Sanford Wallace, You Back-Stabbing Wimp!!! Was: Re: FAX LAW was re: I'M OUT

1 view
Skip to first unread message

twomi...@hotmail.com

unread,
Apr 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/12/98
to


> In article <35338275...@news.mindspring.com>,
> JeffL...@MindSpring.com (Jeffery J. Leader) wrote:
> > Sanford and Rines' focus on the business aspect of the spamming
> > business provides a real wake-up call for many here who refuse to
> > recognize the financial motivations of those who are not immersed in
> > the culture of the net. It keeps people from lapsing into a dangerous
> > false sense of what's happening and what can be done. It's very
> > different from the taunting of an idiot like S.P.

In article <6gqd22$1m4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
anti...@aol.com (Sanford Wallace) wrote:

> Jeff-
>
> That was a *very* good post. I think you hit it on the money.
>
> -Sanford
> Zero miles from ground zero

Sanford Wallace, I have wanted to flame your sorry butt for too long, but now
it is too late. You have a lot of nerve coming here where people have been
defending your sorry, fat butt while you spammed the shit out of USENET, only
to be ostracized by the ENTIRE Internet community, while you collected
millions of dollars exercising your bullshit freedom of speech rights in the
most sordid way--MAKING THE FUCKING USENET SUCK YOUR SHIT WHILE YOU PROFITED
FROM THE SPOILED SPEW!!!

You are the sorry motherfucker who just had your wallet picked of two million
dollars--and rightfully so--while you conned others into believing your
mindless crap about "SPAMMERS RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH!!!"

Now you come in here, kissing the ass of a net-cop like Jeffrey J. Leader, so
you can pull the wool over more eyes before you launch your next spam attack
on the Internet--and dupe other people into thinking that it is your sick,
twisted and damnable 1st amendment right to abuse ISP servers.

I AM SO FUCKING SICK OF SPAM--and sick of you, Sanford, you backstabbing SOB,
because you and the spamming sleaze balls who abuse the Internet have confused
the cause of spammers with the right of free speech.

I'll tell you this, SANFORD, spam is not your right to free speech, and I
intend to kick your spamming butt out of the free speech debate once and for
all if you show your sorry, fat, spamming butt around here again.

Some legislators are being lobbied by ISPs to make what you do a fucking
felony, not a misdemeanor. From now on that is fine with me, Sanford. I have
had to carry the torch for you sleaze ball spammers long enough. Your spam is
not a free speech issue, and every Freedom Knight, and anyone who loves our
right to freedom of speech, should, is or will be entirely offended by your
sniveling cloaking and deceptive misrepresentations and spin that your spam is
protected free speech.

IT AIN'T!!! I AM SO FUCKING SICK OF SPAM AT THE NEWSGROUPS, THAT I ACTUALLY
WANT TO SEE YOUR SORRY BUTT THROWN IN JAIL, where a complimentary bar of Ivory
is kept on the floor of the shower for the initiation of the new inmates.

COME ON, SANFORD, I HAVE HAD IT WITH YOU SPAMMING BOZOS CLAIMING YOUR SPAM IS
PROTECTED FREE SPEECH!!! I'M WAITING FOR YOU TO POST.

SP


> In article <35338275...@news.mindspring.com>,
> JeffL...@MindSpring.com (Jeffery J. Leader) wrote:
> >
> > ob...@best.com (Bob O`Brien) wrote:
> > >This forum is simply not going to be fair to you.
> > >You're not going to be able to get in the last word,
> > >nor show yourself in a good light. No matter if you're right.
> > >Some people here have it in for you, and they can be unreasonable.
> >
> > At first I thought you might be advocating this but now I see you're
> > stating a realistic view. Regrettably, you're probably right. Talk
> > about blowing a great chance...showing that people here are confident
> > enough to openly debate the issue--in a public and archived
> > forum--with the person most closely associated with the opposing point
> > of view. I'm happy to have Sanford post as long as he likes. This
> > really is a win-win situation for us. If we're wrong on something, we
> > learn (I don't consider this terribly likely; perhaps that's an
> > arrogant point of view), and if not, we have the kind of debate we
> > want. If Sanford even takes upan opposing point of view at this
> > point, which isn't clear.
> >
> > Sanford and Rines' focus on the business aspect of the spamming
> > business provides a real wake-up call for many here who refuse to
> > recognize the financial motivations of those who are not immersed in
> > the culture of the net. It keeps people from lapsing into a dangerous
> > false sense of what's happening and what can be done. It's very
> > different from the taunting of an idiot like S.P. It's based in
> > reality, albeit a reality whose philosophy is so different from that
> > of a cooperative venture like USENET and more generally the Internet.
> >
> > >You've recently earned a significant amount of respect
> > >with your words. But there are still many here who distrust you,
> > >and a few who actively dislike you.
> >
> > Most likely almost all distrust Sanford and most dislike him, or at
> > the least dislike what he's done. He certainly has treated the Net
> > with disrespect many times.
> >
> > >I think you should just walk away.
> >
> > You may be right, but that wouldn't be a benefit for us, IMO. It's
> > beneficial to have a feeling for the other sides' motivations and
> > viewpoints. It's helpful...it's intelligence.
> >
> >
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
>


-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

anti...@aol.com

unread,
Apr 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/12/98
to

Did anyone notice that all of the really pathetic flames come from anonymous
sources. If these people are so tough, why don't they at least identify
themselves.

-Sanford
Zero miles from ground zero


In article <6grkmu$out$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

Deil Bland

unread,
Apr 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/12/98
to

In article <6grovt$vd9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <anti...@aol.com> wrote:

>Did anyone notice that all of the really pathetic flames come from anonymous
>sources. If these people are so tough, why don't they at least identify
>themselves.
>
>-Sanford

Well look at who is posting through Deja News from a Bell Atlantic account
but giving a phoney AOL id! Pot, kettle, black. Afraid of a little spam?


--

Deil "The Jackal" Bland |201 confirmed kills
dbland(at)crl(dot)com |So Many Spammers,
Alleged Net Terrorist |So little time!
(http://www.crl.com/~dbland/jackal)

Alexander Viro

unread,
Apr 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/12/98
to

In article <6grscu$5mb$0...@204.179.92.50>,
Bisky <Bi...@TakeThisOut.wilhelp.com> wrote:
> <anti...@aol.com>
>put down a Spam sandwich and wrote:
>> Did anyone notice that all of the really pathetic flames come from anonymous
>> sources. If these people are so tough, why don't they at least identify
>> themselves.
>
>At least they post with valid email addresses, the same cannot be said for you,
>now can it? Besides, morons like you have been known to mailbomb and
>harass.
>
>Sanford, quit trolling or go away.

Bisky, sorry, but look at the post he was replying to. Don't
miss the signature. Whatever valid email address in conjunction with
initials S.P. looks ugly, IMHO. Methinks that the only troll worth
mentioning in that thread is our friend Soiled Pants. Sanford is feeding
the troll, right. But he's not trolling. And to my best knowledge he
didn't played with USENET spam.
To Sanford: ignore S.P. He's troll par excellence. If you want to
watch his previous drivels - look on DejaNews for Soiled Pants or Robert
Byrd. And look on the threads.
To S.P.: Shit, it seemed to me you promised to disappear from
here... Look, there, behind your shoulder! It looks like a library guard!
Run away, fast!

Bisky

unread,
Apr 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/13/98
to

<anti...@aol.com>
put down a Spam sandwich and wrote:
> Did anyone notice that all of the really pathetic flames come from anonymous
> sources. If these people are so tough, why don't they at least identify
> themselves.

At least they post with valid email addresses, the same cannot be said for you,


now can it? Besides, morons like you have been known to mailbomb and
harass.

Sanford, quit trolling or go away.

bisky

--
Cabal Minion, DEAA Net Terrorist
Fight SPAM on the Internet http://www.cauce.org


Henrietta Thomas

unread,
Apr 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/13/98
to

In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on 12 Apr 1998 19:53:30 -0700,
spam...@are.maggots.com (Deil Bland) wrote:

>In article <6grovt$vd9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <anti...@aol.com> wrote:
>

>>Did anyone notice that all of the really pathetic flames come from anonymous
>>sources. If these people are so tough, why don't they at least identify
>>themselves.
>>
>>-Sanford
>

>Well look at who is posting through Deja News from a Bell Atlantic account
>but giving a phoney AOL id! Pot, kettle, black. Afraid of a little spam?

You and Bisky beat me to it in pointing these things out. I note also
that this thread is crossposted to news.admin.censorship. Need I
say more? I'm surprised that some of the regulars here apparently
fell for this troll. Very sad. :-(

Henrietta Thomas
h...@wwa.com


anti...@aol.com

unread,
Apr 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/13/98
to

In article <6grscu$5mb$0...@204.179.92.50>,

Bi...@TakeThisOut.wilhelp.com (Bisky) wrote:
>
> <anti...@aol.com>
> put down a Spam sandwich and wrote:
> > Did anyone notice that all of the really pathetic flames come from anonymous
> > sources. If these people are so tough, why don't they at least identify
> > themselves.
>
> At least they post with valid email addresses, the same cannot be said for you,
> now can it? Besides, morons like you have been known to mailbomb and
> harass.
>
> Sanford, quit trolling or go away.
>
> bisky
>

I tried emailing Bi...@TakeThisOut.wilhelp.com, but it was returned
undeliverable. Oh well, looks look you and I have much in common ;)

-Sanford
Zero miles from ground zero

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----

mal...@dnc.net

unread,
Apr 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/13/98
to

In article <6grovt$vd9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
anti...@aol.com wrote:
> Did anyone notice that all of the really pathetic flames come from anonymous
> sources. If these people are so tough, why don't they at least identify
> themselves.
>
> -Sanford

> > Sanford Wallace, I have wanted to flame your sorry butt for too long, but


> > now it is too late. You have a lot of nerve coming here where people have
> > been defending your sorry, fat butt while you spammed the shit out of

<S.P. drivel snipped>

A heck Sanford, it's just a tired little troll trying to do a DOUBLE dose
of trolling; I'm sure he loves it... he gets so little other amusement.

Mallard

Bisky

unread,
Apr 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/13/98
to

<anti...@aol.com>
put down a Spam sandwich and wrote:
> In article <6grscu$5mb$0...@204.179.92.50>,
> Bi...@TakeThisOut.wilhelp.com (Bisky) wrote:
> >
> > <anti...@aol.com>
> > put down a Spam sandwich and wrote:
> > > Did anyone notice that all of the really pathetic flames come from anonymous
> > > sources. If these people are so tough, why don't they at least identify
> > > themselves.
> >
> > At least they post with valid email addresses, the same cannot be said for you,
> > now can it? Besides, morons like you have been known to mailbomb and
> > harass.
> >
> > Sanford, quit trolling or go away.
> >
> > bisky
> >
>
> I tried emailing Bi...@TakeThisOut.wilhelp.com, but it was returned
> undeliverable. Oh well, looks look you and I have much in common ;)

A) Bi...@wilhelp.com is a valid address, if you can't figure out a
simple munging scheme, I can't help you. Hint: TakeThisOut means
*TAKE THIS OUT*. As it is, spammers have done so and spammed me, but
I'd like to keep the spam load below 20 a day.

B) My posts all show Originator: lau...@magpage.com which is also
a valid address.

IOW, bite me.

Alan Krueger

unread,
Apr 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/13/98
to

In article <6gsvj3$iml$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <anti...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <6grscu$5mb$0...@204.179.92.50>,
> Bi...@TakeThisOut.wilhelp.com (Bisky) wrote:
[...]

>
> I tried emailing Bi...@TakeThisOut.wilhelp.com, but it was returned
> undeliverable.

I'm astounded you've never heard of "munging" one's email address. Try
removing the "TakeThisOut", like it says.

> Oh well, looks look you and I have much in common ;)

(A particular response or three to this are begging to be said, but I'll
hold back, in honor of your apparant reform.)

--
W. Alan Krueger | http://bounce.to/alan-krueger
Software Engineer |-------------------------------------------------------
EXi Corporation | Support the anti-spam bill - http://www.cauce.org/
www.exicorp.com | Why don't spammers use Web sites like the rest of us?

Taki Kogoma

unread,
Apr 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/13/98
to

Bi...@TakeThisOut.wilhelp.com (Bisky) is alleged to have submitted
message <6gtedu$4jv$0...@204.179.92.50> to news.admin.net-abuse.email:
[In response to anti...@aol.com]
>IOW, bite me.

I sincerely hope you've had your shots.

--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk -- quirk @ swcp.com | "I'll get a life when someone
(Known to some as Taki Kogoma) | demonstrates that it would be
Retired 'Secret Master of | superior to what I have now."
rec.arts.startrek' | -- Gym Quirk

Secret Master of the Internet Cabal

unread,
Apr 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/13/98
to

Alan Krueger wrote:
>
> In article <6gsvj3$iml$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <anti...@aol.com> wrote:
> > In article <6grscu$5mb$0...@204.179.92.50>,
> >
> > I tried emailing Bi...@TakeThisOut.wilhelp.com, but it was returned
> > undeliverable.
>
> > Oh well, looks look you and I have much in common ;)
>
> (A particular response or three to this are begging to be said, but I'll
> hold back, in honor of your apparant reform.)

ITYM "alleged" rahter than "apparant."

HTH HAND

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages