Need Help With Newsgroup Spew (Romath)

4 views
Skip to first unread message

the_mighty_balloo

unread,
May 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/9/99
to
Dr.Watson AT TheOffice.net escribió en artículo:
¸ balloo (the_mighty_balloo) wrote:

¸ > GAH! She just won't stop!
¸
¸ I would stop if the moron element left alt.romath alone. If they do, I
¸ will-- if they do not, I won't.

You do realize that you're making it permissable for anyone to 3rd party
cancel your articles, don't you? If you don't include some unique content
to these individually prepared imitations of 'bot spew with which you insist
on deluging usenet then these people you so strongly oppose will have the
right to cancel your articles.

And I'm about at the point of telling them how.

If you're curious as to the veracity of my statements, I suggest you inquire
with any of the legitimate despammers in nanau. (I hope you knew you were
cross posting to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.) Some of the more respected
members of this community include Chris Lewis, Andrew Gierth, Russ Alberry,
Rebecca Ore, Stephen Boursy and David Formosa. Please contact any of these
noted usenet experts for information or verification.

--
mhm15x1
Benjamin D. Capoeman
bal...@REMOVE.penis.dot.com.dot.net.com

"Cascading is the crack of Usenet."
-MediCat, mhm23x23

Joshua Kramer

unread,
May 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/9/99
to
In article <CjjZ2.16165$362....@news.rdc1.bc.wave.home.com>,
bal...@REMOVE.penis.dot.com.dot.net.com (the_mighty_balloo) wrote:

> Dr.Watson AT TheOffice.net escribió en artículo:
> ¸ balloo (the_mighty_balloo) wrote:
>
> ¸ > GAH! She just won't stop!
> ¸
> ¸ I would stop if the moron element left alt.romath alone. If they do, I
> ¸ will-- if they do not, I won't.
>
> You do realize that you're making it permissable for anyone to 3rd party
> cancel your articles, don't you? If you don't include some unique content
> to these individually prepared imitations of 'bot spew with which you insist
> on deluging usenet then these people you so strongly oppose will have the
> right to cancel your articles.
>
> And I'm about at the point of telling them how.

Don't mock me, I already know how.

--
Joshua B. Kramer, (Currently located - Bozo Bin) joshk...@iname.com
Knight of the Ancient Garter of Romath (WE ARE ALL ROMATH)
Don't try making me look like the fol, because you'll never succeed.
-Romath in <37276af5...@news.vianet.on.ca>

Romath

unread,
May 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/9/99
to
On Sun, 09 May 1999 17:09:54 GMT,
bal...@REMOVE.penis.dot.com.dot.net.com (the_mighty_balloo) wrote:

>You do realize that you're making it permissable for anyone to 3rd party
>cancel your articles, don't you? If you don't include some unique content
>to these individually prepared imitations of 'bot spew with which you insist
>on deluging usenet then these people you so strongly oppose will have the
>right to cancel your articles.
>
>And I'm about at the point of telling them how.
>

>If you're curious as to the veracity of my statements, I suggest you inquire
>with any of the legitimate despammers in nanau. (I hope you knew you were
>cross posting to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.) Some of the more respected
>members of this community include Chris Lewis, Andrew Gierth, Russ Alberry,
>Rebecca Ore, Stephen Boursy and David Formosa. Please contact any of these
>noted usenet experts for information or verification.

**Then they should all be cancelled as well, since I am merely
replying to their drivel.
Why is it then-- that when I asked a legitimate questionabout having
their interfenece stopped, all I got was idle threats and more
accusations------- yet when I reply back to the moron element, you
claim I can be cancelled?
That makes no sense---
Literally, what you are saying is that it's okay for them to flame me,
but not okay for me to reply.
That is censorship.


Romath

unread,
May 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/9/99
to
On Sun, 09 May 1999 13:40:11 -0400, joshk...@iname.com (Joshua
Kramer) wrote:

>In article <CjjZ2.16165$362....@news.rdc1.bc.wave.home.com>,
>bal...@REMOVE.penis.dot.com.dot.net.com (the_mighty_balloo) wrote:

>> And I'm about at the point of telling them how.
>

>Don't mock me, I already know how.
>
>--
> Joshua B. Kramer, (Currently located - Bozo Bin)


In other words, then you both are admitting to cancelling people's
posts BASED ON CONTENT right?
Now-- since you insist on spam not being taken into consideration as
regards content----- what YOU are doing is far mor censorial than
anything you have ever accuse me of diong.
There is indeed a double standard here----
I see the morons posting their crap, NEVER snipping lines from the
originals, and constantly posting mile-long bloody 'siglines'---- the
SAME EVERY DAY...
Yet-- you don't threaten to cancel their messages, do you?
If what you say is true, theirs would have been autobotted some time
ago, would they not?
Again, it's your double standard.
You speak of 'original content' ---- yet, I am snipping the crap, and
adding my own lines--- but you claim my posts are all repetition----
what about their constant repetition?
What about their constant, intentional crossposting?
Making up a set of rules for one is a very censoring thing--

romath

§ergi

unread,
May 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/9/99
to
On Sun, 09 May 1999 21:03:56 GMT, no-spa...@no-spam-or-else.invalid
(Romath) wrote:

>On Sun, 09 May 1999 17:09:54 GMT,
>bal...@REMOVE.penis.dot.com.dot.net.com (the_mighty_balloo) wrote:
>
>>You do realize that you're making it permissable for anyone to 3rd party
>>cancel your articles, don't you? If you don't include some unique content
>>to these individually prepared imitations of 'bot spew with which you insist
>>on deluging usenet then these people you so strongly oppose will have the
>>right to cancel your articles.
>>

>>And I'm about at the point of telling them how.
>>

>>If you're curious as to the veracity of my statements, I suggest you inquire
>>with any of the legitimate despammers in nanau. (I hope you knew you were
>>cross posting to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.) Some of the more respected
>>members of this community include Chris Lewis, Andrew Gierth, Russ Alberry,
>>Rebecca Ore, Stephen Boursy and David Formosa. Please contact any of these
>>noted usenet experts for information or verification.


>**Then they should all be cancelled as well, since I am merely
>replying to their drivel.

No.

>Why is it then-- that when I asked a legitimate questionabout having
>their interfenece stopped, all I got was idle threats and more
>accusations------- yet when I reply back to the moron element, you
>claim I can be cancelled?

Because you are a waste of bandwidth and no one takes you seriously.

>That makes no sense---

Yes it does.

>Literally, what you are saying is that it's okay for them to flame me,
>but not okay for me to reply.

Yes. Since you are a peon, a different set of rules applies to you.

>That is censorship.

Live with it.
>
>
[to anyone with a clue that may be reading this: don't bother trying
to explain to her why her spew is cancelable spam. She won't get it.]

--
Lord §ergi of FluffyLand, KOTAGOR XXX
(bagde #e924387jsy928t6) PSL#24 BBOH #2
"alt.romath : The Studio 54 of USENET"
New Scotland Imperial Senator & Duke of Earls
President, alt.romath Gentleman's Club
ser...@hotmail.com
"Fuck the four line .sig rule."

_______. _______ .______ _______ __
/ || ____|| _ \ / _____|| |
| (----`| |__ | |_) | | | __ | |
\ \ | __| | / | | |_ | | |
.----) | | |____ | |\ \----.| |__| | | |
|_______/ |_______|| _| `._____| \______| |__|

-.- --- - .- --. --- .-. -..- -..- -..-


"As I stated in another message, these people are exact duplicates of the
group in Colorado that went on a killing spree."
-Vernon O compares the Romathians to mass murderers
<7fq8ea$t99$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com>

"get a grip on reality, sodomite.
You are lying, and you know it. Stop the blaspheming."
-Romath's sensitivity classes are paying off
<37275502...@news.vianet.on.ca>

"Now damn it, I want my own pedophile group just like bucky boy has.
Today!!"
-Richard <P_SV2.11572$cq2.7...@newscene.newscene.com>

"Ah, I see we are being helpful today. Please go away, keep quiet, or
stay on topic. And cut down your sig - it exceeds four lines."
-Tina Holmboe <7gnr8a$30l$1...@mimir.ifi.uio.no>

"HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How does this newsgroup work?
Are there any hot chicks out there in the IOWA area??!!"
-Some luser on acadia.chat
<01be975c$128d7b40$d40c...@rt1978.netins.net>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
AssNipple Publications, Copyright © 1999

New York London Sydney Toronto
Mexico City San Fransisco Tokyo
Madrid Montreal Caracas Milan
Nagoya Austin

Joshua Kramer

unread,
May 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/9/99
to
In article <3735ff45...@news.vianet.on.ca>, Dr.Watson AT
TheOffice.net wrote:

> On Sun, 09 May 1999 13:40:11 -0400, joshk...@iname.com (Joshua
> Kramer) wrote:
>
> >In article <CjjZ2.16165$362....@news.rdc1.bc.wave.home.com>,
> >bal...@REMOVE.penis.dot.com.dot.net.com (the_mighty_balloo) wrote:

> >> And I'm about at the point of telling them how.
> >

> >Don't mock me, I already know how.
> >
> >--
> > Joshua B. Kramer, (Currently located - Bozo Bin)
>
>
> In other words, then you both are admitting to cancelling people's
> posts BASED ON CONTENT right?

No, fuckwit, I'm saying I know how to.

> Now-- since you insist on spam not being taken into consideration as
> regards content----- what YOU are doing is far mor censorial than
> anything you have ever accuse me of diong.

No, fuckwit, I'm saying that you are far, far over BI = 20.

> There is indeed a double standard here----

Spammers like you get canceled. Trollers like me laugh.

> I see the morons posting their crap, NEVER snipping lines from the
> originals, and constantly posting mile-long bloody 'siglines'---- the
> SAME EVERY DAY...

But with such funny content

> Yet-- you don't threaten to cancel their messages, do you?

They don't post the same thing many times/

> If what you say is true, theirs would have been autobotted some time
> ago, would they not?

No, they post hashbuster messages. You post the same damn thing. Every
time.

> Again, it's your double standard.
> You speak of 'original content' ---- yet, I am snipping the crap, and
> adding my own lines--- but you claim my posts are all repetition----

The same damn lines.

> what about their constant repetition?

They are not repetitious in an absolute sense. You are posting the same
text many times, hag.

> What about their constant, intentional crossposting?

Crossposting is good - it's not abuse of the net, like your multiposting.

> Making up a set of rules for one is a very censoring thing--

Oh no.

--

the_mighty_balloo

unread,
May 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/9/99
to
Dr.Watson AT TheOffice.net escribió en artículo:
¸ balloo (the_mighty_balloo) wrote:
¸
¸ > You do realize that you're making it permissable for anyone to 3rd party
¸ > cancel your articles, don't you? If you don't include some unique content
¸ > to these individually prepared imitations of 'bot spew with which you insist
¸ > on deluging usenet then these people you so strongly oppose will have the
¸ > right to cancel your articles.
¸ >
¸ > And I'm about at the point of telling them how.
¸ >
¸ > If you're curious as to the veracity of my statements, I suggest you inquire

¸ > with any of the legitimate despammers in nanau. (I hope you knew you were
¸ > cross posting to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.) Some of the more respected
¸ > members of this community include Chris Lewis, Andrew Gierth, Russ Alberry,
¸ > Rebecca Ore, Stephen Boursy and David Formosa. Please contact any of these
¸ > noted usenet experts for information or verification.
¸
¸ **Then they should all be cancelled as well, since I am merely
¸ replying to their drivel.

Once again, the articles that you call "drivel" are all unique usenet posts.
As such, they are not cancelable. Your rote responses to them are all
essentially identical, and appear to be written to set off spam detectors.

¸ Why is it then-- that when I asked a legitimate questionabout having


¸ their interfenece stopped, all I got was idle threats and more
¸ accusations------- yet when I reply back to the moron element, you
¸ claim I can be cancelled?

Because 3rd party cancels are required to be content blind. Even if
they are "off topic," whatever that may be, (no one has a working definition
that makes a majority of usenet posters happy,) there is no mechanism for
their legitimate cancelation. THAT would be censorship.

¸ That makes no sense---
¸ Literally, what you are saying is that it's okay for them to flame me,


¸ but not okay for me to reply.

There is nothing preventing you from replying with original, unique
articles save perhaps your own lack of imagination. It is only when
you repeat an essentially similar message over and over again that it
falls under the accepted definitions of spam and becomes cancelable.

¸ That is censorship.

You are not censored for saying something once. Under the current
system, you can cross post a single message to 399 different newsgroups
and still be under the BI>20 limit. But posting that same essentially
similar message to a single newsgroup twenty times is BI=20. This is
not about what you say, it's about how much of the communal news spool
you're taking up to say it. Some of your articles have a BI in triple
figures, Elaine. This isn't high abuse of the system, but it isn't
borderline either. You are clearly across the line and begging for
cancelation in many instances.

Romath

unread,
May 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/9/99
to
On Sun, 09 May 1999 14:46:48 -0400, joshk...@iname.com (Joshua
Kramer) wrote:


>> In other words, then you both are admitting to cancelling people's
>> posts BASED ON CONTENT right?
>
>No, fuckwit, I'm saying I know how to.

**You admitted to before on other posts--- and I see, of course, you
still cannot post without the ever-famous 'fuckwit' stupid
expresson--- but in cancelling posts as you and ballou menton, you ARE
cancelling illegally, and doing so based on content alone.
When I requested info on thirdparty cancels, I did so for a legitimate
reason---- that of removing harrassing posts from alt.romath only.

>> Now-- since you insist on spam not being taken into consideration as
>> regards content----- what YOU are doing is far mor censorial than
>> anything you have ever accuse me of diong.
>
>No, fuckwit, I'm saying that you are far, far over BI = 20.

**Then you must be also, considering that nearly every post you make
contains :fuckwit:


>> There is indeed a double standard here----
>
>Spammers like you get canceled. Trollers like me laugh.

**No-- what youand ballou are doing is illegal.
You are a troll--- you call me a spammer, which I'm not--- hell of a
difference, fella-- hell of a difference.

>> I see the morons posting their crap, NEVER snipping lines from the
>> originals, and constantly posting mile-long bloody 'siglines'---- the
>> SAME EVERY DAY...
>
>But with such funny content

**Who cvares? The content is the SAME---- in NUMEROUS posts--- in AL
of theirs, for that matter, where stolen lines are concerned. So--
THEY are also well over that magic number aren't they?
Yet-- no one threatened to cancel their messages, did they?

>> Yet-- you don't threaten to cancel their messages, do you?
>They don't post the same thing many times/

**Yes they do-- look at their siglines, for one example----- all
stolen lines, and they've been using them for weeks, all the SAME
every day.

>> If what you say is true, theirs would have been autobotted some time
>> ago, would they not?
>
>No, they post hashbuster messages. You post the same damn thing. >Every time.

Wrong---- I post in response to their stupidity--- using many
different words.
So how can you or ballou claim my posts are all the same?


>They are not repetitious in an absolute sense. You are posting the >same text many times, hag.

bullshit-- schoolkid. They ARE posting the same repetitions in the
absolute sense.
You're just lying to cover their asses.

>> What about their constant, intentional crossposting?
>Crossposting is good - it's not abuse of the net, like your multiposting.

^^Uh huh---- when they post, it's crossposting, which is 'good'-- when
I post, it's multi--- pure BS
When I delete un-necessary header names from the addy lines, I preven
EMP--- but they, in turn purposely ADD 'em back in----- yet you praise
their tactics.....
When I reply to them , leaving the same number of header addies as
they had in the original, I'm supposedly multiposting.
You lie.


>> Making up a set of rules for one is a very censoring thing--
>Oh no.

Oh, YES.
Your explanation sucks-----
I also asked Ballou to contact me by email, which on checking so far,
I've seen nothing---


the_mighty_balloo

unread,
May 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/9/99
to
Dr.Watson AT TheOffice.net escribió en artículo:
¸ On Sun, 09 May 1999 13:40:11 -0400, joshk...@iname.com (Joshua
¸ Kramer) wrote:
¸
¸ >In article <CjjZ2.16165$362....@news.rdc1.bc.wave.home.com>,

¸ >bal...@REMOVE.penis.dot.com.dot.net.com (the_mighty_balloo) wrote:
¸ >> And I'm about at the point of telling them how.
¸ >
¸ >Don't mock me, I already know how.
¸
¸ In other words, then you both are admitting to cancelling people's

¸ posts BASED ON CONTENT right?

The only cancelations I have ever done to third party posts have been
'bot spew, with the exception of an idiot in alt.drugs.hard who cut
and pasted annoying articles for ten hours a day for over a week to
imitate 'bot spew, some of which I also canceled. Joshua didn't say
he'd ever canceled anything, only that he knew how. And to the best
of my knowlege, your own posts which are well over BI>20 have been
left alone. Legitimate despammers are very hesitant to use their
cancelbots, because any mistakes made by these automated programs
could quite unintentionally censor legitimate articles. No one wants
to fire up a cancelbot in the UPA and meower newsgroups to cancel
your BI>20 articles, Elaine. If you'd stop posting them I could go
outside and play with my tomato plants. But you seem to want to play
"whose dick is the biggest" with the meowers, and they're trolling
you into cancelation territory.

¸ Now-- since you insist on spam not being taken into consideration as


¸ regards content----- what YOU are doing is far mor censorial than
¸ anything you have ever accuse me of diong.

It's your choice to post the stuff, Elaine. I've never canceled
anything you've written, and all I've said is that if someone were
to start canceling it today then they would be within their rights
to do so. The reason I've said so, deliberately in threads that
you're participating in, is so that you might seriously consider
ceasing your newsgroup disrupting activities. YES I know others
are disrupting newsgroups, but they aren't doing anything cancelable.
Not only are they not doing anything cancelable, but your own actions
in replying to them legitimizes the meowers in the eyes of usenet
system administrators. If they see a newsgroup being bombarded,
but not replying to the newsgroup invaders, then they know who the
innocent party is. When they see you going toe to toe with the
meowers, they'll assume that you are eagerly participating in a
flame war, and that your BI>20 articles are abusive attempts at
flooding a newsgroup as a flame war tactic.

¸ There is indeed a double standard here----
¸ I see the morons posting their crap, NEVER snipping lines from the


¸ originals, and constantly posting mile-long bloody 'siglines'---- the
¸ SAME EVERY DAY...

That's because they are following the rules. Quoted material is
not considered in calculating the Briedbart Index, and neither are
.sig files.

¸ Yet-- you don't threaten to cancel their messages, do you?

They've very carefully (and responsibly) kept their articles under
the BI>20 limit. Threatening them with cancelation would be censorship,
and would have no support from the system administrators of usenet.

¸ If what you say is true, theirs would have been autobotted some time
¸ ago, would they not?

No. Not if their messages were all original unique content.

¸ Again, it's your double standard.

It's a single standard, it's called the Briedbart Index, and you
should learn what it is if you want to continue flaiming with the
big boys on usenet.

¸ You speak of 'original content' ---- yet, I am snipping the crap, and
¸ adding my own lines--- but you claim my posts are all repetition----
¸ what about their constant repetition?

Quoted material and .sig files are not considered when calculating
the Briedbart Index for any single message. As far as the BI goes,
they are NOT repeating anything. And not all of your posts are
repetitious, but many of them are.

¸ What about their constant, intentional crossposting?

The BI is skewed in favor of crossposting, as an article crossposted
to forty newsgroups is only stored once on each servers news spool.

¸ Making up a set of rules for one is a very censoring thing--

The rules were there before you started breaking them, Elaine.
Continuing to break them after you've been repeatedly warned
against doing so (and I'm watching my own BI here, heh heh) is
not likely to win you much sympathy in nanau.

Romath

unread,
May 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/9/99
to
On Sun, 09 May 1999 18:52:43 GMT,
bal...@REMOVE.penis.dot.com.dot.net.com (the_mighty_balloo) wrote:

>Dr.Watson AT TheOffice.net escribió en artículo:

>¸ balloo (the_mighty_balloo) wrote:

>¸ > You do realize that you're making it permissable for anyone to 3rd party
>¸ > cancel your articles, don't you? If you don't include some unique content
>¸ > to these individually prepared imitations of 'bot spew with which you insist
>¸ > on deluging usenet then these people you so strongly oppose will have the
>¸ > right to cancel your articles.
>¸ >

>¸ > And I'm about at the point of telling them how.
>¸ >

>¸ > If you're curious as to the veracity of my statements, I suggest you inquire
>¸ > with any of the legitimate despammers in nanau. (I hope you knew you were
>¸ > cross posting to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.) Some of the more respected
>¸ > members of this community include Chris Lewis, Andrew Gierth, Russ Alberry,
>¸ > Rebecca Ore, Stephen Boursy and David Formosa. Please contact any of these
>¸ > noted usenet experts for information or verification.

>¸ **Then they should all be cancelled as well, since I am merely
>¸ replying to their drivel.
>
>Once again, the articles that you call "drivel" are all unique usenet posts.
>As such, they are not cancelable. Your rote responses to them are all

>essentially identical, and appear to be written to set off spam detectors.
**They are written with one thing in mind--- as REPLIES.
It seems awfully strange to me that THEY can post what they like, when
they like--- and waste all kinds of space, purposely crossposting, and
even re-adding in ng headers when I purposely REMOVE them to prevent
crossposting----- yet it's me you choose to squawk on about-----


>¸ Why is it then-- that when I asked a legitimate questionabout having
>¸ their interfenece stopped, all I got was idle threats and more
>¸ accusations------- yet when I reply back to the moron element, you
>¸ claim I can be cancelled?
>
>Because 3rd party cancels are required to be content blind.

**Fine--- then WHY are you carrying on about threatening to cancel
mine?
You are obviously admitting to checking up on content---- and I'm
sorry, but you're wrong-- my posts are NOT the same--- their contents
vary from post to post.
But you imply that by saying ROTFL! or WRONG! in more than one post is
EMP---- I ask again--- WHAT ABOUT THEIR CONSTANT USE OF STOLEN LINES
IN EVERY POST THEY MAKE?

My cure for it would be simple----- REMOVE ALT.ROMATH.

That's what I requested months ago---- but it never got done.
Remove the ng entirely, and I'll be happy---- so will you.
Not just from one or two servers, no--- but remove it entirely--- from
the internet.

> Even if
>they are "off topic," whatever that may be, (no one has a working definition
>that makes a majority of usenet posters happy,) there is no mechanism for
>their legitimate cancelation. THAT would be censorship.

**so why are you complaining about my posts then? Maybe my posts don't
make you or them happy-- but it does make others happy---
you are still labelling, and censoring me--

>¸ That makes no sense---
>¸ Literally, what you are saying is that it's okay for them to flame me,
>¸ but not okay for me to reply.
>
>There is nothing preventing you from replying with original, unique
>articles save perhaps your own lack of imagination. It is only when
>you repeat an essentially similar message over and over again that it
>falls under the accepted definitions of spam and becomes cancelable.

**One or two words I often repeat--- not entire messages over and
over.
Are you referring to the ones with "usual drivel removed" perhaps?

>You are not censored for saying something once. Under the current
>system, you can cross post a single message to 399 different newsgroups
>and still be under the BI>20 limit. But posting that same essentially
>similar message to a single newsgroup twenty times is BI=20. This is
>not about what you say, it's about how much of the communal news spool
>you're taking up to say it. Some of your articles have a BI in triple
>figures, Elaine. This isn't high abuse of the system, but it isn't
>borderline either. You are clearly across the line and begging for
>cancelation in many instances.

**Okay, I get what you are saying here----- in other words, if I
posted "Thank you!" once, crossposting to 399 different ng's, you say
that's fine, and I still have a BI of 20----
But-- If I post "Thank you!" in say, fifteen messages in the same ng,
Ive got a BI of 15, and that is where you'd be on my ass for socalled
EMP, right?

The thingI'm questioning is this:
There are many in the SAME ng---- who are posting the SAME crap in
their 3/4 page length 'siglines' ----- in EVERY message.
tweny-five, thirty messages easily in one day----- THAT would give
them A BI OF 25 - 30 accordsing to what you just said------
why do you not threaten to cancel THEIR messages?

You are threatening me, merely because you hate the fact that I'm on
to their game, and have been giving them a good run lately---
Fair is fair---- and you're being totally unfair by threatening to
cancel one, and not the other.


Romath

unread,
May 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/9/99
to
On Sun, 09 May 1999 19:23:25 GMT,
bal...@REMOVE.penis.dot.com.dot.net.com (the_mighty_balloo) wrote:

>The reason I've said so, deliberately in threads that
>you're participating in, is so that you might seriously consider
>ceasing your newsgroup disrupting activities.

**But I am not the disruptor here -- they are--- how can UI be the one
at falut when it is THEM who are doing the infiltrating, the
intentional crossposting, etc.
I have purposely removed all manner of headers from the ng's lists in
replying--- and THEY go right AHEAD AND ADD 'EM BACK IN.
Seems more to me that you are simply saying that I should let them
walk all over me, but I should never have the right to reply back to
them.


> YES I know others
>are disrupting newsgroups, but they aren't doing anything cancelable.

^^How not? They are STILL using stolen lines, and constantly reposting
those SAME lines.

>Not only are they not doing anything cancelable, but your own actions
>in replying to them legitimizes the meowers in the eyes of usenet
>system administrators. If they see a newsgroup being bombarded,
>but not replying to the newsgroup invaders, then they know who the
>innocent party is. When they see you going toe to toe with the
>meowers, they'll assume that you are eagerly participating in a
>flame war, and that your BI>20 articles are abusive attempts at
>flooding a newsgroup as a flame war tactic.

**I've tried the ignoring them routine-- the fools still hung
around---- so, I turn another tactic, and decide to reply-- now you
say I'm egging THEM on---
THEY are the flamewar starters--- not me---

>¸ There is indeed a double standard here----
>¸ I see the morons posting their crap, NEVER snipping lines from the
>¸ originals, and constantly posting mile-long bloody 'siglines'---- the
>¸ SAME EVERY DAY...
>
>That's because they are following the rules. Quoted material is
>not considered in calculating the Briedbart Index, and neither are

>sig files.
**BUT they are not real sig files---
fine-- fine---- I can work around the little minor obstacles you are
trying to set me up for-----


§ergi

unread,
May 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/9/99
to
On Sun, 09 May 1999 19:23:25 GMT,
bal...@REMOVE.penis.dot.com.dot.net.com (the_mighty_balloo) wrote:

>Dr.Watson AT TheOffice.net escribió en artículo:

>¸ On Sun, 09 May 1999 13:40:11 -0400, joshk...@iname.com (Joshua
>¸ Kramer) wrote:

>¸ >In article <CjjZ2.16165$362....@news.rdc1.bc.wave.home.com>,
>¸ >bal...@REMOVE.penis.dot.com.dot.net.com (the_mighty_balloo) wrote:

>¸ >> And I'm about at the point of telling them how.
>¸ >

>¸ >Don't mock me, I already know how.

>¸ In other words, then you both are admitting to cancelling people's
>¸ posts BASED ON CONTENT right?
>
>The only cancelations I have ever done to third party posts have been
>'bot spew, with the exception of an idiot in alt.drugs.hard who cut
>and pasted annoying articles for ten hours a day for over a week to
>imitate 'bot spew, some of which I also canceled. Joshua didn't say
>he'd ever canceled anything, only that he knew how. And to the best
>of my knowlege, your own posts which are well over BI>20 have been
>left alone. Legitimate despammers are very hesitant to use their
>cancelbots, because any mistakes made by these automated programs
>could quite unintentionally censor legitimate articles. No one wants
>to fire up a cancelbot in the UPA and meower newsgroups to cancel
>your BI>20 articles, Elaine. If you'd stop posting them I could go
>outside and play with my tomato plants. But you seem to want to play
>"whose dick is the biggest" with the meowers, and they're trolling
>you into cancelation territory.
>
>¸ Now-- since you insist on spam not being taken into consideration as
>¸ regards content----- what YOU are doing is far mor censorial than
>¸ anything you have ever accuse me of diong.
>
>It's your choice to post the stuff, Elaine. I've never canceled
>anything you've written, and all I've said is that if someone were
>to start canceling it today then they would be within their rights

>to do so. The reason I've said so, deliberately in threads that


>you're participating in, is so that you might seriously consider

>ceasing your newsgroup disrupting activities. YES I know others


>are disrupting newsgroups, but they aren't doing anything cancelable.

>Not only are they not doing anything cancelable, but your own actions
>in replying to them legitimizes the meowers in the eyes of usenet
>system administrators.

There's a world of difference between what we do and what Elaine has
been doing. We say things that are annoying to some people; Elaine
has been attempting to disrupt our group by flooding it with those
"drivel removed" messages. What she is doing is not much different
than the people who bot flood a.r.scientology.

>If they see a newsgroup being bombarded,
>but not replying to the newsgroup invaders, then they know who the
>innocent party is.

Especially when our articles are unique in content, and even on topic
for the groups they are crossposted to. And "invaded" really isn't a
very good word, since everyone has just as much right to post to a
group as anyone else. Just because the regulars of a group don't like
what they see from UPA's doesn't make it abuse.

Chicago Nagoya Austin

§ergi

unread,
May 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/9/99
to
On Sun, 09 May 1999 19:23:25 GMT,
bal...@REMOVE.penis.dot.com.dot.net.com (the_mighty_balloo) wrote:

>Dr.Watson AT TheOffice.net escribió en artículo:
>¸ On Sun, 09 May 1999 13:40:11 -0400, joshk...@iname.com (Joshua
>¸ Kramer) wrote:

>¸ >In article <CjjZ2.16165$362....@news.rdc1.bc.wave.home.com>,
>¸ >bal...@REMOVE.penis.dot.com.dot.net.com (the_mighty_balloo) wrote:
>¸ >> And I'm about at the point of telling them how.
>¸ >
>¸ >Don't mock me, I already know how.

>¸ In other words, then you both are admitting to cancelling people's
>¸ posts BASED ON CONTENT right?
>
>The only cancelations I have ever done to third party posts have been
>'bot spew, with the exception of an idiot in alt.drugs.hard who cut
>and pasted annoying articles for ten hours a day for over a week to
>imitate 'bot spew, some of which I also canceled. Joshua didn't say
>he'd ever canceled anything, only that he knew how. And to the best
>of my knowlege, your own posts which are well over BI>20 have been
>left alone. Legitimate despammers are very hesitant to use their
>cancelbots, because any mistakes made by these automated programs
>could quite unintentionally censor legitimate articles. No one wants
>to fire up a cancelbot in the UPA and meower newsgroups to cancel
>your BI>20 articles, Elaine. If you'd stop posting them I could go
>outside and play with my tomato plants.

Thanks for reminding me that my peppers need watering.

>But you seem to want to play
>"whose dick is the biggest" with the meowers, and they're trolling
>you into cancelation territory.
>
>¸ Now-- since you insist on spam not being taken into consideration as
>¸ regards content----- what YOU are doing is far mor censorial than
>¸ anything you have ever accuse me of diong.
>
>It's your choice to post the stuff, Elaine. I've never canceled
>anything you've written, and all I've said is that if someone were
>to start canceling it today then they would be within their rights
>to do so. The reason I've said so, deliberately in threads that
>you're participating in, is so that you might seriously consider
>ceasing your newsgroup disrupting activities. YES I know others
>are disrupting newsgroups, but they aren't doing anything cancelable.
>Not only are they not doing anything cancelable, but your own actions
>in replying to them legitimizes the meowers in the eyes of usenet

>system administrators. If they see a newsgroup being bombarded,


>but not replying to the newsgroup invaders, then they know who the

>innocent party is. When they see you going toe to toe with the
>meowers, they'll assume that you are eagerly participating in a
>flame war, and that your BI>20 articles are abusive attempts at
>flooding a newsgroup as a flame war tactic.
>

>¸ There is indeed a double standard here----
>¸ I see the morons posting their crap, NEVER snipping lines from the
>¸ originals, and constantly posting mile-long bloody 'siglines'---- the
>¸ SAME EVERY DAY...
>
>That's because they are following the rules. Quoted material is
>not considered in calculating the Briedbart Index, and neither are
>sig files.
>

the_mighty_balloo

unread,
May 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/9/99
to
Dr.Watson AT TheOffice.net escribió en artículo:
¸ joshk...@iname.com (Joshua Kramer) wrote:
¸
¸ >> In other words, then you both are admitting to cancelling people's
¸ >> posts BASED ON CONTENT right?
¸ >
¸ >No, fuckwit, I'm saying I know how to.

¸
¸ **You admitted to before on other posts--- and I see, of course, you
¸ still cannot post without the ever-famous 'fuckwit' stupid
¸ expresson--- but in cancelling posts as you and ballou menton, you ARE
¸ cancelling illegally, and doing so based on content alone.

Aside from the fact that NO ONE HAS CANCELED ANYTHING yet, you're
wrong. A large number of your posted articles are far in excess of
the Briedbart Index limit that is used to judge cancelable spam. I
personally have a strong distaste for the current system of 3rd party
cancels, but an even stronger distaste for people who deliberately
abuse the system as you've been doing for the last several weeks.

¸ When I requested info on thirdparty cancels, I did so for a legitimate


¸ reason---- that of removing harrassing posts from alt.romath only.

Which would have been censorship, which is why no one helped you to
perform 3rd party cancels. Just because you got YOUR panties in a
bunch doesn't mean that system abuse was performed. If you don't
like being incinerated, don't participate in flame wars. You're
every bit as guilty of harrassment as your corespondents, Elaine.

¸ >> Now-- since you insist on spam not being taken into consideration as
¸ >> regards content----- what YOU are doing is far mor censorial than
¸ >> anything you have ever accuse me of diong.

¸ >
¸ >No, fuckwit, I'm saying that you are far, far over BI = 20.


¸
¸ **Then you must be also, considering that nearly every post you make
¸ contains :fuckwit:

BI's are not calculated on single words used in unique messages, Elaine.

¸ >> There is indeed a double standard here----
¸ >

¸ >Spammers like you get canceled. Trollers like me laugh.


¸
¸ **No-- what youand ballou are doing is illegal.

Right now all I've done is take the time out to explain current
usenet policy to you, for which you appear to be ungrateful and
disdainful.

¸ You are a troll--- you call me a spammer, which I'm not--- hell of a


¸ difference, fella-- hell of a difference.

That difference will be far more apparent when people get sick of
trying to be nice and explain things to you, and just start canceling
your BI>20 articles. I have a nasty feeling that eventuality is
what you're shooting for. You're deliberately trolling respectable
system administrators into canceling your spam to give you an excuse
for further system abuse.

¸ >> I see the morons posting their crap, NEVER snipping lines from the
¸ >> originals, and constantly posting mile-long bloody 'siglines'---- the
¸ >> SAME EVERY DAY...

¸ >
¸ >But with such funny content


¸
¸ **Who cvares? The content is the SAME---- in NUMEROUS posts--- in AL
¸ of theirs, for that matter, where stolen lines are concerned. So--
¸ THEY are also well over that magic number aren't they?
¸ Yet-- no one threatened to cancel their messages, did they?

They aren't BI>20. I've written you before, at the address you
published in many usenet articles, and received an automated response
saying that you were busy fighting spam but had received my email.
I carefully explained to you the way the Briedbart Index is calculated
for usenet articles, and why it was not applicable to the people whose
articles you wished to have canceled.

¸ >> Yet-- you don't threaten to cancel their messages, do you?
¸ >

¸ >They don't post the same thing many times/


¸
¸ **Yes they do-- look at their siglines, for one example----- all
¸ stolen lines, and they've been using them for weeks, all the SAME
¸ every day.

sig files are not considered to be messages, and so are not considered
when calculating any particular messages BI.

¸ >> If what you say is true, theirs would have been autobotted some time
¸ >> ago, would they not?

¸ >
¸ >No, they post hashbuster messages. You post the same damn thing.
¸ >Every time.
¸
¸ Wrong---- I post in response to their stupidity--- using many
¸ different words.
¸ So how can you or ballou claim my posts are all the same?

Not all of them are, but a large proportion fall under the definition
of "essentially similar" that is used to keep professional spammers
from making minor cosmetic changes to articles in an attempt to escape
spam cancelation.

¸ >They are not repetitious in an absolute sense. You are posting the


¸ >same text many times, hag.
¸
¸ bullshit-- schoolkid. They ARE posting the same repetitions in the
¸ absolute sense.
¸ You're just lying to cover their asses.

He doesn't HAVE to lie, there are independent administrators around
the globe who would help you IF he were lying, but the people you're
flaiming know how the game is played, and they're the ones playing
by the rules.



¸ >> What about their constant, intentional crossposting?

¸ >
¸ >Crossposting is good - it's not abuse of the net, like your multiposting.


¸
¸ ^^Uh huh---- when they post, it's crossposting, which is 'good'-- when
¸ I post, it's multi--- pure BS
¸ When I delete un-necessary header names from the addy lines, I preven
¸ EMP--- but they, in turn purposely ADD 'em back in----- yet you praise
¸ their tactics.....
¸ When I reply to them , leaving the same number of header addies as
¸ they had in the original, I'm supposedly multiposting.
¸ You lie.

As long as a single unique article is posted to fewer than 399 newsgroups,
it is below 20 on the Briedbart Index. When your sole contribution to
an article that you post is to say "HA! Fools! Into the bozo bin with
you!" or _variations on the same_ then the square root of the number of
newsgroups the article is crossposted to is taken, and added to every
other essentially similar article that ANYONE has posted in a 45 day
period, to ANYWHERE on usenet. Your stupid buddy claiming to be the
POSTM...@CLDC.NET or whatever who would reply to dozens of articles
only to tell people that he'd killfiled them counts against you as well.

¸ >> Making up a set of rules for one is a very censoring thing--

¸ >
¸ >Oh no.


¸
¸ Oh, YES.
¸ Your explanation sucks-----
¸ I also asked Ballou to contact me by email, which on checking so far,
¸ I've seen nothing---

You did not. You asked me if my email address was valid, and I said it
was. I've written you before without ever receiving a non automated reply,
so if you'd like to engage in an exchange of emails, then you can do your
part by replying to one of the messages I've already sent to you. To be
honest, your deliberate misspelling of my name appears to be an innocuous
attempt at insulting me, so I am doubtful that you wish there to be any
peaceable resolution to this matter.

Romath

unread,
May 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/9/99
to
On Sun, 09 May 1999 20:05:54 GMT,
bal...@REMOVE.penis.dot.com.dot.net.com (the_mighty_balloo) wrote:


>¸ I also asked Ballou to contact me by email, which on checking so far,
>¸ I've seen nothing---
>
>You did not. You asked me if my email address was valid, and I said it
>was. I've written you before without ever receiving a non automated reply,
>so if you'd like to engage in an exchange of emails, then you can do your
>part by replying to one of the messages I've already sent to you.

**will odo--- sending this right now---


To be
>honest, your deliberate misspelling of my name appears to be an innocuous
>attempt at insulting me, so I am doubtful that you wish there to be any
>peaceable resolution to this matter.

**For that, I do apologize-- it was not intentional---- I was spelling
ballou instead of balloo---
elaine

Today's promotional comment:
"Pat Burke" <pbu...@indigo.ie> NUMBSKULL OF THE YEAR !
The lamebrain said:
>27 "h"s....bummer !! One more and you'd have beated cu.
Such words of wisdom and eloquence!! AND!
SerGAY --- ser...@hotmail.com (§ergi) wrote the following idiocy:
"posts a day from her day."

the_mighty_balloo

unread,
May 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/9/99
to
Dr.Watson AT TheOffice.net escribió en artículo:
¸ balloo (the_mighty_balloo) wrote:

¸ >The reason I've said so, deliberately in threads that


¸ >you're participating in, is so that you might seriously consider
¸ >ceasing your newsgroup disrupting activities.

¸
¸ **But I am not the disruptor here -- they are--- how can UI be the one


¸ at falut when it is THEM who are doing the infiltrating, the
¸ intentional crossposting, etc.

What gives YOU the right to post in a newsgroup and not anyone else?
I know that "Romath" is your nickname, and that alt.romath is a vanity
group, but gosh dab nabbit Elaine, naming a newsgroup after yourself
on usenet is just begging for a fight.

¸ I have purposely removed all manner of headers from the ng's lists in


¸ replying--- and THEY go right AHEAD AND ADD 'EM BACK IN.
¸ Seems more to me that you are simply saying that I should let them
¸ walk all over me, but I should never have the right to reply back to
¸ them.

If you DIDN'T reply to them, then the usenet system administrators
would believe you were the innocent party. What you asked for, having
the disruptive posts removed from a newsgroup to which you regularly
posted, has been done before. There are system admins who are very
sympathetic to the plight of innocent newsgroups being bombarded by
unwanted off topic postings. But the consensus that has emerged is
that if someone is replying in the flame thread, then they are doing
so voluntarilly and have no right to expect help in protecting their
newsgroup. alt.romath is globally propagated and is unmoderated and
open to all. If you'd kept your mouth shut and not replied, then yes
you would be in a position to ask for help from people in nanau. But
you didn't and you aren't.

You wanted to censor the people you didn't like in alt.romath, and you
went out asking for help in doing so. I emailed you, explaining why
that wasn't advisable and detailing for you the Briedbart Index, which
is the metric used in drawing the line for what is to be considered
cancelable spam. Since then, you have gone out of your way to break
the Briedbart Index limit. Now you're here playing dumb, claiming
that your deliberate system abuse should be ignored, but that the
posts of people you can't get along with should be canceled because
you don't like them. Either you're trying to play dirty and failing
miserably, or you really are dumb.

¸ > YES I know others


¸ >are disrupting newsgroups, but they aren't doing anything cancelable.

¸
¸ ^^How not? They are STILL using stolen lines, and constantly reposting
¸ those SAME lines.

sig files are not counted when calculating the Briedbart Index. Maybe
you could write that down yourself on a postit note and stick it to
your monitor so I wouldn't have to tell that to you in each response.

And what are stolen lines? Are you refering to the quotes attributed
to yourself in these .sig files? Quoting publicly published material
falls under the fair use restrictions of copyright law.

¸ >Not only are they not doing anything cancelable, but your own actions


¸ >in replying to them legitimizes the meowers in the eyes of usenet
¸ >system administrators. If they see a newsgroup being bombarded,
¸ >but not replying to the newsgroup invaders, then they know who the
¸ >innocent party is. When they see you going toe to toe with the
¸ >meowers, they'll assume that you are eagerly participating in a
¸ >flame war, and that your BI>20 articles are abusive attempts at
¸ >flooding a newsgroup as a flame war tactic.
¸

¸ **I've tried the ignoring them routine-- the fools still hung


¸ around---- so, I turn another tactic, and decide to reply-- now you
¸ say I'm egging THEM on---
¸ THEY are the flamewar starters--- not me---

It takes two to tango, Elaine. If you don't reply to someone, they
grow bored and go away eventually. If you flame them, then of course
they're going to stick around. They're trolls, for crying out loud.
What did you expect?

¸ >¸ There is indeed a double standard here----
¸ >¸ I see the morons posting their crap, NEVER snipping lines from the


¸ >¸ originals, and constantly posting mile-long bloody 'siglines'---- the
¸ >¸ SAME EVERY DAY...
¸ >

¸ >That's because they are following the rules. Quoted material is

¸ >not considered in calculating the Briedbart Index, and neither are
¸ >sig files.
¸

¸ **BUT they are not real sig files---

If they're repeated in the way you complain about, I don't see what
else they could be.

¸ fine-- fine---- I can work around the little minor obstacles you are


¸ trying to set me up for-----

I know you can. That's what I've been begging for you to do all morning.

§ergi

unread,
May 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/9/99
to
On Sun, 09 May 1999 23:00:16 GMT, no-spa...@no-spam-or-else.invalid
(Romath) wrote:

>On Sun, 09 May 1999 19:23:25 GMT,

>bal...@REMOVE.penis.dot.com.dot.net.com (the_mighty_balloo) wrote:
>
>>The reason I've said so, deliberately in threads that
>>you're participating in, is so that you might seriously consider
>>ceasing your newsgroup disrupting activities.

>**But I am not the disruptor here -- they are--- how can UI be the one
>at falut when it is THEM who are doing the infiltrating,

We have every right to post whatever we want to alt.romath.

>the intentional crossposting, etc.

Crossposting is OK.

>I have purposely removed all manner of headers from the ng's lists in
>replying--- and THEY go right AHEAD AND ADD 'EM BACK IN.

That's allowed.

>Seems more to me that you are simply saying that I should let them
>walk all over me, but I should never have the right to reply back to
>them.

You have the right to be trollbait if you want. You don't have the
right to spam, however. (And before you start squawking, remember
that spam only means the same thing many times. How many "drivel
removed posts did you make?)

>> YES I know others
>>are disrupting newsgroups, but they aren't doing anything cancelable.

>^^How not? They are STILL using stolen lines, and constantly reposting
>those SAME lines.

Sig lines don't count. If they did, everyone with a sig would have
their articles canceled. And it doesn't matter what the content of a
sig file is.

>
>>Not only are they not doing anything cancelable, but your own actions
>>in replying to them legitimizes the meowers in the eyes of usenet
>>system administrators. If they see a newsgroup being bombarded,
>>but not replying to the newsgroup invaders, then they know who the
>>innocent party is. When they see you going toe to toe with the
>>meowers, they'll assume that you are eagerly participating in a
>>flame war, and that your BI>20 articles are abusive attempts at
>>flooding a newsgroup as a flame war tactic.

>**I've tried the ignoring them routine--

Twenty posts a day saying "I'm ignoring you" isn't really ignoring
someone, is it Elaine?

>the fools still hung
>around----

We have every right to.

> so, I turn another tactic, and decide to reply-- now you
>say I'm egging THEM on---

You are.

>THEY are the flamewar starters--- not me---

True. We are flamewar starters, you are trollbait.

>
>>¸ There is indeed a double standard here----
>>¸ I see the morons posting their crap, NEVER snipping lines from the
>>¸ originals, and constantly posting mile-long bloody 'siglines'---- the
>>¸ SAME EVERY DAY...
>>
>>That's because they are following the rules. Quoted material is
>>not considered in calculating the Briedbart Index, and neither are
>>sig files.

>**BUT they are not real sig files---

Oh yeah?

>fine-- fine---- I can work around the little minor obstacles you are
>trying to set me up for-----

He didn't invent the rules, and the rules were not put in place to
annoy Elaine Matthews, you silly ego maniac.

AssNipple Publications, Copyright Š 1999

the_mighty_balloo

unread,
May 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/9/99
to
Dr.Watson AT TheOffice.net escribió en artículo:
¸ balloo (the_mighty_balloo) wrote:
¸ >Dr.Watson AT TheOffice.net escribió en artículo:

¸ >¸ **Then they should all be cancelled as well, since I am merely
¸ >¸ replying to their drivel.
¸ >
¸ >Once again, the articles that you call "drivel" are all unique usenet
¸ >posts. As such, they are not cancelable. Your rote responses to them
¸ >are all essentially identical, and appear to be written to set off spam
¸ >detectors.
¸
¸ **They are written with one thing in mind--- as REPLIES.
¸ It seems awfully strange to me that THEY can post what they like, when
¸ they like--- and waste all kinds of space, purposely crossposting, and
¸ even re-adding in ng headers when I purposely REMOVE them to prevent
¸ crossposting----- yet it's me you choose to squawk on about-----

You're the one breaking BI>20.

¸ >¸ Why is it then-- that when I asked a legitimate questionabout having


¸ >¸ their interfenece stopped, all I got was idle threats and more
¸ >¸ accusations------- yet when I reply back to the moron element, you
¸ >¸ claim I can be cancelled?
¸ >
¸ >Because 3rd party cancels are required to be content blind.
¸
¸ **Fine--- then WHY are you carrying on about threatening to cancel
¸ mine?

Because they're BI>20.

¸ You are obviously admitting to checking up on content---- and I'm


¸ sorry, but you're wrong-- my posts are NOT the same--- their contents
¸ vary from post to post.
¸ But you imply that by saying ROTFL! or WRONG! in more than one post is
¸ EMP---- I ask again--- WHAT ABOUT THEIR CONSTANT USE OF STOLEN LINES
¸ IN EVERY POST THEY MAKE?

Are you referring to the quotes attributed to you in the .sig files
of your opponents? Those are considered fair use, and .sig files are
not calculated into BI.

¸ My cure for it would be simple----- REMOVE ALT.ROMATH.

How? You could issue a control rmgroup message, but I seriously
doubt that it would be honored by more than one or two servers in
the world.

¸ That's what I requested months ago---- but it never got done.


¸ Remove the ng entirely, and I'll be happy---- so will you.
¸ Not just from one or two servers, no--- but remove it entirely--- from
¸ the internet.

How? Or better yet, why? Why not just erase the damn thing from your
.newsrc file and pretend it doesn't exist? Is this ENTIRE mess just
an ego thing? Are we all going through this because people aren't
playing by your rules in your vanity group?

¸ > Even if


¸ >they are "off topic," whatever that may be, (no one has a working definition
¸ >that makes a majority of usenet posters happy,) there is no mechanism for
¸ >their legitimate cancelation. THAT would be censorship.
¸
¸ **so why are you complaining about my posts then? Maybe my posts don't
¸ make you or them happy-- but it does make others happy---
¸ you are still labelling, and censoring me--

Your posts are flooding a newsgroup that I read for pleasure. No biggie,
I have you killfiled in that group. But others are complaining that you're
ruining things for them, AND YOU'RE BI>20! If it weren't for you crossing
that line into spamming, I'd just tell them to learn how to use their darn
killfiles.

¸ >¸ That makes no sense---


¸ >¸ Literally, what you are saying is that it's okay for them to flame me,
¸ >¸ but not okay for me to reply.
¸ >
¸ >There is nothing preventing you from replying with original, unique
¸ >articles save perhaps your own lack of imagination. It is only when
¸ >you repeat an essentially similar message over and over again that it
¸ >falls under the accepted definitions of spam and becomes cancelable.
¸
¸ **One or two words I often repeat--- not entire messages over and
¸ over.
¸ Are you referring to the ones with "usual drivel removed" perhaps?

BINGO! Yes, stop posting those! Those are all cancelable spam! Or
at least they were the second they broke BI>20, which was several
weeks ago. The rest of your whining I have no complaint about.

¸ >You are not censored for saying something once. Under the current


¸ >system, you can cross post a single message to 399 different newsgroups
¸ >and still be under the BI>20 limit. But posting that same essentially
¸ >similar message to a single newsgroup twenty times is BI=20. This is
¸ >not about what you say, it's about how much of the communal news spool
¸ >you're taking up to say it. Some of your articles have a BI in triple
¸ >figures, Elaine. This isn't high abuse of the system, but it isn't
¸ >borderline either. You are clearly across the line and begging for
¸ >cancelation in many instances.
¸
¸ **Okay, I get what you are saying here----- in other words, if I
¸ posted "Thank you!" once, crossposting to 399 different ng's, you say
¸ that's fine, and I still have a BI of 20----

Yes. It is physically impossible to crosspost to 399 newsgroups at
once, but in theory it would not break BI=20.

¸ But-- If I post "Thank you!" in say, fifteen messages in the same ng,


¸ Ive got a BI of 15, and that is where you'd be on my ass for socalled
¸ EMP, right?

Close. Break BI>20 and you officially become a spammer.

¸ The thingI'm questioning is this:


¸ There are many in the SAME ng---- who are posting the SAME crap in
¸ their 3/4 page length 'siglines' ----- in EVERY message.

.sig files are not used in calculating BI.

¸ tweny-five, thirty messages easily in one day----- THAT would give


¸ them A BI OF 25 - 30 accordsing to what you just said------
¸ why do you not threaten to cancel THEIR messages?

.sig files are not used in calculating BI.

¸ You are threatening me, merely because you hate the fact that I'm on


¸ to their game, and have been giving them a good run lately---

No you haven't. They've successfully trolled you into breaking the
Breidbart Index. I'm just suprised they haven't started canceling
your articles and telling you about it. That would have been the
obvious next step, to my way of thinking.

¸ Fair is fair---- and you're being totally unfair by threatening to


¸ cancel one, and not the other.

If they broke BI>20, I'd probably take this much time out to tell
them about it as well, Elaine.

the_mighty_balloo

unread,
May 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/9/99
to
Dr.Watson AT TheOffice.net escribió en artículo:
¸ balloo (the_mighty_balloo) wrote:

¸ > To be


¸ >honest, your deliberate misspelling of my name appears to be an innocuous
¸ >attempt at insulting me, so I am doubtful that you wish there to be any
¸ >peaceable resolution to this matter.

¸
¸ **For that, I do apologize-- it was not intentional---- I was spelling


¸ ballou instead of balloo---
¸ elaine

Oh, okay. The name is from Kipling's Jungle Book, not the movie "Cat Ballou."
No harm done.

Pat Burke

unread,
May 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/9/99
to

Romath wrote in message <37360c37...@news.vianet.on.ca>...

>On Sun, 09 May 1999 18:52:43 GMT,
>
>
>My cure for it would be simple----- REMOVE ALT.ROMATH.


>
>That's what I requested months ago---- but it never got done.
>Remove the ng entirely, and I'll be happy---- so will you.
>Not just from one or two servers, no--- but remove it entirely--- from
>the internet.


No, alt.romath serves a very useful purpose. It is a gathering place for
people of unpopular or contraversial viewpoints. It's traffic is ten times
what it was when Doctor Watson operated a net-stalking discussion group.

Your mistake was creating the group in the first place. I know you're going
to tell us it was Vianet's fault and not yours, however if you had responded
civilly to the first scouts who visited your group, none of this would have
happened.

Your bad manners and aggressive net-copping brought this whole mess down on
yourself.

The other solution would be just to shove off. Disappear and forget
alt.romath ever existed. Change your name to avoid people confusing you with
our newsgroup. That would be the best resolution all round.

Best Wishes,

Pat


Pat Burke (bagde #0294hsu374t1y)
Knight of the Ancient Garter of Romath XXV
Bunty's Badge of Honour # 1
alt.romath Gentleman's Club # 11

"sicko---- You know, Burkeo--- they say wine improves with age---
--they say people often improve with age--- but YOU only get more
stupid.... "
Romath in <3734a7c4...@news.vianet.on.ca>

çu

unread,
May 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/9/99
to
Dear Romath,
I'm going to tell you a little story. I originally found alt.romath by
following a post from alt.spam that was crossposted here. I was lurking
in alt.spam to try find information to help out a friend who has
children and whose mailbox is continuously deluged with pornographic
spam. I lurked here quite some time before posting. I just wanted to
find out how to help my friend.
I was stunned at what i read here. i watched as you and your followers
began to do everything that you claimed you were against. It was like
reading Mark Twain's story about Hadleyville. You have claimed to be
against sleaze [by which i believe you mean pornography], and threatened
to post pedophiliac porn in a group that bears Josh's name.
You claimed to be against spam, and busted the BI>20 as if it meant
nothing to you. You made sweet, honest, intelligent people [like Bunty]
stop posting. You posted the address of Josh's parents [okay, you left
out the last half of the street name. anybody with any knowledge at all
would find that no impediment at all.] Do you seriously believe that
noone here has your personal information? You have made it all very
accessible in the past, and on the internet the past is forever. Could
you possibly go through all of the posts from the last few months in
alt.romath and see it through the eyes of anybody else? I don't think
so, but please prove me wrong. It might restore some of my faith in
human nature that you have damaged.
Romath, your most common argument has translated into 'because i say
so'. Your most continuous tactic has been to try to shout down the voice
of any oppostion.
From the trolls, i learned the information that i came in search of. I
am helping my friend to install a freeware copy of Pegasus and set the
filters. I got a copy months ago, and love it. Thank you, Trolls.
Now, Romath, I know that you are going to feel the need to make all
kinds of derogatory comments because this post doesn't show you in the
best light. Feel free. This is Usenet. You are intitled to your opinion.
You are also intitled to ignore anything which I post, post any reply
you want, spout nonsense if you feel the need to, etc.... What you have
no right to do is to continue your abuse of the system.
I have the right to stick around and enjoy myself.
çu

Ruediger LANDMANN

unread,
May 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/9/99
to
çu (koit...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: Dear Romath,

: I'm going to tell you a little story. I originally found alt.romath by
: following a post from alt.spam that was crossposted here. I was lurking
: in alt.spam to try find information to help out a friend who has
: children and whose mailbox is continuously deluged with pornographic
: spam. I lurked here quite some time before posting. I just wanted to
: find out how to help my friend.
: I was stunned at what i read here. i watched as you and your followers
: began to do everything that you claimed you were against. It was like
: reading Mark Twain's story about Hadleyville. You have claimed to be
: against sleaze [by which i believe you mean pornography], and threatened
: to post pedophiliac porn in a group that bears Josh's name.

Did you really do this, Romath?

: You claimed to be against spam, and busted the BI>20 as if it meant
: nothing to you.

(Don't know what this means, but sounds serious)

: You made sweet, honest, intelligent people [like Bunty]
: stop posting.

How?

: You posted the address of Josh's parents [okay, you left


: out the last half of the street name. anybody with any knowledge at all
: would find that no impediment at all.]

And this as well? Why?

: Now, Romath, I know that you are going to feel the need to make all


: kinds of derogatory comments because this post doesn't show you in the
: best light. Feel free. This is Usenet. You are intitled to your opinion.
: You are also intitled to ignore anything which I post, post any reply
: you want, spout nonsense if you feel the need to, etc.... What you have
: no right to do is to continue your abuse of the system.

Romath?


ÖSńS

unread,
May 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/9/99
to
On Mon, 10 May 1999 00:37:08 GMT, bal...@REMOVE.penis.dot.com.dot.net.com
(the_mighty_balloo)you wrote:

>Dr.Watson AT TheOffice.net escribió en artículo:

>¸ On Sun, 09 May 1999 20:58:59 GMT,
bal...@REMOVE.penis.dot.com.dot.net.com (the_mighty_balloo) wrote:

>¸ >¸ **For that, I do apologize-- it was not intentional---- I was spelling


>¸ >¸ ballou instead of balloo---
>¸ >¸ elaine
>¸ >
>¸ >Oh, okay. The name is from Kipling's Jungle Book, not the movie "Cat
>¸ Ballou."
>¸ >No harm done.
>¸ >
>¸ >--

>¸ did you get my email?
>
>Not yet. I also don't seem to be getting all of your articles that
>you post.

Consider it a blessing.
--

Öberfeldkommandantur (Ret) Scratch-N-Sniff
+ KotAGoR I +
+ BBoH III +
+ Kettle Drum Player on His Imperial Majesties Slave Galley

ÖSńS

unread,
May 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/9/99
to
On Sun, 9 May 1999 17:15:59 -0400, "Pat Burke" <pxxb...@indigo.ie>you wrote:

>
>Romath wrote in message <37360c37...@news.vianet.on.ca>...

>>On Sun, 09 May 1999 18:52:43 GMT,
>>
>>

>>My cure for it would be simple----- REMOVE ALT.ROMATH.
>
>
>>
>>That's what I requested months ago---- but it never got done.
>>Remove the ng entirely, and I'll be happy---- so will you.
>>Not just from one or two servers, no--- but remove it entirely--- from
>>the internet.
>
>

>No, alt.romath serves a very useful purpose. It is a gathering place for
>people of unpopular or contraversial viewpoints. It's traffic is ten times
>what it was when Doctor Watson operated a net-stalking discussion group.
>
>Your mistake was creating the group in the first place. I know you're going
>to tell us it was Vianet's fault and not yours, however if you had responded
>civilly to the first scouts who visited your group, none of this would have
>happened.

She was rude to me right from the get go.All I ever wanted to do
was learn how to become a crackerjack spamchaser like her.
I idolized that woman and she stabbed me in the back.


>Your bad manners and aggressive net-copping brought this whole mess down on
>yourself.
>
>The other solution would be just to shove off. Disappear and forget
>alt.romath ever existed. Change your name to avoid people confusing you with
>our newsgroup. That would be the best resolution all round.

Besides which she has become sort of an embarrassment for us.
Kinda like a crazed aunt that you'd keep naked and locked in
the attic.


>Best Wishes,
>
>Pat
>
>
>Pat Burke (bagde #0294hsu374t1y)
>Knight of the Ancient Garter of Romath XXV
>Bunty's Badge of Honour # 1
>alt.romath Gentleman's Club # 11
>
>"sicko---- You know, Burkeo--- they say wine improves with age---
>--they say people often improve with age--- but YOU only get more
>stupid.... "
> Romath in <3734a7c4...@news.vianet.on.ca>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>

--

Öberfeldkommandantur (Ret) Scratch-N-Sniff
+ KotAGoR I +
+ BBoH III +
+ Kettle Drum Player on His Imperial Majesties Slave Galley

+ TRLACaTS-BT IX +

Romath

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to

Romath

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
On Sun, 9 May 1999 17:15:59 -0400, "Pat Burke" <pxxb...@indigo.ie>
wrote:

>Your mistake was creating the group in the first place. I know you're going
>to tell us it was Vianet's fault and not yours,

**No way was it Vianet's fault--- I SAID that they went ahead and
created the ng BEFORE I could change the name to
alt.spam.investigations.
You are once more trying to put words in my message that I never said.


>Your bad manners and aggressive net-copping brought this whole mess down on
>yourself.

**The one with the bad manners is you and your cronies.

>The other solution would be just to shove off. Disappear and forget
>alt.romath ever existed. Change your name to avoid people confusing you with
>our newsgroup. That would be the best resolution all round.

>Best Wishes,
>Pat
**I have no intentions of abandoning the name just because you and
your ilk say I should.
It is quite a valid name-- the name I've had since day one on
Usenet---- and I intend to continue with it.

>

Today's promotional comment:
"Pat Burke" <pbu...@indigo.ie> NUMBSKULL OF THE YEAR !
The lamebrain said:
>27 "h"s....bummer !! One more and you'd have beated cu.
Such words of wisdom and eloquence!! AND!
SerGAY --- ser...@hotmail.com (§ergi) wrote the following idiocy:

"posts a day from her day." and---
"Forgers deserve to get netcopped. But this isn't a forgery. Tough
darts."


the_mighty_balloo

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
Dr.Watson AT TheOffice.net escribió en artículo:
¸ On Sun, 09 May 1999 20:58:59 GMT,

Not yet. I also don't seem to be getting all of your articles that
you post.

--

the_mighty_balloo

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
ÖSñS <scratch_...@nym.alias.net> escribió en artículo:
¸ On Mon, 10 May 1999 00:37:08 GMT, bal...@REMOVE.penis.dot.com.dot.net.com
¸ (the_mighty_balloo)you wrote:
¸
¸ >Dr.Watson AT TheOffice.net escribió en artículo:
¸ >¸ On Sun, 09 May 1999 20:58:59 GMT,

¸ >¸ bal...@REMOVE.penis.dot.com.dot.net.com (the_mighty_balloo) wrote:
¸ >¸
¸ >¸ >¸ **For that, I do apologize-- it was not intentional---- I was spelling
¸ >¸ >¸ ballou instead of balloo---
¸ >¸ >¸ elaine
¸ >¸ >
¸ >¸ >Oh, okay. The name is from Kipling's Jungle Book, not the movie "Cat
¸ >¸ Ballou."
¸ >¸ >No harm done.
¸ >¸ >
¸ >¸ >--
¸ >¸ did you get my email?
¸ >
¸ >Not yet. I also don't seem to be getting all of your articles that
¸ >you post.
¸
¸ Consider it a blessing.

Unfortuately I have to consider it poor propagation and an ISP that didn't
know it offered usenet until I subscribed. Still, ya gotta love that cable
modem.

Romath

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
On Mon, 10 May 1999 00:37:08 GMT,
bal...@REMOVE.penis.dot.com.dot.net.com (the_mighty_balloo) wrote:

>¸ did you get my email?
>
>Not yet. I also don't seem to be getting all of your articles that
>you post.

**I got your email this morning----- as for the posts disappearing,
perhaps someone is illegally cancelling them--- dunno--
>--

Today's promotional comment: or, "For the Archives"
1."Pat Burke" <pbu...@indigo.ie> NUMBSKULL OF THE YEAR !


The lamebrain said:
>27 "h"s....bummer !! One more and you'd have beated cu.
Such words of wisdom and eloquence!! AND!

2. SerGAY --- ser...@hotmail.com (§ergi) wrote the following idiocy:


"posts a day from her day." and---
"Forgers deserve to get netcopped. But this isn't a forgery. Tough

darts." He then adds:
"Why the fuck would you want to put this in your sig, dummy? Why do
you think the above statement was some embarrassing mistake I made?
Why do you suck so badly?" Such words of intelligence!
3. cu <koit...@hotmail.com>quoth:
Yup, looks like someone went to a great deal of trouble to NOT look
like Romath. i'd call this an anti-frogery. cu
4. and ÖSñS <scratch_...@nym.alias.net> scrawled
"It's spelled frogery, dummy."
"So when's your next book coming out,Tolstoy ?" and---
"^^^^Ha Fol !!!---Don't mess with
me SONNY-BOY or I'll boot-ass and drop-kick You into the Bezo Bin"
He further adds to the grammar game with:
"We just have squating rights."


the_mighty_balloo

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
Dr.Watson AT TheOffice.net escribió en artículo:
¸ balloo (the_mighty_balloo) wrote:

¸ >¸ did you get my email?
¸ >
¸ >Not yet. I also don't seem to be getting all of your articles that
¸ >you post.
¸
¸ **I got your email this morning----- as for the posts disappearing,
¸ perhaps someone is illegally cancelling them--- dunno--

No, they're just taking their time propagating.

Romath

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
On Sun, 09 May 1999 18:42:02 -0700, çu <koit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Your comments are as usual, one-sided.
I made no-one leave acadia.chat or any other ng--- the netscum who
invaded our ng's did.
I did not begin doing al the things I said I was against-- but the
impostors posting in my name did. There is a vast diffrence.

I owe you, nor anyone else ANY explanation for my activities, and
refuse to accept blame for that which I am not to blame for.
I still fight spam and sleaze. If you object, I cannot help that.
Believe whatever you like. And why, I might add, do you crosspost this
to nanau and nap?
sure-- I'm leaving this one in---- only to reply--
Bye now.

Romath

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
On 9 May 1999 23:47:46 GMT, zzrl...@uq.net.au (Ruediger LANDMANN)
wrote:


>Did you really do this, Romath?

**No-- she's lying, as usual.

>(Don't know what this means, but sounds serious)

**The invaders like to try to make a mountain out of molehills-- it
makes them feel important---


>: You made sweet, honest, intelligent people [like Bunty]
>: stop posting.
>How?

**I didn't Bunty decided to stop p[osting as a result of all the
infighting on the ng caused by theses invaders-- I had nothing to do
with it, in reality--- they just like to lay the blame on my
shoulders.


>: You posted the address of Josh's parents [okay, you left
>: out the last half of the street name. anybody with any knowledge at all would find that no impediment at all.]

**
don't make me laugh, kid--- any other imaginary dirt you can dig up
now?

>Romath?
**Reudiger-- please ignore her--- she is talking through her hat. One
look at the derogatory posts they are making here, and the number of
Romath imitators should tell you volumes about their imbecility.
Drop me an email if you like, and I'll fill you in --
Elaine

Ruediger LANDMANN

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
Romath (no-spa...@no-spam-or-else.invalid) wrote:

: I still fight spam and sleaze. If you object, I cannot help that.

What exactly do you mean by fighting "sleaze"?


Ruediger LANDMANN

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
Romath (no-spa...@no-spam-or-else.invalid) wrote:

: **I didn't Bunty decided to stop p[osting as a result of all the


: infighting on the ng caused by theses invaders-- I had nothing to do
: with it, in reality--- they just like to lay the blame on my
: shoulders.

Now I'm really curious. Are you saying that these "invaders" simply
targeted your group for no reason whatsoever? Why your group in
particular? What did you do to attract such attention?

: >: You posted the address of Josh's parents [okay, you left


: >: out the last half of the street name. anybody with any knowledge at all would find that no impediment at all.]
: **
: don't make me laugh, kid--- any other imaginary dirt you can dig up
: now?
:
: >Romath?
: **Reudiger-- please ignore her--- she is talking through her hat.

Did you actually post the addresses of that guy's parents? Your answer
sounded a little evasive to me...


Pat Burke

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
On Mon, 10 May 1999 19:39:53 GMT, no-spa...@no-spam-or-else.invalid
(Romath) wrote:

>On 9 May 1999 23:47:46 GMT, zzrl...@uq.net.au (Ruediger LANDMANN)
>wrote:
>
>
>>Did you really do this, Romath?
>**No-- she's lying, as usual.
>
>>(Don't know what this means, but sounds serious)
>**The invaders like to try to make a mountain out of molehills-- it
>makes them feel important---
>>: You made sweet, honest, intelligent people [like Bunty]
>>: stop posting.
>>How?

>**I didn't Bunty decided to stop p[osting as a result of all the
>infighting on the ng caused by theses invaders-- I had nothing to do
>with it, in reality--- they just like to lay the blame on my
>shoulders.

>>: You posted the address of Josh's parents [okay, you left
>>: out the last half of the street name. anybody with any knowledge at all would find that no impediment at all.]
>**
>don't make me laugh, kid--- any other imaginary dirt you can dig up
>now?
>
>>Romath?

>**Reudiger-- please ignore her--- she is talking through her hat. One
>look at the derogatory posts they are making here, and the number of
>Romath imitators should tell you volumes about their imbecility.
>Drop me an email if you like, and I'll fill you in --
>Elaine


No, let's discuss it here in the newsgroup, so that your assertions
can be debated.

cu's post was an accurate synopsis of Romath's conduct. I stand by it
100%

Pat


Pat Burke (bagde #0294hsu374t1y)
Knight of the Ancient Garter of Romath XXV
Bunty's Badge of Honour # 1

"**Martin--
As is Burke's practice, he is trying to lay bait out again in order to
keep the battle going. Personally, I say to hell with it.
As for the vacancies, they are in Burke's mind-- and those of his
minions--"

Romath in <372dd66d....@news.vianet.on.ca>

§ergi

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
On 10 May 1999 17:06:49 GMT, zzrl...@uq.net.au (Ruediger LANDMANN)
wrote:

>Romath (no-spa...@no-spam-or-else.invalid) wrote:


>
>: I still fight spam and sleaze. If you object, I cannot help that.
>
>What exactly do you mean by fighting "sleaze"?

She is strongly anti-porn, and uses "spam fighting" as a front to wage
her self righteous censorship campaign.

AssNipple Publications, Copyright © 1999

Ruediger LANDMANN

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
§ergi (sergi_v@²ý±³hotmailª­«¬­.com) wrote:

: She is strongly anti-porn, and uses "spam fighting" as a front to wage


: her self righteous censorship campaign.

Does this mean anti-porn completely? Or just anti-porn when it comes to
spam?


SilverRaven

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
As the last cliffhanging episode of alt.romath came to an end,
bal...@REMOVE.penis.dot.com.dot.net.com (the_mighty_balloo) wrote:

>ÖSñS <scratch_...@nym.alias.net> escribió en artículo:
>¸ On Mon, 10 May 1999 00:37:08 GMT, bal...@REMOVE.penis.dot.com.dot.net.com
>¸ (the_mighty_balloo)you wrote:

>¸ >Dr.Watson AT TheOffice.net escribió en artículo:
>¸ >¸ On Sun, 09 May 1999 20:58:59 GMT,
>¸ >¸ bal...@REMOVE.penis.dot.com.dot.net.com (the_mighty_balloo) wrote:
>¸ >¸
>¸ >¸ >¸ **For that, I do apologize-- it was not intentional---- I was spelling
>¸ >¸ >¸ ballou instead of balloo---
>¸ >¸ >¸ elaine
>¸ >¸ >
>¸ >¸ >Oh, okay. The name is from Kipling's Jungle Book, not the movie "Cat
>¸ >¸ Ballou."
>¸ >¸ >No harm done.
>¸ >¸ >
>¸ >¸ >--

>¸ >¸ did you get my email?
>¸ >
>¸ >Not yet. I also don't seem to be getting all of your articles that
>¸ >you post.

>¸ Consider it a blessing.
>
>Unfortuately I have to consider it poor propagation and an ISP that didn't
>know it offered usenet until I subscribed. Still, ya gotta love that cable
>modem.

Cable modem rocks :-)

SilverRaven
Usenet rage - It's not just posting, it's a blood sport.

Pat Burke

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
On 10 May 1999 18:28:54 GMT, zzrl...@uq.net.au (Ruediger LANDMANN)
wrote:

>§ergi (sergi_v@²ý±³hotmailª­«¬­.com) wrote:

Pornography in any form.

SilverRaven

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
As the last cliffhanging episode of alt.romath came to an end, çu
<koit...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Dear Romath,
> I'm going to tell you a little story. I originally found alt.romath by
>following a post from alt.spam that was crossposted here. I was lurking
>in alt.spam to try find information to help out a friend who has
>children and whose mailbox is continuously deluged with pornographic
>spam. I lurked here quite some time before posting. I just wanted to
>find out how to help my friend.
> I was stunned at what i read here. i watched as you and your followers
>began to do everything that you claimed you were against. It was like
>reading Mark Twain's story about Hadleyville. You have claimed to be
>against sleaze [by which i believe you mean pornography], and threatened
>to post pedophiliac porn in a group that bears Josh's name.

Actually, I believe that she and Postmaster were talking about telling
some people on some other ng, that they could post their pedophile
pictures in alt.fan.joshkramer. Which is odd if you think about it.
She claims to be against 'sleaze' yet would tell these people where to
post this stuff if it was to her advantage.

>You claimed to be against spam, and busted the BI>20 as if it meant

>nothing to you. You made sweet, honest, intelligent people [like Bunty]
>stop posting.

Yes, Bunty says in her goodbye letter that one of the reasons she was
leaving was because of Romath and Steve. She had earned the respect of
the trolls and there was a truce. (MY OPINION, Romath was jealous that
Bunty is respected by the trolls.)

> You posted the address of Josh's parents [okay, you left
>out the last half of the street name. anybody with any knowledge at all
>would find that no impediment at all.]

Yep. She posted Josh's father's address minus a small piece. And
according to the post, you could email her and she'd 'fill you in,'
which from everyone's point of view meant she'd tell you the rest of
the address, though when she was confronted with it, she said that she
never said that and wouldn't do it. Because she didn't like the things
that Josh was saying on usenet, she decided to stalk his father in
real life.

> Do you seriously believe that
>noone here has your personal information? You have made it all very
>accessible in the past, and on the internet the past is forever. Could
>you possibly go through all of the posts from the last few months in
>alt.romath and see it through the eyes of anybody else? I don't think
>so, but please prove me wrong. It might restore some of my faith in
>human nature that you have damaged.
> Romath, your most common argument has translated into 'because i say
>so'. Your most continuous tactic has been to try to shout down the voice
>of any oppostion.

Yes, on numerous occasions she says this is HER news group. She claims
she owns it. When anyone tried to inform her that no one can own an
unmoderated news group, she blows them off. I can only assume that the
people in alt.spam didn't like her and that is why she felt the need
to make her own group. Well she did it wrong, and now she's paying the
price. This group has no charter so it's a rogue group and anyone can
use it. If she wants to fight spam and sleaze, then she can do it in
alt.spam, that's what that group is there for.

> From the trolls, i learned the information that i came in search of. I
>am helping my friend to install a freeware copy of Pegasus and set the
>filters. I got a copy months ago, and love it. Thank you, Trolls.

> Now, Romath, I know that you are going to feel the need to make all
>kinds of derogatory comments because this post doesn't show you in the
>best light. Feel free. This is Usenet. You are intitled to your opinion.
>You are also intitled to ignore anything which I post, post any reply
>you want, spout nonsense if you feel the need to, etc.... What you have
>no right to do is to continue your abuse of the system.

> I have the right to stick around and enjoy myself.
> çu

Flame away Romath, but I'm not like Pat and Sergi, I don't have a long
history with you and you don't know much about me except that I make
little jokes here and there. A search of dejanews would show that
everything I wrote is the truth.

SilverRaven

SilverRaven

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
As the last cliffhanging episode of alt.romath came to an end,
zzrl...@uq.net.au (Ruediger LANDMANN) wrote:

>çu (koit...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>: Dear Romath,
>: I'm going to tell you a little story. I originally found alt.romath by
>: following a post from alt.spam that was crossposted here. I was lurking
>: in alt.spam to try find information to help out a friend who has
>: children and whose mailbox is continuously deluged with pornographic
>: spam. I lurked here quite some time before posting. I just wanted to
>: find out how to help my friend.
>: I was stunned at what i read here. i watched as you and your followers
>: began to do everything that you claimed you were against. It was like
>: reading Mark Twain's story about Hadleyville. You have claimed to be
>: against sleaze [by which i believe you mean pornography], and threatened
>: to post pedophiliac porn in a group that bears Josh's name.
>

>Did you really do this, Romath?

To clarify a bit, IIRC, Romath and Postmaster were talking about
telling some pedophiles that they could post their pictures in
alt.fan.joshkramer.

>: You claimed to be against spam, and busted the BI>20 as if it meant
>: nothing to you.
>


>(Don't know what this means, but sounds serious)

It means that she is spamming. She will post the same message over and
over, such as "**HA PUNKCO! Into the BOZO-bin with you." Or something
similar.

>: You made sweet, honest, intelligent people [like Bunty]
>: stop posting.
>
>How?

This I'm not too clear on. But in Bunty's goodbye letter in
arcadia.chat (correct name?) she says that Romath is one of the
reason's she is leaving.

>: You posted the address of Josh's parents [okay, you left


>: out the last half of the street name. anybody with any knowledge at all
>: would find that no impediment at all.]
>

>And this as well? Why?

This is true. She doesn't like Josh. So she threatened to call or
visit or write Josh's father in order to tell him what his son is
doing at college. First off, Josh pays his own way in college. Second,
Romath is taking usenet to real life. She posted all but a small bit
of Josh's father's address and told people that if you want the rest
to email her. She later claimed that she never said she'd give it out,
but that is what it sounded like.

>: Now, Romath, I know that you are going to feel the need to make all


>: kinds of derogatory comments because this post doesn't show you in the
>: best light. Feel free. This is Usenet. You are intitled to your opinion.
>: You are also intitled to ignore anything which I post, post any reply
>: you want, spout nonsense if you feel the need to, etc.... What you have
>: no right to do is to continue your abuse of the system.
>

>Romath?

As you saw, Romath denied everything. Now I haven't been around her
for more then a month or two, but I've seen that Romath has indeed
done these things. I don't know what else she's done and can't comment
on them. But everything that CU said Romath did is correct.

SilverRaven

Romath

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
On 10 May 1999 17:10:14 GMT, zzrl...@uq.net.au (Ruediger LANDMANN)
wrote:

>Romath (no-spa...@no-spam-or-else.invalid) wrote:
>
>: **I didn't Bunty decided to stop p[osting as a result of all the


>: infighting on the ng caused by theses invaders-- I had nothing to do
>: with it, in reality--- they just like to lay the blame on my
>: shoulders.
>

>Now I'm really curious. Are you saying that these "invaders" simply
>targeted your group for no reason whatsoever? Why your group in
>particular? What did you do to attract such attention?

**Nothing---- I'm a spamfighter-- and merely answered a post from
someone wanting info about fighting a paeticular piece of spam-- next
thing, the moron element appeared, and they've been here ever since.

>Did you actually post the addresses of that guy's parents? Your answer
>sounded a little evasive to me...
>

**Hey, look Reudiger- believe whop and what you want.
If you want to question my motives, fine---- and in all honestly, I
posted PARTIAL info, just to let that little punk know I had the info
I needed in case---
You can accuse me all you like-- pretty well everyone else here does--
one more won't make any damned difference.
The same thing was done to me, but I don't see anyone making anything
out of that-- hell no.
When it comes down to the nitty gritty of things, I do not owe you, or
anyone else any explanation.
Bye now--


SilverRaven

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
As the last cliffhanging episode of alt.romath came to an end,
no-spa...@no-spam-or-else.invalid (Romath) wrote:

>On 9 May 1999 23:47:46 GMT, zzrl...@uq.net.au (Ruediger LANDMANN)
>wrote:
>
>


>>Did you really do this, Romath?

>**No-- she's lying, as usual.

No, she was telling the truth, you just can't handle it.

>>(Don't know what this means, but sounds serious)

>**The invaders like to try to make a mountain out of molehills-- it
>makes them feel important---

No, it's the truth again, and you can't handle it.

>>: You made sweet, honest, intelligent people [like Bunty]
>>: stop posting.
>>How?

>**I didn't Bunty decided to stop p[osting as a result of all the
>infighting on the ng caused by theses invaders-- I had nothing to do
>with it, in reality--- they just like to lay the blame on my
>shoulders.

The trolls didn't cause the infighting. And there was a truce between
arcadia and alt.romath trolls. Bunty earned the respect of the trolls
here and they stopped posting there. You and Steve were listed as two
of the reasons Bunty couldn't take being in that group anymore.

>>: You posted the address of Josh's parents [okay, you left
>>: out the last half of the street name. anybody with any knowledge at all would find that no impediment at all.]

>**
>don't make me laugh, kid--- any other imaginary dirt you can dig up
>now?
>
>>Romath?
>**Reudiger-- please ignore her--- she is talking through her hat. One
>look at the derogatory posts they are making here, and the number of
>Romath imitators should tell you volumes about their imbecility.
>Drop me an email if you like, and I'll fill you in --
>Elaine

So like you Elaine, you try to get people alone so that they will only
hear your side. You posted all but a small portion of Josh's father's
address just because you don't like what Josh posts. Josh is an adult
regardless of what you think, and he pays his own way in college, only
a heartless person would try to drag his father into this.

SilverRaven

Romath

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
On Mon, 10 May 1999 18:09:10 GMT, pxxb...@indigo.ie (Pat Burke)
wrote:


>>Romath imitators should tell you volumes about their imbecility.
>>Drop me an email if you like, and I'll fill you in --
>>Elaine
>
>

>No, let's discuss it here in the newsgroup, so that your assertions
>can be debated.
>
>cu's post was an accurate synopsis of Romath's conduct. I stand by it
>100%
>
>Pat

You would stand behind anything that was against me--- I'm not
biting--


Today's promotional comment: or, "For the Archives"
1."Pat Burke" <pbu...@indigo.ie> NUMBSKULL OF THE YEAR !
The lamebrain said:
>27 "h"s....bummer !! One more and you'd have beated cu.
Such words of wisdom and eloquence!! AND!
2. SerGAY --- ser...@hotmail.com (§ergi) wrote the following idiocy:
"posts a day from her day." and---
"Forgers deserve to get netcopped. But this isn't a forgery. Tough
darts." He then adds:
"Why the fuck would you want to put this in your sig, dummy? Why do
you think the above statement was some embarrassing mistake I made?
Why do you suck so badly?" Such words of intelligence!
3. cu <koit...@hotmail.com>quoth:
Yup, looks like someone went to a great deal of trouble to NOT look
like Romath. i'd call this an anti-frogery. cu

4. and ÖSńS <scratch_...@nym.alias.net> scrawled


"It's spelled frogery, dummy."
"So when's your next book coming out,Tolstoy ?" and---
"^^^^Ha Fol !!!---Don't mess with
me SONNY-BOY or I'll boot-ass and drop-kick You into the Bezo Bin"
He further adds to the grammar game with:
"We just have squating rights."

5. Joshua Kramer, the infamous flamer, who lays a false claim to
Christianity --- joshk...@iname.com spewed
"Please stop sending such horrible language to alt.romath, a group
devoted to studing the word of god."
6.ale...@hotmail.com (Alehandro Taptaptaptaptap) scrawled
"- The Honesty Gods strike T.C. Romanth---" but then lied about it by
claiming:
>"I spelled it correctly. It's not my fault you can't read right."

Romath

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
On 10 May 1999 18:28:54 GMT, zzrl...@uq.net.au (Ruediger LANDMANN)
wrote:

>§ergi (sergi_v@²ý±³hotmailª­«¬­.com) wrote:


>
>: She is strongly anti-porn, and uses "spam fighting" as a front to wage
>: her self righteous censorship campaign.
>
>Does this mean anti-porn completely? Or just anti-porn when it comes to
>spam?

>**Why didn't you ask me, Reudiger?
I could easily tell you---
I fight porn that is posted on Usenet, or sent tyo people in their
private emails, IF it is forwarded to me for investigation.
Otherwise, I don't go looking for it.
These morons claim I am a netstalker--- which is quite untrue.


SilverRaven

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
As the last cliffhanging episode of alt.romath came to an end,
zzrl...@uq.net.au (Ruediger LANDMANN) wrote:

>Romath (no-spa...@no-spam-or-else.invalid) wrote:
>
>: **I didn't Bunty decided to stop p[osting as a result of all the


>: infighting on the ng caused by theses invaders-- I had nothing to do
>: with it, in reality--- they just like to lay the blame on my
>: shoulders.
>

>Now I'm really curious. Are you saying that these "invaders" simply
>targeted your group for no reason whatsoever? Why your group in
>particular? What did you do to attract such attention?

First off, this is not 'her' group. No one owns an unmoderated news
group. Any one is free to post in it. Second, this is a 'rogue' group.
It should never have been made in the first place. If is was for the
purposes of spam fighting like Romath said, she should have used
alt.spam. Alt.romath has no charter regardless of what Romath/Elaine
says.

What she does to attract attention? That's a multiple answer question.
1) She doesn't know as much about spam fighting as she acts. This
pisses off the real spam fighters.
2) She hates 'sleaze' and tries to fight it by calling it spam. Spam
is the same thing over and over. Sleaze is content based.
3) She attacks those that know more then her and are only trying to
help her - example: Balloo. He's trying to educate her, yet she acts
like he's a troll too.

>: >: You posted the address of Josh's parents [okay, you left


>: >: out the last half of the street name. anybody with any knowledge at all would find that no impediment at all.]
>: **
>: don't make me laugh, kid--- any other imaginary dirt you can dig up
>: now?
>:
>: >Romath?
>: **Reudiger-- please ignore her--- she is talking through her hat.
>

>Did you actually post the addresses of that guy's parents? Your answer
>sounded a little evasive to me...

Yea, she tends to be evasive when she's caught in a lie. Yes, she
posted all but a small piece of Josh's father's address, and email her
and she'd fill in the rest. She later claimed that she was playing
word games and would never give out that information. At this point, I
wish someone had tried to tell us if she did or not.

SilverRaven

Romath

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
On Mon, 10 May 1999 19:59:49 GMT, silve...@MYhome.com (SilverRaven)
wrote:

>As you saw, Romath denied everything. Now I haven't been around her
>for more then a month or two, but I've seen that Romath has indeed
>done these things. I don't know what else she's done and can't comment
>on them. But everything that CU said Romath did is correct.
>
>SilverRaven

Say and believe whatever you like-- I couldn't care less.
I know what I did or did not do, and that's what counts.


Romath

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
On Mon, 10 May 1999 19:51:16 GMT, silve...@MYhome.com (SilverRaven)
wrote:
Go ahead and make your claims-- I know what really happened, and never
did I say I would be 'stalking ' Kramer's father.
You are simply so hell-bent for election to try to discredit me, that
you stoop at nothing to try achieving that low end.
And it is QUITE true that I did not pass the address info along to
anyone by email as well.
But-- like I also said before I don't owe you or anyone else any
explanation.

SilverRaven

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
As the last cliffhanging episode of alt.romath came to an end,
no-spa...@no-spam-or-else.invalid (Romath) wrote:

>On Sun, 09 May 1999 18:42:02 -0700, çu <koit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Your comments are as usual, one-sided.
>I made no-one leave acadia.chat or any other ng--- the netscum who
>invaded our ng's did.

Untrue. Arcadia.chat and alt.romath had a truce.

>I did not begin doing al the things I said I was against-- but the
>impostors posting in my name did. There is a vast diffrence.

Untrue. You are the one that responds to every post with some variance
of **HA Pucko, into the BOZO bin with you.

If you respond to 20 posts with the same line, you are a spammer. Each
of the posts you respond to may have been rude or nasty, but they were
all different insults and by different people.

>I owe you, nor anyone else ANY explanation for my activities, and
>refuse to accept blame for that which I am not to blame for.

You may not feel that you do, but you should at least shut up and
learn from others that know more then you before spouting off.

>I still fight spam and sleaze. If you object, I cannot help that.

I don't care if you fight spam and sleaze. That's your prerogative.
But you shouldn't have created a vanity group to do it in. Alt.spam is
a perfectly good group for that.

>Believe whatever you like.

Your own posts back up what we are saying about you.

SilverRaven

SilverRaven

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
As the last cliffhanging episode of alt.romath came to an end,
no-spa...@no-spam-or-else.invalid (Romath) wrote:

>On Sun, 09 May 1999 18:52:43 GMT,
>bal...@REMOVE.penis.dot.com.dot.net.com (the_mighty_balloo) wrote:
>
>>Dr.Watson AT TheOffice.net escribió en artículo:

>>¸ balloo (the_mighty_balloo) wrote:
>>¸
>>¸ > You do realize that you're making it permissable for anyone to 3rd party
>>¸ > cancel your articles, don't you? If you don't include some unique content
>>¸ > to these individually prepared imitations of 'bot spew with which you insist
>>¸ > on deluging usenet then these people you so strongly oppose will have the
>>¸ > right to cancel your articles.
>>¸ >
>>¸ > And I'm about at the point of telling them how.
>>¸ >
>>¸ > If you're curious as to the veracity of my statements, I suggest you inquire
>>¸ > with any of the legitimate despammers in nanau. (I hope you knew you were
>>¸ > cross posting to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.) Some of the more respected
>>¸ > members of this community include Chris Lewis, Andrew Gierth, Russ Alberry,
>>¸ > Rebecca Ore, Stephen Boursy and David Formosa. Please contact any of these
>>¸ > noted usenet experts for information or verification.
>>¸
>>¸ **Then they should all be cancelled as well, since I am merely
>>¸ replying to their drivel.
>>
>>Once again, the articles that you call "drivel" are all unique usenet posts.
>>As such, they are not cancelable. Your rote responses to them are all
>>essentially identical, and appear to be written to set off spam detectors.
>**They are written with one thing in mind--- as REPLIES.
>It seems awfully strange to me that THEY can post what they like, when
>they like--- and waste all kinds of space, purposely crossposting, and
>even re-adding in ng headers when I purposely REMOVE them to prevent
>crossposting----- yet it's me you choose to squawk on about-----

There is nothing wrong with crossposting. What part of that can't you
understand?

>>¸ Why is it then-- that when I asked a legitimate questionabout having
>>¸ their interfenece stopped, all I got was idle threats and more
>>¸ accusations------- yet when I reply back to the moron element, you
>>¸ claim I can be cancelled?
>>
>>Because 3rd party cancels are required to be content blind.
>**Fine--- then WHY are you carrying on about threatening to cancel
>mine?
>You are obviously admitting to checking up on content---- and I'm
>sorry, but you're wrong-- my posts are NOT the same--- their contents
>vary from post to post.
>But you imply that by saying ROTFL! or WRONG! in more than one post is
>EMP---- I ask again--- WHAT ABOUT THEIR CONSTANT USE OF STOLEN LINES
>IN EVERY POST THEY MAKE?

Sig lines are not counted. What part of that don't you understand? If
you want you can put in your sig line that you think so-and-so is an
idiot, and you can use it every single time you post and it won't
count towards your BI.

>My cure for it would be simple----- REMOVE ALT.ROMATH.
>
>That's what I requested months ago---- but it never got done.
>Remove the ng entirely, and I'll be happy---- so will you.
>Not just from one or two servers, no--- but remove it entirely--- from
>the internet.
>
>> Even if
>>they are "off topic," whatever that may be, (no one has a working definition
>>that makes a majority of usenet posters happy,) there is no mechanism for
>>their legitimate cancelation. THAT would be censorship.
>**so why are you complaining about my posts then? Maybe my posts don't
>make you or them happy-- but it does make others happy---

Name some. Or better yet, who here is made happy with Romath's posts?
(no, I'm not talking about when she makes an idiot of herself and you
get to slam her)

>you are still labelling, and censoring me--

No, you are labeling yourself as a spammer by spamming.

>>¸ That makes no sense---
>>¸ Literally, what you are saying is that it's okay for them to flame me,
>>¸ but not okay for me to reply.
>>
>>There is nothing preventing you from replying with original, unique
>>articles save perhaps your own lack of imagination. It is only when
>>you repeat an essentially similar message over and over again that it
>>falls under the accepted definitions of spam and becomes cancelable.
>**One or two words I often repeat--- not entire messages over and
>over.
>Are you referring to the ones with "usual drivel removed" perhaps?

>>You are not censored for saying something once. Under the current
>>system, you can cross post a single message to 399 different newsgroups
>>and still be under the BI>20 limit. But posting that same essentially
>>similar message to a single newsgroup twenty times is BI=20. This is
>>not about what you say, it's about how much of the communal news spool
>>you're taking up to say it. Some of your articles have a BI in triple
>>figures, Elaine. This isn't high abuse of the system, but it isn't
>>borderline either. You are clearly across the line and begging for
>>cancelation in many instances.
>**Okay, I get what you are saying here----- in other words, if I
>posted "Thank you!" once, crossposting to 399 different ng's, you say
>that's fine, and I still have a BI of 20----
>But-- If I post "Thank you!" in say, fifteen messages in the same ng,
>Ive got a BI of 15, and that is where you'd be on my ass for socalled
>EMP, right?
>
>The thingI'm questioning is this:
>There are many in the SAME ng---- who are posting the SAME crap in
>their 3/4 page length 'siglines' ----- in EVERY message.

SIG LINES DON'T COUNT!!!
What part of that did you not understand?
I can draw you a schematic if that would help you.

>tweny-five, thirty messages easily in one day----- THAT would give
>them A BI OF 25 - 30 accordsing to what you just said------
>why do you not threaten to cancel THEIR messages?
>
>You are threatening me, merely because you hate the fact that I'm on
>to their game, and have been giving them a good run lately---
>Fair is fair---- and you're being totally unfair by threatening to
>cancel one, and not the other.

Elaine, he's an example.
20 of us insult you with a different insult.
You respond to each of us with the same basic 'drivel removed' line.
Each of us has now has a BI=1, you have a BI=20. Do you understand
yet? Is this making any sense for you?

SilverRaven

Anapiel

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to

Romath wrote in message <3737654f....@news.vianet.on.ca>...
>On 10 May 1999 17:10:14 GMT, zzrl...@uq.net.au (Ruediger LANDMANN)

>wrote:
>
>>Romath (no-spa...@no-spam-or-else.invalid) wrote:
>>
>>: **I didn't Bunty decided to stop p[osting as a result of all the
>>: infighting on the ng caused by theses invaders-- I had nothing to do
>>: with it, in reality--- they just like to lay the blame on my
>>: shoulders.
>>
>>Now I'm really curious. Are you saying that these "invaders" simply
>>targeted your group for no reason whatsoever? Why your group in
>>particular? What did you do to attract such attention?
>**Nothing---- I'm a spamfighter-- and merely answered a post from
>someone wanting info about fighting a paeticular piece of spam-- next
>thing, the moron element appeared, and they've been here ever since.
>
>>Did you actually post the addresses of that guy's parents? Your answer
>>sounded a little evasive to me...
>>
>**Hey, look Reudiger- believe whop and what you want.
>If you want to question my motives, fine---- and in all honestly, I
>posted PARTIAL info, just to let that little punk know I had the info
>I needed in case---

JUST IN CASE??? Just in case of what? In case you felt you needed to, say,
HARASS his folks. Hey, get it through your skull; this here is usenet. Very
little of what happens here does (or should) have anything to do with the
real life. That you think its acceptable to encourage real life harassment
of someone in retaliation for usenet postings is an indication to everyone
reading that you have tenuous grasp on reality at best and at worst are
dangerous lunatic.


>You can accuse me all you like-- pretty well everyone else here does--
>one more won't make any damned difference.
>The same thing was done to me, but I don't see anyone making anything
>out of that-- hell no.

Post the evidence.

>When it comes down to the nitty gritty of things, I do not owe you, or
>anyone else any explanation.


No you sure don't. We don't want an explanation. We want you to stop
spamming usenet. Barring that, shut up and dance for us, puppet.

Anapiel

>Bye now--
>
>
>

§ergi

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to

And so do we. And so does anyone who wants to check the archives.

§ergi

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
On Mon, 10 May 1999 23:09:08 GMT, no-spa...@no-spam-or-else.invalid
(Romath) wrote:

>On 10 May 1999 18:28:54 GMT, zzrl...@uq.net.au (Ruediger LANDMANN)
>wrote:
>


>>§ergi (sergi_v@²ý±³hotmailª­«¬­.com) wrote:
>>
>>: She is strongly anti-porn, and uses "spam fighting" as a front to wage
>>: her self righteous censorship campaign.
>>
>>Does this mean anti-porn completely? Or just anti-porn when it comes to
>>spam?
>>**Why didn't you ask me, Reudiger?
>I could easily tell you---
>I fight porn that is posted on Usenet, or sent tyo people in their
>private emails, IF it is forwarded to me for investigation.
>Otherwise, I don't go looking for it.
>These morons claim I am a netstalker--- which is quite untrue.

The fact that you continually refer to "sleaze" and fighting porn
proves that your main interest is censorship. All the real
spamfighters will say that they are not concerned with the content of
the message.

The only reason you are concerned with spam is that you are personally
offended by some of the content you see. You seem to be unable to
grasp the concept that spam = the same thing many times, regardless of
content. You have demonstrated this mental deficiency of yours on
more than one occasion by spamming this newsgroup (Yes, you spammed.
Deal.) and saying "I'll post whatever I want" when you were called on
it. You want to be a netcop, but you don't even understand the rules,
and if they are explained to you, you still seem to think they don't
apply to you.

In short, you are worthless as a "spam fighter". I have respect for
what the people in NANAE do, and what you are doing with that
ridiculous web site of yours is damaging to their efforts. If there
is any hope for you ever, you need to have the Romath persona commit
net.suicide. Then lurk NANAE for at least a year, probably more,
since you are a slow learner, read every FAQ and RFC you can get your
hands on, and come back under a different name once you fully grasp
and understand the issues of net abuse.

PS- Don't bother telling me about all your successful kills. They
mean shit. Anyone can get an ISP to send them an auto response. The
real spamfighters usually delete them unread.

SilverRaven

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
As the last cliffhanging episode of alt.romath came to an end,
no-spa...@no-spam-or-else.invalid (Romath) wrote:

>On 10 May 1999 17:10:14 GMT, zzrl...@uq.net.au (Ruediger LANDMANN)
>wrote:
>


>>Romath (no-spa...@no-spam-or-else.invalid) wrote:
>>
>>: **I didn't Bunty decided to stop p[osting as a result of all the
>>: infighting on the ng caused by theses invaders-- I had nothing to do
>>: with it, in reality--- they just like to lay the blame on my
>>: shoulders.
>>
>>Now I'm really curious. Are you saying that these "invaders" simply
>>targeted your group for no reason whatsoever? Why your group in
>>particular? What did you do to attract such attention?
>**Nothing---- I'm a spamfighter-- and merely answered a post from
>someone wanting info about fighting a paeticular piece of spam-- next
>thing, the moron element appeared, and they've been here ever since.
>
>>Did you actually post the addresses of that guy's parents? Your answer
>>sounded a little evasive to me...
>>
>**Hey, look Reudiger- believe whop and what you want.
>If you want to question my motives, fine---- and in all honestly, I
>posted PARTIAL info, just to let that little punk know I had the info
>I needed in case---

>You can accuse me all you like-- pretty well everyone else here does--
>one more won't make any damned difference.
>The same thing was done to me, but I don't see anyone making anything
>out of that-- hell no.

>When it comes down to the nitty gritty of things, I do not owe you, or
>anyone else any explanation.

>Bye now--

See Ruediger? As soon as you question her, she freaks out and lumps
you in with everyone else. Sorry you had see it, you seemed genuinely
interested and sorry for her.

SilverRaven

SilverRaven

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
As the last cliffhanging episode of alt.romath came to an end,
no-spa...@no-spam-or-else.invalid (Romath) wrote:

>On Mon, 10 May 1999 19:59:49 GMT, silve...@MYhome.com (SilverRaven)
>wrote:
>
>>As you saw, Romath denied everything. Now I haven't been around her
>>for more then a month or two, but I've seen that Romath has indeed
>>done these things. I don't know what else she's done and can't comment
>>on them. But everything that CU said Romath did is correct.
>>
>>SilverRaven
>
>Say and believe whatever you like-- I couldn't care less.
>I know what I did or did not do, and that's what counts.

Since you don't know how to set it so that your posts aren't archived,
all of usenet knows what you did, and you can't convince us otherwise.
No matter what you may or may not have *meant* to say or do, you *did*
the things that CU and I said you did. Just because you think what you
did isn't that bad, doesn't make it so. If you went out and killed a
dog because you didn't like the way it piddled on your lawn,
regardless of the fact you thought it was ok, it would still be wrong.

SilverRaven

SilverRaven

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99