Insync Net Scum (Was Re: Where's RSJ?)
impLAnt
Curiouser and Curiouser.
In article <HK0l1.684$FL6.905928@insync>, an employee of Insync named
Andrew O. Smith <a...@vellocet.insync.net> forged his From: header to pose
as "Rsj" <casseg...@galaxycorp.com>:
> Path: korova.insync.net!insync!not-for-mail
> Sender: Andrew <a...@vellocet.insync.net>
> From: "Rsj" <casseg...@galaxycorp.com>
> Subject: Re: Where's RSJ?
> Newsgroups: austin.internet,dfw.internet.providers,houston.internet.providers
> References: <6n21lg$kdg$1...@newshost.cyberramp.net>
> User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-980202 (UNIX) (SunOS/5.6 (sun4u))
> Lines: 12
> Message-ID: <HK0l1.684$FL6.905928@insync>
> Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 06:58:47 GMT
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.253.208.10
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 01:58:47 CDT
> Organization: Insync Internet Services, Inc.
> Xref: austin.internet:15287
> dfw.internet.providers:23006 houston.internet.providers:19626
>
> In houston.internet.providers Robert's Dad <stj...@inbred.org> wrote:
> > I want to look him straight in the eye and I want to tell him what a cheap,
> > lying, no-good, rotten, four-flushing, low-life, snake-licking, dirt-eating,
> > inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless,
> > dickless, hopeless, heartless, fat-assed, bug-eyed, stiff-legged, spineless,
> > worm-headed sack of monkey shit he is!
>
> I'm here, daddy. Please come take me home and lean me over your knee.
> You never taught me how to play with others and now I've turned into a
> slimey little fusspot.
>
> Rsj
Tsk, naughty Andy. Pretty low. Besides being "not funny", what a lying
little forger you are. How reprehensible; I don't care if you WERE drunk
at the console at 2am, I want to hear how your fucked-up little Cabal
buddies will defend you. We're going all the way to the wall with this
one.
Aside to Peter: Here is your second chance to show some spine, mate..
-iMp
Rsj
Andy,
So, Insync allows their net administrator to forge messages and pose
as someone else and also allows the their employees to engage in
3rd. grade antics? They pay you for this? I really would like to
get a clarification here. Perhaps, it is just your sick and
attention getting ways, alone. Insync should not allow it if they
want to be thought of as a professional organization. Nothing can
hurt a professional organization worse than one of its warped
employees going on a rampage.
Rsj
Andrew wrote in message ...
>In houston.internet.providers impLAnt <i...@yoyo.mil> wrote:
>>> Sender: Andrew <a...@vellocet.insync.net>
>>> From: "Rsj" <casseg...@galaxycorp.com>
>
>> Tsk, naughty Andy. Pretty low. Besides being "not funny", what a
lying
>> little forger you are.
>
>Believe me, if I were really trying to forge a post, I never would
have
>had a Sender: header. Of course people know I posted that. I
never
>tried to hide it.
>
>> How reprehensible; I don't care if you WERE drunk at the console
at 2am
>
>That would have required alcohol. There was no alcohol in my
system.
>
>--
>Andrew O. Smith - <a...@insync.net> | "Revenge is so very sweet."
>Sysadmin, Insync Internet Services | --Eric Cartman
>Houston, Texas, USA |
Andrew
Rsj
ImpLAnt,
Could it be that if Insync doesn't like what you say, their
employees will forge your name and post all sorts of stuff? I
surely thought that Insync was above this. I hope that it just
isn't so.
Rsj
impLAnt wrote in message ...
>
>Curiouser and Curiouser.
>
>In article <HK0l1.684$FL6.905928@insync>, an employee of Insync
named
>Andrew O. Smith <a...@vellocet.insync.net> forged his From: header
to pose
>as "Rsj" <casseg...@galaxycorp.com>:
>
>> Path: korova.insync.net!insync!not-for-mail
>> Sender: Andrew <a...@vellocet.insync.net>
>> From: "Rsj" <casseg...@galaxycorp.com>
>Tsk, naughty Andy. Pretty low. Besides being "not funny", what a
lying
>little forger you are. How reprehensible; I don't care if you WERE
drunk
Star Traveler
There you go -- RSJ -- you have some very direct proof that Insync Internet
Services condones forgeries and allows employees to commit federal crimes on
their computers -- since right here [below] -- they forged a message to pretend
to be another known person [namely you, RSJ] using the person's known and
advertised e-mail address [namely yours, RSJ].
They posted this from Insync offices at --
"vellocet.insync.net"
[NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.253.208.10].
Now this goes a very long ways to showing that Insync Internet Services does
lie and coverup things, as you said earlier, because they're doing something
here that is a federal crime.
It's one thing if they want to call you names, RSJ, but when they start
committing federal crimes against you -- that's another thing. They've step
into the common criminal category now.
Illegal actions have to stop. You should immediately report this to the federal
authorities and have them investigate the circumstances. In the process, they
may open up some issues on the industry collusion and the coverups they have
going on, along with "secret industry meetings" they have, in order to plan
strategies to cover up your exposing of crooked ISPs (which they don't like
since it makes it harder for an ISP to "scam" the public).
There's no doubt that this is an "ALERT" that needs to go on The Aldebaran
Group, Ltd. web pages -- to warn other unsuspecting posters that one of the
Texas ISPs is engaging in federal crimes -- and misleading others into thinking
that it's your posting, RSJ.
It's very clearly and obviously an attempt on the part of Insync Internet
Services to confuse other readers about what you are saying, in an attempt to
get other readers to ignore your warnings about crooked, illegal and deceptive
ISP practices. It's amazing to what extent some ISPs will go to try and cover
up these kinds of practices in the industry.
On Sat, 27 Jun 1998 13:37:55 -0700, impLAnt wrote
(in message <imp-270698...@153.36.187.239>):
>
>
> Curiouser and Curiouser.
>
> In article <HK0l1.684$FL6.905928@insync>, an employee of Insync named Andrew
> O. Smith <a...@vellocet.insync.net> forged his From: header to pose as "Rsj"
> <casseg...@galaxycorp.com>:
>
>> Path: korova.insync.net!insync!not-for-mail Sender: Andrew
>> <a...@vellocet.insync.net> From: "Rsj" <casseg...@galaxycorp.com>
>> Subject: Re: Where's RSJ? Newsgroups:
>> austin.internet,dfw.internet.providers,houston.internet.providers
>> References: <6n21lg$kdg$1...@newshost.cyberramp.net> User-Agent:
>> tin/pre-1.4-980202 (UNIX) (SunOS/5.6 (sun4u)) Lines: 12 Message-ID:
>> <HK0l1.684$FL6.905928@insync> Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 06:58:47 GMT
>> NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.253.208.10 NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998
>> 01:58:47 CDT Organization: Insync Internet Services, Inc. Xref:
>> austin.internet:15287 dfw.internet.providers:23006
>> houston.internet.providers:19626
Here's the service that allows their people to commit federal crimes and forge
e-mail to make it look like it came from another person -- namely to make it
look like it came from you, RSJ, in an attempt to confuse and divert attention
away from the crooked ISP industry practices.
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________
Registrant:
Insync Internet Services (INSYNC2-DOM)
5555 San Felipe #700
Houston, TX 77056
US
Domain Name: INSYNC.NET
Administrative Contact:
hostmaster (HOS444-ORG) hostm...@INSYNC.NET
713-407-7000
Fax- 713-407-7070
Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Network Administrator (NA102-ORG) net...@INSYNC.NET
713-407-7000
Fax- 713-407-7070
Billing Contact:
Power, David M (DP261) dpo...@INSYNC.NET
713-407-7000 (FAX) 713-407-7070
Record last updated on 27-Jan-98.
Record created on 28-Mar-95.
Database last updated on 27-Jun-98 04:02:03 EDT.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS2.INSYNC.NET 209.113.65.3
NS1.INSYNC.NET 209.113.65.2
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________
>>
>> In houston.internet.providers Robert's Dad <stj...@inbred.org> wrote:
>>> I want to look him straight in the eye and I want to tell him what a
>>> cheap, lying, no-good, rotten, four-flushing, low-life, snake-licking,
>>> dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing,
>>> brainless, dickless, hopeless, heartless, fat-assed, bug-eyed,
>>> stiff-legged, spineless, worm-headed sack of monkey shit he is!
>>
>> I'm here, daddy. Please come take me home and lean me over your knee. You
>> never taught me how to play with others and now I've turned into a slimey
>> little fusspot.
>>
>> Rsj
>
> Tsk, naughty Andy. Pretty low. Besides being "not funny", what a lying
> little forger you are. How reprehensible; I don't care if you WERE drunk at
> the console at 2am, I want to hear how your fucked-up little Cabal buddies
> will defend you. We're going all the way to the wall with this one.
>
> Aside to Peter: Here is your second chance to show some spine, mate..
>
> -iMp
Very good iMp -- you've done a great service here by "uncovering" this
dastardly deed, and without a doubt, this federal crime by this ISP and their
employee[s]. I didn't think they would stoop to the level of federal crimes to
cover up crooked industry practices, but you've proven me wrong. Apparently
they are pretty desperate.
xxx xxx
xxx A message xxx
xxx from the original, one & only xxx
xxx --> Star Traveler <-- xxx
xxx alde...@alt.net xxx
xxx -->>> http://www.aldeberan.org <<<-- xxx
xxx UDP-ed for warning about a scam at Texas.Net ISP xxx
xxx Protest FOR free speech at austin.internet xxx
xxx xxx
Does your news server allow forged cancels? That promotes censorship
on content. A UseNet Death Penalty was issued because of my warning
about a crooked ISP -- ** Texas.Net ** -- cheating the customers.
Complain in a post to austin.internet about the UDP and censorship!!
impLAnt
Another demonstration of the dishonest Insync-funded hackers that are
STILL attempting to takeover and moderate houston.internet.providers..
In article <RZcl1.699$FL6.1210816@insync>, known liar Andrew O. "Smith"
<a...@vellocet.insync.net> confesses to the level of deceit coming from
Insync:
> Believe me, if I were really trying to forge a post, I never would have
> had a Sender: header.
What *were* you trying to do Andrew?! You did it a few more times for good
measure; hardly seems accidental.
> Of course people know I posted that. I never tried to hide it.
"People you know"? Really. How many Insync bastards does it take to forge
a post? The Sender lines implicate only you; are other Insync employees
actually "in" on this sort of criminal activity as you claim?
> > How reprehensible; I don't care if you WERE drunk at the console at 2am
>
> That would have required alcohol. There was no alcohol in my system.
So you're pleading what, insanity? Recreational drugs?
Fuck you, Smith. If any one of your "users" were caught pulling this kind
of crap you'd have bounced them on their asses, while gouging them for a
"Penalty fee" on the way out the door. I shall be interested to see what
Shaw and Power have to say about your games. In an official capacity, of
course.
But whatever the case, thanks for declaring open season on Insync. I think
you are going to see some other "real funny" From: lines coming from your
place.
Fair's fair, right Andy?
-iMp
Charles de Gaulle
impLAnt <i...@yoyo.mil> wrote...
:
:Curiouser and Curiouser.
:
:In article <HK0l1.684$FL6.905928@insync>, an employee of Insync
:named Andrew O. Smith <a...@vellocet.insync.net> forged his From:
:header to pose as "Rsj" <casseg...@galaxycorp.com>:
:
:: Path: korova.insync.net!insync!not-for-mail
:: Sender: Andrew <a...@vellocet.insync.net>
:: From: "Rsj" <casseg...@galaxycorp.com>
:: Subject: Re: Where's RSJ?
:: Newsgroups: austin.internet,dfw.internet.providers,houston.internet.providers
:: References: <6n21lg$kdg$1...@newshost.cyberramp.net>
:: User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-980202 (UNIX) (SunOS/5.6 (sun4u))
:: Lines: 12
:: Message-ID: <HK0l1.684$FL6.905928@insync>
:: Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 06:58:47 GMT
:: NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.253.208.10
:: NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 01:58:47 CDT
:: Organization: Insync Internet Services, Inc.
:: Xref: austin.internet:15287
:: dfw.internet.providers:23006 houston.internet.providers:19626
:::I want to look him straight in the eye and I want to tell him what a cheap,
:::lying, no-good, rotten, four-flushing, low-life, snake-licking, dirt-eating,
:::inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless,
:::dickless, hopeless, heartless, fat-assed, bug-eyed, stiff-legged, spineless,
:::worm-headed sack of monkey shit he is!
::
:: I'm here, daddy. Please come take me home and lean me over your knee.
:: You never taught me how to play with others and now I've turned into a
:: slimey little fusspot.
::
:: Rsj
:
:Tsk, naughty Andy. Pretty low.
Very low--and I should thing quite an embarrasment to Insync unless
it's owner occupied.
:Besides being "not funny", what a lying little forger you are. How
:reprehensible; I don't care if you WERE drunk at the console at 2am,
:I want to hear how your fucked-up little Cabal buddies will defend
:you. We're going all the way to the wall with this one.
Yes--Mr. Rosenthal--would you care to comment?
:Aside to Peter: Here is your second chance to show some spine,
:mate..
Won't happen.
Steve
news.admin.censorship
:
:-iMp
:
Star Traveler
On Sat, 27 Jun 1998 17:04:21 -0700, Shawn K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING wrote
(in message <slrn6pb21t...@centipede.nowhere>):
>
> In message <01HW.B1BAB4EC0...@news.supernews.com>, Star
> Traveler <alde...@alt.net> wrote:
>> Now this goes a very long ways to showing that Insync Internet Services
>> does lie and coverup things, as you said earlier, because they're doing
>> something here that is a federal crime.
>
> Are you sure on this? Cite the federal law being violated or retract your
> statement immediately.
It's quite illegal to do that. That's why any ISP will cancel your account if
you try to impersonate another person by using their e-mail address and
identification, down to forging headers and other identifying information. Try
that with your ISP and you'll be looking for another account.
And if any person, doing this sort of thing, is doing it for gain or to coverup
illegal activities, then they will not only be out of an ISP account (and
probably all other ISPs, too, for doing so [if they know who it is]) -- they
will probably be under investigation by the federal authorities to find out
exactly what it is that they are doing or trying to cover up.
And in terms of your request to retract the statement -- "You have no 'basis'"
to make such a request, unless you are the one it pertains to. Are you saying
that you are an official of Insynch Internet Services?
I would like to hear from some "official" of Insynch Internet Services as to
why they permit employees to commit such fraud and allow them to violate
federal law on their computers. Where is Insynch?
>> There's no doubt that this is an "ALERT" that needs to go on The Aldebaran
>> Group, Ltd. web pages -- to warn other unsuspecting posters that one of
>> the Texas ISPs is engaging in federal crimes -- and misleading others into
>> thinking that it's your posting, RSJ.
>
> Anyone who gives the Aldebaran group any significant credibility needs to
> have their head examined.
I'm sure that would be the opinion of anyone who "supports" crooked and
deceptive ISPs -- as apparently you are lining yourself up with. I would say
that if you are a consumer, interested in avoiding falling into deceptive trade
practices -- that you would very much watch what The Aldebaran Group, Ltd.
reports, because you'll hear about some egregious practices from ISPs there.
>> It's very clearly and obviously an attempt on the part of Insync Internet
>> Services to confuse other readers about what you are saying, in an attempt
>> to get other readers to ignore your warnings about crooked, illegal and
>> deceptive ISP practices. It's amazing to what extent some ISPs will go to
>> try and cover up these kinds of practices in the industry.
>
> There is no confusion at all as to who really said that. I found it very
> amusing myself.
Yes, I've heard that crooks usually get together after "scams" and "howl with
laughter" after they've pulled off another scam on the public. It does seem to
be great entertainment for them. I've never figured out why someone wants to
"howl with laughter" because of the scamming and misery that they caused
someone else.
It's too bad that you seem to have joined such an unsavory crowd.
Star Traveler
On Sat, 27 Jun 1998 15:58:24 -0700, Senator Joe McCarthy wrote
(in message <3595784f...@news.alt.net>):
>
> "Star Traveler" <alde...@alt.net> wrote: - -There you go -- RSJ -- you
> have some very direct proof that Insync Internet -Services condones
> forgeries and allows employees to commit federal crimes on -their
> computers -- since right here [below] -- they forged a message to pretend
> -to be another known person [namely you, RSJ] using the person's known and
> -advertised e-mail address [namely yours, RSJ]. - -They posted this from
> Insync offices at -- - "vellocet.insync.net" -
> [NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.253.208.10].
>
>
> You know I'll bet you anything that if curious users check this one out
> they'll discover the industry whore Chip Rosenthal tries to surpress this
> information by forging a cancel on your post.
You know..., you're right, Steve. Someone *is* trying desperately trying to
erase these posts. It's happening as we speak. This is just such industry
collusion that you cannot believe. I guess they think that by erasing the past
-- they can say it never happened.
I'm keeping all my copies to show that I sent them out -- and there are servers
that know that someone is trying to "forge" my "cancels" on my postings, so
those servers *won't* accept those cancels.
It's amazing how desperate some of these guys get to coverup some of their
shady dealings. But, they can't cover this up for long. It's getting out to a
lot of people right now.
> Steve
> news.admin.censorship
>
Thanks for alerting us to these shady characters -- and also as to why you
don't want to deal with any ISP or news server that accepts cancels. This
allows the "crooks" and "shysters" to cover up their crooked and deceptive
practices.
Star Traveler
On Sat, 27 Jun 1998 19:46:43 -0700, Shawn K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING wrote
(in message <slrn6pbbej....@centipede.nowhere>):
>
> [Newsgroups destarred]
>
> In message <01HW.B1BAE1690...@news.supernews.com>, Star
> Traveler <alde...@alt.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 27 Jun 1998 17:04:21 -0700, Shawn K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING wrote
>> (in message <slrn6pb21t...@centipede.nowhere>):
>>>
>>> In message <01HW.B1BAB4EC0...@news.supernews.com>, Star
>>> Traveler <alde...@alt.net> wrote:
>>>> Now this goes a very long ways to showing that Insync Internet Services
>>>> does lie and coverup things, as you said earlier, because they're doing
>>>> something here that is a federal crime.
>>>
>>> Are you sure on this? Cite the federal law being violated or retract
>>> your statement immediately.
>>
>> It's quite illegal to do that. That's why any ISP will cancel your account
>> if you try to impersonate another person by using their e-mail address and
>> identification, down to forging headers and other identifying information.
>> Try that with your ISP and you'll be looking for another account.
>
> Again, I ask you to cite the law that prohibits this, or retract your
> statement. Do you not comprehend simple English?
I understand English. I just don't listen to morons, like you, who think they
have something to do with a legal issue. You have no legal "standing".
Of course, you're too moronic to understand that -- which is why I asked if you
were a representative of the company. If not, I'll wait to hear the
representatives explanation of their illegal activities and if they even
attempt to condone that kind of activity -- for which they would "can" a
customer in two seconds.
>> And in terms of your request to retract the statement -- "You have no
>> 'basis'" to make such a request, unless you are the one it pertains to.
>> Are you saying that you are an official of Insynch Internet Services?
>
> Don't be silly. I've never represented any ISP in any official capacity.
> Making false threats of legal action could be deemed harrassment.
Oh, I won't be the one who takes legal action. It could come under the RICO
statutes for racketeering, or some other federal statute for violation. I'll
leave it up to the feds to do their job. That's why we pay them. They go after
the criminals. I'll watch them go after the scum in the ISP business.
However, I'm glad to oblige and point out the scum that do the crime and I'm
glad to help the feds in pointing them in the right direction when a federal
crime has been committed. That's a Netizen's duty to "clean up" the Internet
and get rid of the "scum ISPs".
>> I would like to hear from some "official" of Insynch Internet Services as
>> to why they permit employees to commit such fraud and allow them to
>> violate federal law on their computers. Where is Insynch?
>
> And you can't even spell it. It's Insync - no 'h' on the end.
Planning your legal defense already? I can hear it now -- "But, your honor, he
didn't even get the spelling of the company name right. I not guilty by reason
of 'spelling error'"
Yes, it does sound like some kind of lame defense that a criminally stupid mind
would put forth.
>>> Anyone who gives the Aldebaran group any significant credibility needs
>>> to have their head examined.
>>
>> I'm sure that would be the opinion of anyone who "supports" crooked and
>> deceptive ISPs -- as apparently you are lining yourself up with. I would
>> say that if you are a consumer, interested in avoiding falling into
>> deceptive trade practices -- that you would very much watch what The
>> Aldebaran Group, Ltd. reports, because you'll hear about some egregious
>> practices from ISPs there.
>
> I hate con artists, but your group is no more credible than the con artists
> you say you're trying to beat. I hate to break it to you, but that's the way
> it is.
You've got a lot to learn about the public, sonny. But, unfortunately you're
jumping in with the "criminal element" in these discussions -- so you're
getting off on the wrong side of the fence, by supporting a criminal activity
done from an ISP's computers.
>> It's too bad that you seem to have joined such an unsavory crowd.
>
> It's too bad one of your other personas has the nickname "speedbump." Oops,
> wait, I didn't really say that did I?
Yes, I can see where the "criminals" recruit their gophers and their
"sacrificial lambs" -- from incredibly stupid and mentally defective of our
population. To be fair, I guess these kinds don't know they're being taken
advantage of -- which is yet another reason for getting the crooks and the scam
artists out of a legitimate business like the ISP business.
I'm sure there are lots of other ISPs who would like to run clean and upright
businesses.
Shawn K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING
| Services does lie and coverup things, as you said earlier, because
| they're doing something here that is a federal crime.
Are you sure on this? Cite the federal law being violated or retract
your statement immediately.
| There's no doubt that this is an "ALERT" that needs to go on The
| Aldebaran Group, Ltd. web pages -- to warn other unsuspecting
| posters that one of the Texas ISPs is engaging in federal crimes --
| and misleading others into thinking that it's your posting, RSJ.
Anyone who gives the Aldebaran group any significant credibility needs
to have their head examined.
| It's very clearly and obviously an attempt on the part of Insync
| Internet Services to confuse other readers about what you are
| saying, in an attempt to get other readers to ignore your warnings
| about crooked, illegal and deceptive ISP practices. It's amazing to
| what extent some ISPs will go to try and cover up these kinds of
| practices in the industry.
There is no confusion at all as to who really said that. I found it
very amusing myself.
--
Shawn K. Quinn - skq...@wt.net - please consider visiting my home page
at http://purl.oclc.org/net/skquinn/personal
Geek code listed
Posting from a fake address is letting the spammers win
Joe Shaw
No, big difference. I'm the NetAdmin and I didn't forge jack. Andrew is
the SysAdmin, and he did whatever he did. Get your facts straight,
something you have such a hard time doing these days.
Joe Shaw - js...@insync.net
NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services
impLAnt
In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.980628...@vellocet.insync.net>,
Joe Shaw <js...@vellocet.insync.net> forged:
> No, big difference. I'm the NetAdmin and I didn't forge jack. Andrew is
> the SysAdmin, and he did whatever he did. Get your facts straight,
> something you have such a hard time doing these days.
Yes dammit Rsj get your facts straight. Joe Shaw is the 800 lb Gorilla
over at Insuck. Andrew is merely his nasty little fuck chimp.
> Joe Shaw - js...@insync.net
> NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services
-iMp
Joe Shaw
I remember someone named iMp saying that it was childish to resort to
attacking the arguer and not the argument. Good to see you're a hypocrite
when it really counts. Must make you feel like a big man to talk with such
vulgarity while hiding behind your headers, but I could do much better
than Andrew if I were so sexually inclined.
Sling away chiMplAnt,
Matt Buford
If a "forgery" clearly states the real author, is it even a forgery? A
forgery can't be too obvious, for at some point it ceases to be a forgery
and becomes simply fiction.
Andrew's name was clearly visible in the headers of the message identifying
him as the author of the message. He didn't hide his identity, so how can
it be a forgery?
Star Traveler wrote in message
<01HW.B1BAB4EC0...@news.supernews.com>...
Star Traveler
In article <Xcnl1.1175$FL6.1465805@insync>, "Matt Buford"
<spa...@overloaded.net> wrote:
> If a "forgery" clearly states the real author, is it even a forgery? A
> forgery can't be too obvious, for at some point it ceases to be a forgery
> and becomes simply fiction.
>
> Andrew's name was clearly visible in the headers of the message identifying
> him as the author of the message. He didn't hide his identity, so how can
> it be a forgery?
The people that he has to convince of that are the federal prosecutors and
investigators when they come out to the company to investigate the federal
crime that was committed at Insync Internet Services, by one of their
employees. Fortunately we pay those "fed" guys to investigate.
And fortunately the federal prosecutors love to prosecute the hell out of
these kinds of guys, to make examples for the rest of the "wanna-be"
forgers out there.
I'd say if you wanted to get on the "forger's" defense team, you should
probably find out the name of his lawyer. He's going to need a good one. I
hear those federal prosecutors really like to chew people up.
impLAnt
In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.980628...@vellocet.insync.net>,
Joe Shaw <js...@vellocet.insync.net> wrote:
> I remember someone named iMp saying that it was childish to resort to
> attacking the arguer and not the argument.
Oh that went out the window, right after da Silva's virtue. Gloves are off
in this group Joe. Ask Andrew.
> Good to see you're a hypocrite when it really counts.
Even better to see you defend and dismiss forgery coming from your own
shop when it really counts.
Speaking of hypocrisy I enjoy the way you freely and often crosspost like
this Joe, despite having voted for a CFV that would have cancelled more
than 3. I believe that was called "to hell and back". Do as I say not as I
do, eh Joe? Good for you.
Hey BTW you're a netadmin, you should know best: Is there anything about
USENET "forgery" in the Insync AUP? People can post through your ports
using any old From line they like, right? Even using someone else's real
e-mail address, is this not correct? Inquiring minds, you know.
> Must make you feel like a big man to talk with such
> vulgarity while hiding behind your headers
No. Not really, I talk this way in real life, and I'll scrap any time you say.
> but I could do much better than Andrew if I were so sexually inclined.
Really? Bit on the homely side is he?
> Sling away chiMplAnt,
I refuse work for Insync.
Rsj
You are right, Joe, when you say "No big difference". I did make an
oversight with the title but, it makes no difference. That Insync
should pay their employees to impersonate and forge other's
statistics is the real issue.
Your lack of professionalism when you say you didn't "forge jack",
reminds me of a letter that I got from the Whitehouse that said:
"Hey, Ace, mucho thanks for the bread to help it the thingy going on
in ....
Don't you realize that every word that you speak, tells a story
about your employer and to what standards they hold their employees?
You guys must have been selling newspapers before this.
Let me give you an example of how you could have handled it:
Rsj,
Regardless of what occurred and who did or did not do what, I would
like to point out a small error.
You said that it was the Net administrator who did this. I am the
Net administrator and I don't condone any type of forgery or
impersonation. Whether the Systems Administrator did this or not,
is not my point. I just wanted to clarify who is who.
Thank you.
Joe Blow.
Rsj
UPDATED 6-27-98. Information is being received regularly at
http://www.aldeberan.org and is being incorporated into the site as
time permits.
For more information on Texas.net, Leonard "Censor All" Rosenthal,
free speech, censorship, I.S.P.'s and other things, please click
on: http://www.aldeberan.org
Joe Shaw wrote in message ...
>No, big difference. I'm the NetAdmin and I didn't forge jack.
Andrew is
>the SysAdmin, and he did whatever he did. Get your facts straight,
>something you have such a hard time doing these days.
>
>Joe Shaw - js...@insync.net
>NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services
>
Rsj
ImPLant,
I suspect that you have started a lovers quarrel.
Rsj
Joe Shaw wrote in message ...
>
>On Sun, 28 Jun 1998, impLAnt wrote:
>
>> In article
<Pine.SOL.3.96.980628...@vellocet.insync.net>,
>> Joe Shaw <js...@vellocet.insync.net> forged:
>>
>> > No, big difference. I'm the NetAdmin and I didn't forge jack.
Andrew is
>> > the SysAdmin, and he did whatever he did. Get your facts
straight,
>> > something you have such a hard time doing these days.
>>
>> Yes dammit Rsj get your facts straight. Joe Shaw is the 800 lb
Gorilla
>> over at Insuck. Andrew is merely his nasty little fuck chimp.
>>
>> > Joe Shaw - js...@insync.net
>> > NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services
>>
>> -iMp
>
>I remember someone named iMp saying that it was childish to resort
to
>attacking the arguer and not the argument. Good to see you're a
hypocrite
>when it really counts. Must make you feel like a big man to talk
with such
>vulgarity while hiding behind your headers, but I could do much
better
>than Andrew if I were so sexually inclined.
>
>Sling away chiMplAnt,
Star Traveler
On Sun, 28 Jun 1998 14:37:05 -0700, Brent Burton wrote
(in message <6n6d21$9d7$1...@hiram.io.com>):
>
> ([I need a brain] impLAnt) <i...@yoyo.mil> wrote:
>> Tsk, naughty Andy. Pretty low. Besides being "not funny", what a lying
>> little forger you are. How reprehensible; I don't care if you WERE drunk
>> at the console at 2am, I want to hear how your fucked-up little Cabal
>> buddies will defend you. We're going all the way to the wall with this
>> one.
>
> Whoa! Hang on, guys and girls! We're on a ride, a ride _all the way_!
> Woo-hoo! This is going to rock, because we aren't just going _all the way_,
> no boy, we are going _all the way_ TO THE WALL. Yes! The WALL OF TRUTH on
> this one.
>
> I'm sitting on the edge my seat waiting to see this. WOW!!!!
Yep, it is interesting and exciting watching those Feds rush in for a bust. You
just never know who they are going to remove from the premises. Can we sell
front-row seats to the event? Is there any room outside of Insync offices to
watch this thing, when they rush in there?
Rsj
Scene One, act one:
I really am sorry, your honor. You see, I came across these checks
and I know that there really is a person out there by the name that
I put on the checks. So, since there is a real person like that, I
just put it in there and therefore, I am not guilty of forgery.
Scene one, act two:
I really am sorry, your honor. You see, I came across these checks
and they already had a signature on them so, I just left it in place
and went and cashed them. After all, the signature was already
there.
Why should I be held responsible?
Sorry Andrew, it just won't fly.
Rsj
Andrew wrote in message ...
>In houston.internet.providers impLAnt <i...@yoyo.mil> wrote:
>> What *were* you trying to do Andrew?! You did it a few more times
for good
>> measure; hardly seems accidental.
>
>I never said it was an accident. I simply said that I left a valid
>sender header in place on purpose.
>
>>> Of course people know I posted that. I never tried to hide it.
>
>> "People you know"? Really. How many Insync bastards does it take
to forge
>> a post? The Sender lines implicate only you;
>
>You're inserting a word. I said "people know", not "people I
know".
>"People know I posted that." I admit it. No implication is
necessary
>I did it. Guilty as charged.
>
>> are other Insync employees
>> actually "in" on this sort of criminal activity as you claim?
>
>Criminal? When did a Usenet header forgery become criminal?
>
>> So you're pleading what, insanity? Recreational drugs?
>
>I'm pleading sense of humour that not many people picked up on.
>
>> Fuck you, Smith. If any one of your "users" were caught pulling
this kind
>> of crap you'd have bounced them on their asses, while gouging
them for a
>> "Penalty fee" on the way out the door.
>
>No, I'd nicely ask the user to try to not piss people off to the
extent
>to which I receive complaints. I'll take that advice myself.
>
>> Fair's fair, right Andy?
>
>Yep.
William Wallace
In order for a forgery to take place, you must first have a *bona fide*
personality which was forged. In other words, the initials "RSJ" must be
proven as firmly associated with an individual. At this point, with all of
the Internet assumed names in use, the accusation of forgery is of no weight.
On the other hand, if "Robert D. Saint John" were the name used for posts, and
many people actually knew a "Robert D. Saint John" as Robert D. Saint John and
a guy named Andrew decided to "forge" a post utilizing Robert D. Saint John's
real name (posting or otherwise), then that may be cause for alarm. However,
"RSJ" is nobody - he's just another figment of the Internet's imagination -
the only forgery issue is an ethical one. And, we can discuss the ethical
nature of a alias forgery, but it's beyond absurd to look at anything other
than the moral aspects.
As for the use of an "alias," in general -- I'll continue to use a pseudonym,
because I've already been burned by an insane "Internet-type," such as; well,
you know the type... Yes, it was a rather sobering experience -- a real
stalker type. Luckily, that person won't have the opportunity of bothering
me, anymore. But, I will not take the chance again -- too many implants
wandering around the net.
William Wallace
(protective alias)
impLAnt
In article <6n6d21$9d7$1...@hiram.io.com>, bre...@pentagon.io.com (Brent
Burton) wrote:
> ([I need a brain] impLAnt) <i...@yoyo.mil> wrote:
> | Tsk, naughty Andy. Pretty low. Besides being "not funny", what a lying
> | little forger you are. How reprehensible; I don't care if you WERE drunk
> | at the console at 2am, I want to hear how your fucked-up little Cabal
> | buddies will defend you. We're going all the way to the wall with this
> | one.
>
> Whoa! Hang on, guys and girls! We're on a ride, a ride _all the
> way_! Woo-hoo! This is going to rock, because we aren't just going
> _all the way_, no boy, we are going _all the way_ TO THE WALL. Yes!
> The WALL OF TRUTH on this one.
>
> I'm sitting on the edge my seat waiting to see this. WOW!!!!
>
> -bpb
Pretty funny Brent I must admit, good one. Knew there had to be some
people up there with a sense of humor; the hemp in Austin is typically
quite excellent.
-iMp
Star Traveler
On Sun, 28 Jun 1998 20:01:02 -0700, Andrew wrote
(in message <OrDl1.2135$FL6.1842667@insync>):
>
>In houston.internet.providers impLAnt <i...@yoyo.mil> wrote:
>> What *were* you trying to do Andrew?! You did it a few more times for
>> good measure; hardly seems accidental.
>
> I never said it was an accident. I simply said that I left a valid sender
> header in place on purpose.
>> are other Insync employees actually "in" on this sort of criminal activity
>> as you claim?
>
> Criminal? When did a Usenet header forgery become criminal?
Only a very specific kind. It's when you try to be someone else, when you use
their name and their e-mail address (exactly and not a "spoof" on those items
[example of spoof -- "r-jay" <not-...@lakegeneva.irg]) -- then it's a federal
crime and a forgery (doing it exactly).
You can "play" with everything else and it's not a problem. It's when you get
into matching it up to someone else -- then that's where the Feds get into it.
If you doubt that, then I would invite you or someone else to try it out on the
Feds and see how much of a "sense of humor" they have.
>> So you're pleading what, insanity? Recreational drugs?
>
> I'm pleading sense of humour that not many people picked up on.
Oh, I saw the forgery and I saw what was happening. It's just that certain
things are not allowed. That's one of them.
>> Fuck you, Smith. If any one of your "users" were caught pulling this kind
>> of crap you'd have bounced them on their asses, while gouging them for a
>> "Penalty fee" on the way out the door.
>
> No, I'd nicely ask the user to try to not piss people off to the extent to
> which I receive complaints. I'll take that advice myself.
Well, now here's an obvious "side-step" and an real "misconception" of the
whole thing. I don't care about being "pissed off" by someone else. That's not
the problem. In fact, I figure it's protected speech to piss people off.
There's a court case going on that one right now and I expect to see another
Supreme Court decision, overturning another portion of the CDA (with vague
language obout pissing people off).
So, that's not the issue -- pissing people off. And as an ISP, if you go around
instructing your users to not piss people off -- that's getting into
censorship.
The issue here -- that several people jumped on was that it was a Federal Crime
to do that very specific thing. So, don't get it mixed up with "pissing people
off". That simply trivializes the whole thing and confuses people as to what
the issue really was.
The issue was -- Federal Crime. I say, go ahead and "piss people off." That's
fine. As a business, which you represent, I figure it would be silly for you to
"piss off your customer base" -- but it's well within your rights to do that.
So, feel free to do that. Don't confuse it, though, with a "crime."
Star Traveler
On Sun, 28 Jun 1998 21:40:46 -0700, impLAnt wrote
(in message <imp-280698...@153.36.204.91>):
>
>
> You promised us you'd be gone for a month Mike. We was robbed:
>
> In article <35962773...@news.wt.net>, MW "Pops" Smith <m...@wt.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Ya know, Imp, I can understand the two shitheads not comprehending satire,
>> but you use satire so much, I thought you would get it. If Andrew's post
>> was a fraud or illegal, the following line would not have appeared in his
>> headers;
>>> Sender: Andrew <a...@vellocet.insync.net>
>> That line makes his post satire. Almost everyone else "got it" and thought
>> it was funny.
>
> At least one other mouth breather besides you didn't "get it" and thought it
> was real. But given the way you laugh and laugh easy, I'm sure you won't
> mind if someone were to forge a few posts using your name and e-mail
> address.
Yes, I suggest that if we have a consensus of agreement in the ISP field about
this just being humorous -- that we all go on a "forgery rampage" and have a
barrel of laughs about it.
I know I would have loads of fun being the CEO of a few ISPs in the area. I can
just see the guffaws and the rolling on the floor with some of what I have in
mind for those CEO forgeries. Can't you see it now?
Of course, I'll be sure to "hide" a clue inside the header and bury it so that
anyone can tell that it's a joke, no problem. In the meantime, I figure that
this sort of thing should shoot the postings up about 600% over today's levels.
> Isn't that true Mike? Just a little "satire" you know.
Of course, we know that this is just their "fall-back" position and those
crooked ISPs trying to put in a bit of "plausible deniability". The only
problem is that it's not "plausible."
Star Traveler
On Sun, 28 Jun 1998 20:53:45 -0700, William Wallace wrote
(in message <6n734a$d4i$1...@newshost.cyberramp.net>):
>
> In order for a forgery to take place, you must first have a *bona fide*
> personality which was forged. In other words, the initials "RSJ" must be
> proven as firmly associated with an individual. At this point, with all of
> the Internet assumed names in use, the accusation of forgery is of no
> weight.
The problem here is that "you lie". It's a posting name that is being used with
such frequency and abandon by one individual that others say he's posting too
much. He is known so well, as an individual, that probably every ISP in town
knows those initials as representing one specific person. So, in that sense,
it's very well known. And the forgery was done immediately after several
postings of that particular person and in such a way as to fool many people
(except the most perceptive and the most diligent who wanted to examine the
headers). And the posting was designed to "discredit", too -- all after this
person was specifically condemning the very ISP who did the forgery. Yes, you
other people heard right -- it was an ISP who did the forgery and the very ISP
who was accused of fraud and coverup. Immediately afterwards, they did several
forgeries in a row. What a bunch of scum at that ISP.
> On the other hand, if "Robert D. Saint John" were the name used for posts,
> and many people actually knew a "Robert D. Saint John" as Robert D. Saint
> John and a guy named Andrew decided to "forge" a post utilizing Robert D.
> Saint John's real name (posting or otherwise), then that may be cause for
> alarm. However, "RSJ" is nobody - he's just another figment of the
> Internet's imagination - the only forgery issue is an ethical one.
He's so real of a person that all the ISPs who don't like him pointing out the
fraud in the business are trying to get rid of him. He's so real of a person
that one the CEO of one ISP was releasing personal information about his ISP
account. That's what I call a real person.
This isn't *just* ethics -- it's a Federal Crime, committed by an ISP and its
employee and with the obvious permission and encouragement of the ISP
management, because they have not denounced such action and they are
implicitly, by their "absolute silence" over the last few days, condoning such
action (obviously to cover up claims about their fraud).
> .... And, we
> can discuss the ethical nature of a alias forgery, but it's beyond absurd to
> look at anything other than the moral aspects.
The Federal Agents will let you discuss the moral aspects while they pursue
vigorous prosecution of the violation of Federal Law and the committing of a
Federal Crime on ISP property with "obvious permission" of an ISP.
> As for the use of an "alias," in general -- I'll continue to use a
> pseudonym, because I've already been burned by an insane "Internet-type,"
> such as; well, you know the type...
The use of an alias is not in dispute here, as a recent Supreme Court decision
over a Georgia law "okayed" that. The Georgia statute tried to make an "alias"
illegal. That's not what is being discussed here. What is being discussed is a
Federal Crime by assuming the identity of a person -- online (who was known and
a very frequent and daily poster). And the one who was committing the forgery
was already accused of fraud and coverup. It's a very "damning" situation for
that ISP, who condones such action.
> .... Yes, it was a rather sobering
> experience -- a real stalker type. Luckily, that person won't have the
> opportunity of bothering me, anymore. But, I will not take the chance again
> -- too many implants wandering around the net.
Yes, I've seen the stalker types. They usually reside inside of ISPs and are
the "industry whores" and try to give out confidential and personal information
on the Internet for the purpose of harassment and intimidation. Yes, I've seen
the ISPs as the very harassers themselves. It's a sickening sight -- to be
sure.
>
> William Wallace (protective alias)
>
I'm glad you're protecting yourself from those fraudulent and abusive ISPs who
try to go after people who expose their fraudulent ISP tactics.
Andrew
In houston.internet.providers impLAnt <i...@yoyo.mil> wrote:
> What *were* you trying to do Andrew?! You did it a few more times for good
> measure; hardly seems accidental.
I never said it was an accident. I simply said that I left a valid
sender header in place on purpose.
>> Of course people know I posted that. I never tried to hide it.
> "People you know"? Really. How many Insync bastards does it take to forge
> a post? The Sender lines implicate only you;
You're inserting a word. I said "people know", not "people I know".
"People know I posted that." I admit it. No implication is necessary
I did it. Guilty as charged.
> are other Insync employees
> actually "in" on this sort of criminal activity as you claim?
Criminal? When did a Usenet header forgery become criminal?
> So you're pleading what, insanity? Recreational drugs?
I'm pleading sense of humour that not many people picked up on.
> Fuck you, Smith. If any one of your "users" were caught pulling this kind
> of crap you'd have bounced them on their asses, while gouging them for a
> "Penalty fee" on the way out the door.
No, I'd nicely ask the user to try to not piss people off to the extent
to which I receive complaints. I'll take that advice myself.
> Fair's fair, right Andy?
Shawn K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING
In message <OrDl1.2135$FL6.1842667@insync>, Andrew <a...@vellocet.insync.net>
wrote:
| Criminal? When did a Usenet header forgery become criminal?
He's blowing smoke. If it was really criminal he'd be citing the law
you were violating. I know of no such law.
| I'm pleading sense of humour that not many people picked up on.
I did, and it was damn funny.
[some shriMp wrote:]
| > Fuck you, Smith. If any one of your "users" were caught pulling this kind
| > of crap you'd have bounced them on their asses, while gouging them for a
| > "Penalty fee" on the way out the door.
|
| No, I'd nicely ask the user to try to not piss people off to the extent
| to which I receive complaints. I'll take that advice myself.
The only reason they are pissed is because you have a sense of humor
and *they do not*. It should be obvious to anyone with two brain cells
to rub together that all you did was a harmless practical joke.
MWSmith
i...@yoyo.mil (impLAnt) decided to state:
/+
/+ You promised us you'd be gone for a month Mike. We was robbed:
I picked this up in <houston.usenet.config>. Sorry, I didn't wade through all the
news groups this is being cross-posted to.
/+
/+ In article <35962773...@news.wt.net>, MW "Pops" Smith <m...@wt.net> wrote:
/+
/+ > Ya know, Imp, I can understand the two shitheads not comprehending
/+ > satire, but you use satire so much, I thought you would get it. If
/+ > Andrew's post was a fraud or illegal, the following line would not
/+ > have appeared in his headers;
/+ > > Sender: Andrew <a...@vellocet.insync.net>
/+ > That line makes his post satire. Almost everyone else "got it" and
/+ > thought it was funny.
/+
/+ At least one other mouth breather besides you didn't "get it" and thought
/+ it was real.
Imp, you forgot to take your "reading comprehension pills" again. I got it on the
first read. I've noticed that you have misinterpreted some other posts, too. Get
back on those pills!!!!! :-)
/+ But given the way you laugh and laugh easy, I'm sure you
/+ won't mind if someone were to forge a few posts using your name and e-mail
/+ address.
Here's where your premise falls apart. Andrew did not forge that post. The NNTP
Posting Host, the path, and the Sender headings clearly state where that post came
from. He spoofed some header info for the satirical aspect of his post. Satire is
protected. The "shit-for-brains" bunch think it's a federal offense. They are
wrong, as usual.
/+ Now then, explain away the actions of our curmudgeonous but cuddly Billy
/+ "Bubba" Garfield mascot. He tossed off a few Rsj forgeries with no such
/+ "conscience".
I cannot. I haven't read them. I don't know what you are referring to.
/+
/+ > (If anyone doesn't like the word "shithead", please substitute the
/+ > phrase "clueless blithering idiots".)
/+
/+ How original. Take a Prozac.
Not original, just accurate.
/+
/+
/+ -iMp
Mike Smith
Albert Nurick
<< austin.* debumped >>
ISP Ratings wrote in message ...
> In any respectable business this guy would be fired
>first thing on Monday morning. I suggest we all follow
>up with who is involved financially with Insycn as well
>as the local Chamber of Commerace, Better Bus. Bur.,
>etc. I doubt any of these folks offline will find
>the forgery amusing or professsional.
Steve, the irony escapes you. Aren't you
- The man who forges headers in almost every post,
(Unless you really are "Richard Simmons", et al)
- The man who decries "plug pulling"
- The man who decries censorship based on content
So now, you're demanding that someone lose his job
for the same behavior that you do on a daily basis?
You sir, are a hypocrite of the worst kind. Is it
any wonder that you're the laughingstock of Usenet?
--
Albert Nurick
alb...@data.net - ICQ #4403737
Star Traveler
On Mon, 29 Jun 1998 9:24:10 -0700, Albert Nurick wrote
(in message <6n8f31$krp$1...@news13.ispnews.com>):
>
> << austin.* debumped >>
>
> ISP Ratings wrote in message ...
>> In any respectable business this guy would be fired first thing on Monday
>> morning. I suggest we all follow up with who is involved financially with
>> Insycn as well as the local Chamber of Commerace, Better Bus. Bur., etc. I
>> doubt any of these folks offline will find the forgery amusing or
>> professsional.
>
>
> Steve, the irony escapes you. Aren't you
>
> - The man who forges headers in almost every post,
> (Unless you really are "Richard Simmons", et al)
The irony is all on your side. You'll notice that this Federal Crime was
pointed out immediately. It was very specific and it was done by an ISP, no
less. It was also pointed out that other spoofs were not Federal Crimes, but
this one was, very specifically. I'm sure the Feds won't find it very ironic,
but just criminal.
> - The man who decries "plug pulling"
There's the problem you have. You love "plug pulling" for no crime at all,
except the "crime" [in your mind] of having an opinion that opposes yours.
Well, in this instance, and what Steve fully supports, is reporting a Federal
Crime to the appropriate people. And as far as I'm aware, no ISP will sell
accounts to use for the purpose of committing Federal Crimes, or they won't be
in business very long.
>
> - The man who decries censorship based on content
>
Well, the problem here is that you're the one that favors censorship on
content, while Steve favors throwing criminals in jail. When someone commits a
Federal Crime, and it was done from inside an ISP (Insync in Houston) and from
one of their employees, and it is apparently condoned by management of that
ISP, then you notify the authorities.
> So now, you're demanding that someone lose his job for the same behavior
> that you do on a daily basis?
Well, see -- the problem with your assertion here is that Steve is not
committing a Federal Crime (although in your mind, since he disagrees with you,
it's a "crime" to Albert). But as far as the Feds are concerned, the Federal
Crime is in Houston at Insync headquarters.
>
> You sir, are a hypocrite of the worst kind. Is it any wonder that you're
> the laughingstock of Usenet?
>
You've just given new meaning to hypocrite for the "industry" side of the
equation.
impLAnt
In article <slrn6pe55j....@centipede.nowhere>, skq...@wt.net wrote:
> In message <OrDl1.2135$FL6.1842667@insync>, Andrew <a...@vellocet.insync.net>
> wrote:
> | Criminal? When did a Usenet header forgery become criminal?
Oh well fuck I don't know exactly "when". Ask da Silva; he's always
throwing the "abuse" tag at me like a dirty look, and I've never "forged
jack".
> He's blowing smoke. If it was really criminal he'd be citing the law
> you were violating. I know of no such law.
Shawn: "What I don't know does not exist." The very least you could do is
look up the definition of "criminal" to ascertain my accuracy.
Besides, I gave you better than "citing the law". I referred you to
excerpts from court decisions and case numbers, such as:
"Forgery is a crime when it includes the representation of handwriting of
another and the act of uttering as true and genuine any forged writing
knowing the same to be forged with intent to prejudice, damage, and
defraud any person." State v. May 93 Idaho 343, 461 P. 2d 126, 129.
"Crime of forgery is committed when one makes or passes a false instrument
with the intent to defraud, and the element of loss or detriment is
immaterial." People v. McAffey, 182 Cal. App.2d 486, 6 Cal. Rptr. 333,337
Read this without moving your lips Quinn: The Modern Penal Code (MPC sec.
224.1) states that a person is guilty of forgery if:
a) a actor or person alters any writing of any person,
b) makes, completes, executes, authenticates, issues, or transfers any
writing so that it purports to be an act of another who did not authorize
the act or to have been at the time or place or in a numbered sequence
other than was in fact the case, or to be a copy of an original when no
such original existed; or
c) utters any writing which he knows to be forged.
> | I'm pleading sense of humour that not many people picked up on.
>
> I did, and it was damn funny.
Like a crippled person hobbling across a busy street, yes.
> | > Fuck you, Smith. If any one of your "users" were caught pulling this kind
> | > of crap you'd have bounced them on their asses, while gouging them for a
> | > "Penalty fee" on the way out the door.
> |
> | No, I'd nicely ask the user to try to not piss people off to the extent
> | to which I receive complaints. I'll take that advice myself.
He's fibbing again of course. He'd have that account locked out so fucking
fast the smile wouldn't have time to hit his lips.
> The only reason they are pissed is because you have a sense of humor
> and *they do not*. It should be obvious to anyone with two brain cells
> to rub together that all you did was a harmless practical joke.
Is that what your lawyer told the judge about your death threats Shawn?,
that "all you did was a harmless practical joke"? Come back here with a
*leeetle* bit more than some baseless opinion from <pfft> Wesley Serra
<chortle>. Guy's a facetious phony; I've dusted his ass a couple of times
regarding net issues and laws.
I shall now be placing your head on my wall. Facing it of course; I have
no sense of humor you know.
-iMp
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I regret to say that we of the FBI are powerless to act in cases of
oral-genital intimacy, unless it has in some way obstructed interstate
commerce." --J. Edgar Hoover, 1957
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| any replies go here | no e-mail replies to usenet posts |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
impLAnt
Forgery, Fear and Loathing in Texas Part XXVII:
In article <OrDl1.2135$FL6.1842667@insync>, Andrew
<a...@vellocet.insync.net> wrote:
> > Fuck you, Smith. If any one of your "users" were caught pulling this kind
> > of crap you'd have bounced them on their asses, while gouging them for a
> > "Penalty fee" on the way out the door.
>
> No, I'd nicely ask the user to try to not piss people off to the extent
> to which I receive complaints. I'll take that advice myself.
Interesting. I once got a "sigh" sort of letter from an admin whose abuse@
mailbox was full of complaints about "impLAnt"; just more than usual that
day. Essentially he said "I really don't like coming to work and having to
wade through a pile of complaints; please stop whatever you are doing."
Turns out someone'd forged my edress on numerous crossposts reading COME
SEE MY WEBSITE!!!. Quite a handful of your censor Cabal, knowing quite
well it was forged, seized the opportunity to blast a potentially
impatient or clueless admin with complaints.
Luckily this admin was tolerant such that, once the forgery was pointed
out, he started forwarding me all the complaint letters he received so
that we could both enjoy a good chuckle.
No worries for me. But what I am concerned about are other admins who are
a bit more fascist and a bit less enlightened. What's happened to so many
users, vexed by an intolerant or bofh-run ISP, they get shitcanned. Locked
out. Charged a "penalty fee". Told "Tough shit" and mocked. And here we
see yet another sysadmin who claims enough self-importance to ask a user
to "try to not piss people off"?
Why even bother with something so ridiculous? Your car dealer might as
well ask you to "try to not piss people off" on the freeway. (He'd justify
it of course by declaring he merely "lets you" drive the car while
pointing to "his" name on the ass end). This is USENET Andrew, heLLO?!
People get pissed off, it's going to happen, and if it doesn't happen with
alarming regularity there's something awfully terribly wrong going on
here.
Know This: Any admin who pays attention to and dignifies USENET-generated
complaints so they can go monkeyspank a "user" is wrong. Dead wrong,
couldn't be more wrong, and if you don't like the way your server is
configured to permit your own users to crosspost or volume post or forge
messages or whatever, that's your problem. I would suggest that any "user"
desirous of hiring an ISP who will not bend over to mobs of netcopping
vigilantes and postmaster@ whiners (i.e., half of USENET apparently), let
alone an ISP who will not dress them down like a small child, should steer
well clear of Insync.
Nine out of ten admins are giving the other one a bad name. Most simply
regard news as a neccessary evil they toss on their services platter
against their own better sense. We've all seen the "your rights end where
my property blah blah" arguments here; the "freedom of the press extends
only to those who yada yadda", "Most people here want it this way," "Choke
on my UDP you clueless idiot", "It's his company and he can run it the way
he yackety yack", "You're a net abuser," "Plonk YOU", "Shut up luser," on
and on and ON.. USENET. It's a bitch, it's unholy, the software sucks, the
spam sucks, censors suck, everything sucks. But nothing sucks as hard as
an admin with no virtue, pouring gas on the flames and choking us all with
the fallout.
Open Letter to Admins: You maintain a transport mechanism. You own a box,
not a process. Keep the box running. Do not impede the process, do not
interfere with the process, do not censor, do not permit undue access, do
not hallucinate "abuse", keep your hands in your pockets and the expire
times high, and procmail non-user complaints to /dev/null: the spice must
flow. How fucking hard can this be?
At least two quite interesting documents, based on far more experience
than any of us here can speak to, have been drawn up to illustrate better
user/user and user/admin relationships. See:
<http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet>
Particularly:
An Alternative Primer on Net Abuse, Free Speech, and USENET
<http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet/freedom.html>
The USENET Site of Virtue FAQ
<http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet/virtue.html>
Let's see more than a couple of newsadmins and their groupies here attempt
to muster that level of respect for what USENET means, and we "users"
might have something to relate to.
-iMp
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Societies have always been shaped more by the nature of the media by
which men communicate than by the content of the communication."
-- Marshall McLuhan, 1967
Albert Nurick
"imPlant", you must really get upset watching Saturday Night Live;
some of their actors IMPERSONATE PEOPLE in the name of satire, much
as happened with RSJ.
You net.kooks really have no sense of perspective.
Harold Stevens ** PLEASE SEE SIG **
In <6nb3ai$8jf$1...@news13.ispnews.com>, Albert Nurick:
Reminds me of the White House Spin Doctors having a hissy fit when Bill
Clinton made his digitized appearance in the movie "Contact" as if most
viewers could mistake a "forged" Bill's character for the real deal.
Fat chance. Seen one impenetrable ego, you've seen them all.
If Slick Willie's Teflon (tm) and stable of attack lawyers cannot get a
sustained public hearing for their "grievance", what credence do Usenet
loons infesting newsgroups expect? Perhaps Mulder plans a shoulder they
can cry on in an "X-Files" sequel, coming to a show Real Soon Now (tm).
Outside making a public spectacle almost hourly, the Kook Kabal flatter
themselves with incestuous importance. Instead of politely having their
fifteen minutes' fame in traditional Usenet immolation rites and taking
their booster seats again at the adult table, they ask for more! What a
pathetic lot the kooks comprise: having to morph their way into groups,
with the same tired paranoia and childish tantrums. Asked to leave, and
come back with something new and mature, they instead spatter the walls
with their junvenile profanity, idle threats, bankrupt halfbaked ideas,
and adolescent grudges. I find most of it disgusting, and boring beyond
expression almost exclusively, even by Usenet standards.
I've had more worthwhile dialogue with some kids at a picnic.
I left these groups for a while, and decided to drop back in. Nothing's
changed and if anything the trolling's gotten worse. As I'm vacationing
over the 4th, I think I'll just unsubscribe again for the duration. The
disgust some Kooks evoke as they trash public fora is just not worth it
personally. As if trollslime care. As of Thursday, I'm outta here if it
makes you Kookies feel any better: one more person feels unwelcome here
in "your" newsgroups, again. How's that for censorship, you lunatics? I
have no interest in trying to shout over the bedlam you cherish. What a
bunch of braying inbred anarchists you demented kooks represent.
Party on, people. The weary good folk in Bosnia expect it of you, too.
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) ** IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO **
1. As antispam, I have completely disabled my "adam" email account.
2. Please vent inconvenience at Cyberpromo and their Satanic spawn.
3. You might try finding (wyrd) at ti, dotted with com. NO UCE/UBE.
4. I detest UCE/UBE. I support CAUCE; http://www.cauce.org HR 1748.
Standard Disclaimer: My opinions alone and not Raytheon TI Systems.
Jerry Robinson
let's see....
1. A "stable of lawyers"....
2. A "hissy of Spin Doctors".....
3. A "Drivel of Posters"......
4. A "credence of Usenet Loons"....
Is this humor I see? Is the cure for Usenet Lunacy unchecked humor?
Jerry Robinson
*Not an ISP Owner & therfore much richer*