His ISP established
> that he
> was far beyond that and kicked him off for it. I see no reason why I
> would try
> to excommunicate him from usenet. That was not my intention and it
> worked
> out how I hoped it would (hoepfully not for the time being, but for
> ever) so as I
> said I'll leave it at that. I'll also end my participation in this
> thread, we have more
> important things to do. For instance get Scott Garfinkle back here if
> possible.
>
> Regards from Leeuwarden
> Peter van Dobben de Bruijn
> ---
> usethenet.at.the-net-4u.com (.at. becomes @)
> ----
>
> =================
> email from ATT informing me that Tim Martin lost his account
> =================
> unfortunately became necessary to post as Tim
> is continuously telling I would be the one lying about this.
> =================
>
> Return-Path: <css...@mvsps1.vnet.ibm.com>
> Received: from e31.bld.us.ibm.com (e31.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.129])
>
> Received: from westrelay01.boulder.ibm.com
> (westrelay01.boulder.ibm.com [9.99.132.204])
> by e31.bld.us.ibm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA41460
> Received: from BLDVMA.boulder.ibm.com (bldvma.boulder.ibm.com
> [9.99.64.30])
> by westrelay01.boulder.ibm.com (8.8.8m3/NCO v4.95) with ESMTP
> id JAA171816
>
> Message-Id: <20001116160...@westrelay01.boulder.ibm.com>
> Received: by BLDVMA.boulder.ibm.com (IBM VM SMTP Level 320) via spool
> with SMTP id 7491 ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 09:06:47 MST
> Date: Thu, 16 NOV 2000 11:06:16 (-0500 GMT)
> From: AB...@PRSERV.NET
>
> Subject: ABUSE OF OS/2 NEWSGROUPS BY YOUR CUSTOME (REF #:UNKNOWN
> 1345500)
> Status:
>
> An incident reported by you has been updated. Sev: 4
> The incident # is listed below. Do not respond to this e-mail.
> For Account: UNKNOWN Incident Number: 1345500 Status: PENDING
> Last Updated: Thu, 16 NOV 2000 11:06:16 (-0500 GMT) PROBLEM
> UPDATED
> *******
> *****************************************************************
>
> Summary: ABUSE OF OS/2 NEWSGROUPS BY YOUR CUSTOMER OS2...@WARPCITY.COM
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> RESP 11/16/00 11:05:59
>
> The problem you submitted has already been reported.
> We will attach your email address to the original record.
> You will receive updates via email when we add text to the record.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> DUP 11/16/00 11:06:15
>
> Thank you for taking the time to inform us of this situation. The
> Internet
> Service account involved has been canceled.
>
> Regards, Postmaster
>
> *******************
> *****************************************************
>
> When replying via email, do not alter the reference id in the subject
> line and send only new information, do not send entire note again.
> Do not send attachments, graphics or images.
John Poltorak
> Peter you have a definite reading comprehension problem. No
> where in the ATT message you attach does it say my account
> was closed. The message is an automatic reply which says
> AT&T is looking into the incident. READ IT CLOSELY.
How closely does anyone need to read it before this hits them between
the eyes?
*************************************************************************
DUP 11/16/00 11:06:15
Thank you for taking the time to inform us of this situation. The Internet
Service account involved has been canceled.
Regards, Postmaster
*************************************************************************
> Yes, I was forced to resort to a second and even a third
> ISP account to get back on the 'Net but it wasn't because
> AT&T had closed my account. It was because no matter
> how hard I tried all I got was a "Denial of Service" message.
> THOUSANDS of AT&T customers got the same DOS message.
>
> Why? Because John Poltorak incited a large group of
> people into 'pinging' the AT&T IP address and as they did
> so they overloaded that particular server costing thousands
> of AT&T customers the inability to use their access accounts.
Tim,
If a large number of people were moved to do such a thing, it must
show how reviled a figure you are. I have no hold over any group
of people like you have over your WarpCity members.
> I had to give a statement to AT&T that I did not ask John
> Poltorak to publicly ping me and I gave a statement of
> fact surrounding the mass attack - that it was started by
> Nick Knight of Secant.com and followed by John Poltorak's
> public demand that everyone 'ping' my IP address. AT&T
> sees the latter as a criminal act as, I'm sure, so do thousands
> of AT&T customers who were denied service.
Can you prove any of this?
I guess your proof would consist of the same proof as you have
6000 members at WarpCity...
ie. entirely bogus.
> You people have simply got to grow up and stop these petty
> "we'll destroy him" tirades. If you don't like reading my
> posts then filter them out just as I do your posts. Trying
> to destroy a person's access through illegal means or by
> filing mass false complaints will only come back to bite you
> in the butt.
There were no false complaints apart from you making false
complaints to my ISP.
Your vandalism of these newsgroups is digitally captured for all to see.
> Now everyone reading these messages is fully aware of the
> extent a small group of fanatics will go to harm another - and
> in turn - harm thousands of non-suspecting Internet users. I
> warned you before, for ever action there is a reaction and
> you've proven my point clearly. The action of just a few has
> caused problems for many.
Tim,
You playing the innocent victim is so cute....
Unfortunately your spamming this newsgroup was the root cause
of everyone's inconvenience.
If AT&T had lots of customers without a service, it was entirely your fault
and they should now be aware about just how dangerous you are and
how much havoc you can wreck.
--
John
Tim Martin
> Tim Martin wrote:
>
> > Peter you have a definite reading comprehension problem. No
> > where in the ATT message you attach does it say my account
> > was closed. The message is an automatic reply which says
> > AT&T is looking into the incident. READ IT CLOSELY.
>
> How closely does anyone need to read it before this hits them between
> the eyes?
>
> *********
> ***************************************************************
> DUP 11/16/00 11:06:15
>
> Thank you for taking the time to inform us of this situation. The
> Internet
> Service account involved has been canceled.
>
> Regards, Postmaster
> *******************
> *****************************************************
And as noted before, it is generated automatically when a
complaint against any AT&T customer is received. The
account was not canceled, it was, is and continues to be
active. It is NOT a new account, nor a borrowed account
it is the very same account I have had for years. If AT&T
disabled it then they did so only on paper to placate the
complainer and not in actuality.
> > Yes, I was forced to resort to a second and even a third
> > ISP account to get back on the 'Net but it wasn't because
> > AT&T had closed my account. It was because no matter
> > how hard I tried all I got was a "Denial of Service" message.
> > THOUSANDS of AT&T customers got the same DOS message.
> >
> > Why? Because John Poltorak incited a large group of
> > people into 'pinging' the AT&T IP address and as they did
> > so they overloaded that particular server costing thousands
> > of AT&T customers the inability to use their access accounts.
>
> Tim,
>
> If a large number of people were moved to do such a thing, it must
> show how reviled a figure you are. I have no hold over any group
> of people like you have over your WarpCity members.
Yet had I issued a directive to Warp City members to ping
your ISP, to file false complaints against you with your ISP
would your ISP not take such an action as an illegal act
against them? Would the customers of your ISP not be
moved to take against against me for issuing such a
directive? Would Warp City members do it because they
disliked you or because they simply wanted to join in on
the fun and havoc believing they wouldn't get caught?
> > I had to give a statement to AT&T that I did not ask John
> > Poltorak to publicly ping me and I gave a statement of
> > fact surrounding the mass attack - that it was started by
> > Nick Knight of Secant.com and followed by John Poltorak's
> > public demand that everyone 'ping' my IP address. AT&T
> > sees the latter as a criminal act as, I'm sure, so do thousands
> > of AT&T customers who were denied service.
>
> Can you prove any of this?
My account remains open that is proof enough. If AT&T
felt I was wrong they would have closed my account. They
did not. Upon review of the complaints they admitted no
action should be taken against me as a customer.
Can you prove it didn't happen? Did home.net not receive
a complaint against you for inciting such an incident and
file a response with me and with AT&T which is signed
Rogers@Home
Network Security & Fraud
Yes.
Did I not receive a second reply of apology and
request from secu...@corp.home.net seeking a
copy of my statement denying any request by me
in a public forum to John Poltorak asking for a
massive ping?
Yes.
> I guess your proof would consist of the same proof as you have
> 6000 members at WarpCity...
>
> ie. entirely bogus.
What is bogus is the claims that my AT&T account has
been closed. That's evidence enough that yours and
Peter's claims are bogus.
> > You people have simply got to grow up and stop these petty
> > "we'll destroy him" tirades. If you don't like reading my
> > posts then filter them out just as I do your posts. Trying
> > to destroy a person's access through illegal means or by
> > filing mass false complaints will only come back to bite you
> > in the butt.
>
> There were no false complaints apart from you making false
> complaints to my ISP.
All were false complaints. All were generated and incited
by a small fanatical group of people who refuse to accept
the opinion of one individual.
> Your vandalism of these newsgroups is digitally captured for all to
> see.
And your criminal act of inciting all to ping AT&T in
an attempt to shut me and thousands of AT&T customers
down is captured for all to see.
> > Now everyone reading these messages is fully aware of the
> > extent a small group of fanatics will go to harm another - and
> > in turn - harm thousands of non-suspecting Internet users. I
> > warned you before, for ever action there is a reaction and
> > you've proven my point clearly. The action of just a few has
> > caused problems for many.
>
> Tim,
>
> You playing the innocent victim is so cute....
>
> Unfortunately your spamming this newsgroup was the root cause
> of everyone's inconvenience.
>
> If AT&T had lots of customers without a service, it was entirely your
> fault
> and they should now be aware about just how dangerous you are and
> how much havoc you can wreck.
And trying to place the blame elsewhere for your own
actions doesn't play in Peoria. YOU made the post
to incite readers to ping AT&T in an attempt to shut
down one lone OS/2 user. It didn't work. In fact, it
backfired on you specifically. Had you done it anonymously
you might have gotten away with it but your ego got in the way.
John Poltorak
> Yet had I issued a directive to Warp City members to ping
> your ISP, to file false complaints against you with your ISP
> would your ISP not take such an action as an illegal act
> against them? Would the customers of your ISP not be
> moved to take against against me for issuing such a
> directive? Would Warp City members do it because they
> disliked you or because they simply wanted to join in on
> the fun and havoc believing they wouldn't get caught?
Hey Tim,
If you are so powerful that you can issue directives, feel free to do so.
I certainly am not in the priviledged position of being able to direct
anyone
to do anything.
> > > I had to give a statement to AT&T that I did not ask John
> > > Poltorak to publicly ping me and I gave a statement of
> > > fact surrounding the mass attack - that it was started by
> > > Nick Knight of Secant.com and followed by John Poltorak's
> > > public demand that everyone 'ping' my IP address. AT&T
> > > sees the latter as a criminal act as, I'm sure, so do thousands
> > > of AT&T customers who were denied service.
> >
> > Can you prove any of this?
>
> My account remains open that is proof enough.
> > > You people have simply got to grow up and stop these petty
> > > "we'll destroy him" tirades. If you don't like reading my
> > > posts then filter them out just as I do your posts. Trying
> > > to destroy a person's access through illegal means or by
> > > filing mass false complaints will only come back to bite you
> > > in the butt.
> >
> > There were no false complaints apart from you making false
> > complaints to my ISP.
>
> All were false complaints.
They were all legitmate complaints of you spamming this group.
You can deny you did, but the evidence is here for all to see
and however many times you say it, it does not make them false.
We all know you are a spammer and are out to destroy these newsgoups
just for the sake of publicising your chargeable Web site now that it is
renewal time for subscriptions.
> > Tim,
> >
> > You playing the innocent victim is so cute....
> >
> > Unfortunately your spamming this newsgroup was the root cause
> > of everyone's inconvenience.
> >
> > If AT&T had lots of customers without a service, it was entirely your
> > fault
> > and they should now be aware about just how dangerous you are and
> > how much havoc you can wreck.
>
> And trying to place the blame elsewhere for your own
> actions doesn't play in Peoria.
It was entirely your fault. Your provocation lead to whatever happened.
> YOU made the post
> to incite readers to ping AT&T in an attempt to shut
> down one lone OS/2 user. It didn't work. In fact, it
> backfired on you specifically. Had you done it anonymously
> you might have gotten away with it but your ego got in the way.
Thanks for the tip, Tim.
I'll have to bear it in mind.
--
John
M.P. van Dobben de Bruijn
> Peter you have a definite reading comprehension problem. No
> where in the ATT message you attach does it say my account
> was closed. The message is an automatic reply which says
> AT&T is looking into the incident. READ IT CLOSELY.
Ah, the nonsense you spread around. I am having a reading
comprehension problem? As I said it was the second message
I received and they had (as announced in the first one) added
some text to the record. What does that added part say? Read:
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > DUP 11/16/00 11:06:15
> >
> > Thank you for taking the time to inform us of this situation. The
> > Internet Service account involved has been canceled.
> >
> > Regards, Postmaster
I rest my case. I have again proven what I claimed all the time. ATT
has reported to me that they had "cancelled" your offending account.
BTW both these articles are not posted by you through ATT again
(did you forget to alter the headers?) but through the systems of the
company hosting the WarpCity website SFO.com. You never used
them (certainly not on such a regular basis) before your offending ATT
account was cancelled as the postmaster of ATT confirmed above.
John Poltorak
> > Tim Martin <os2...@warpcity.com> wrote:
>
> > Peter you have a definite reading comprehension problem. No
> > where in the ATT message you attach does it say my account
> > was closed. The message is an automatic reply which says
> > AT&T is looking into the incident. READ IT CLOSELY.
>
> Ah, the nonsense you spread around. I am having a reading
> comprehension problem? As I said it was the second message
> I received and they had (as announced in the first one) added
> some text to the record. What does that added part say?
You can't expect Tim to read and understand words of more than
one syllable, and CANCELED definitely has more than one.
> BTW both these articles are not posted by you through ATT again
> (did you forget to alter the headers?) but through the systems of the
> company hosting the WarpCity website SFO.com. You never used
> them (certainly not on such a regular basis) before your offending ATT
> account was cancelled as the postmaster of ATT confirmed above.
I can only guess that if he starts posting again via his ATT account people may
quickly discover his IP address via the:-
NNTP-Posting-Host:
header
and continue to show how much they despise him.
If he causes thousands of ATT customers to suffer again through his
thoughtlessness, ATT would take a really dim view.
> Regards from Leeuwarden
> Peter van Dobben de Bruijn
> ---
> usethenet.at.the-net-4u.com (.at. becomes @)
> ----
--
John
Bob Germer
John Poltorak <j...@eyup.org> said:
> If AT&T had lots of customers without a service, it was entirely your
> fault and they should now be aware about just how dangerous you are and
> how much havoc you can wreck.
Interestingly enough, I had an email from an ISP which included initials
in its name. Someone informed the writer that I had an archive of over 600
messages in less than 3 months in which a certain party abused one or
another person, software vendor, etc.
I forwarded the file, of course.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: bo...@Pics.com
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
MR/2 Ice 2.21 Registration Number 67
Aut Pax, Aut Bellum - Motto of Clan Gunn Translated: Peace or War
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marty
>
> And as noted before, it is generated automatically when a
> complaint against any AT&T customer is received.
That's really believable. That's not unlike a hospital patient status
auto-responder which tells family members that their loved one is dead at the
first inquiry, and then later follows up and reports their true status - or in
this case, doesn't follow up and allows the patient to return home to inform
the family in person.
Anybody have an AT&T account I can test this with? I can make up an obviously
bogus and moronic claim requesting that the account be closed down to see if I
get the same "automatic response".
> If AT&T disabled it then they did so only on paper to placate
> the complainer and not in actuality.
That doesn't reflect well on AT&T. Are you sure that you want to state
publically that the representative of AT&T lied?
M.P. van Dobben de Bruijn
>> Tim Martin wrote:
>>
>> And as noted before, it is generated automatically when a
>> complaint against any AT&T customer is received.
> That's really believable.
That is not only really believable, you are overlooking that
I have confirmed already many times that I got that automatic
reply at first. AND a SECOND mail later on AFTER they had taken
action which detailed that action in the added text ATT announced
in their first automatic reply "the offending account has been cancelled".
life...@xxvol.com
have Tim killfiled. But I am wondering about something. Has anyone
ever seen him use the word "mistaken?" One reason I killfiled him was
because no matter what someone said, if he disagreed he couldn't say
they were mistaken. He always has to say they are a liar. Obviously
"liar" carries fully intended insult while "mistaken" without "I
think" may be only arrogant. So I'm assuming he doesn't know the word
"mistaken," (nor the phrase "I think") a word I beleve is less
insulting than "mistaken." Anybody know better? I'm just trying to
figure out if he is just plain ignorant of certain words or if he is
purely malicious.
Jim L
Crooks are immune to gun laws, so make gun laws for non-crooks.
David D. Huff Jr.
>
>
> >> Tim Martin wrote:
> >>
> >> And as noted before, it is generated automatically when a
> >> complaint against any AT&T customer is received.
>
> > That's really believable.
>
> I have confirmed already many times that I got that automatic
> reply at first. AND a SECOND mail later on AFTER they had taken
> action which detailed that action in the added text ATT announced
> in their first automatic reply "the offending account has been cancelled".
>
> Regards from Leeuwarden
> Peter van Dobben de Bruijn
> ---
> usethenet.at.the-net-4u.com (.at. becomes @)
> ----
How many complaints did you send? That's why it didn't stick when you
purposefully do something like that you are in error as well.
After Tim shows your post to ATT they will make it a manual shutdown
procedure just like a corporate account. Amazing how brazen you are to
admit such a thing publicly.
--
IBM Software Choice for OS/2 Warp4 TWO YEAR SUBSCRIPTION PRICES
http://www.techstore.com/solutions/item.asp?sku=423884TD&S=324C $193.37
http://www.officeexpress.com/solutions/item.asp?sku=423884TD&S=324C
$193.73
http://www.pagecomputer.com/cgi-bin/utsearch?cd=02&sku=IBM00310 $195.02
http://www.onvia.com/CnetShopper/Products/index.cfm?Task=ViewProduct&IDCatalog=2575759
$196.58 SOLD OUT 11/17/2000
http://www.sparco.com/cgi-bin/wfind2?spn=A712545 $198.00 ETA 11/30/2000
http://www.us.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=20331784&loc=105 $199.95
SOLD OUT 11/17/2000
http://www.mychaseshop.com/product.asp?PID=74529 $207.06
http://www.libi.com/cgi-bin/libi.storefront/EN/product/423884 $209.95
http://www.beyond.com/search.htm?os=ANY&name_desc=Software+Choice
$209.99
http://www.myshopnow.com/product.asp?PID=74529 $235.30
For eight more sorted by price:
http://shopper.cnet.com/shopping/resellers/1,10231,0-12556-311-307063-3,00.html?tag=st.sh.12556-311-307063.sort.price
Wayne Bickell
:>I don't know what the original post of this thread said, because I
He also isn't aware of the phrase "I was wrong"
Which he has been on several occasions.
Cheers
Wayne
_
******************************************************
Wayne Bickell
Tokyo, Japan
wa...@tkk.att.ne.jp
******************************************************
Posted with PMINews 2 for OS/2
Running on OS/2 Warp 4 (UK) + FixPak 14
******************************************************
http://home.att.ne.jp/sun/wayne/
******************************************************
M.P. van Dobben de Bruijn
> How many complaints did you send? That's why it didn't stick when you
> purposefully do something like that you are in error as well.
>
> After Tim shows your post to ATT they will make it a manual shutdown
> procedure just like a corporate account. Amazing how brazen you are to
> admit such a thing publicly.
You seem not to get it (on purpose or not). I made only one complaint,
which was acknowledged automatically. In that acknowledgement ATT
tells you right away that they will automatically inform you (you don't have
to ask or follow up) if they add more to the "file" they have opened based
on the first post and on any action taken. Read the email as I posted, it is
all there even you should be able to understand (if not I understand why
you like to go to your opponents "wateringholes" as you admitted some
weeks ago and "leave to let the paramedics clean up later on").
The second email I got was the message that "the offending account
has been cancelled". BTW there was no "ploy" on my part, just concern
about the way Tim was ruining the usability of the OS/2 newsgroups.