Forgery and it's thresholds (was:Re: idle threats? really?)
Matthew L. Bruce
In article <33DBF6...@bungmunch.edu>, Raoul F. Xemblinosky III
<rao...@bungmunch.edu> wrote:
>
>Andrew Gierth wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> "Spark" == Spark The Heretic <her...@spark.org> writes:
>>
>> >> Because it's irrelevent.
>> >>
>> >> Active UDPs for whole domains are a solution for a problem that
>> >> doesn't really *have* any other solutions.
>>
>> Spark> But who made nan-au the judge/jury/executioner? Is not the
>> Spark> internet to be run and administered by all servers, not just
a
>> Spark> few?
>>
>> nan-au isn't judge or executioner - but in some sense it can be an
>> informal jury.
But it only condemns non cabal members. For instance, all nana.* types
are opposing spark from cancelling posts whose author uses
a name of "Spark" or "Heretic". On the other hand, Chris Lewis has
cancelled _every_ post I have ever made from this account on the grounds
that it is not written by a different Matt Bruce. Odds are
he will cancel this also.
No condemnation or opposition was expressed by nana.* types at Chris
Lewis' forged cancels. To be consistent, they should support Spark
in using a cancelbot or condemn Chris Lewis.
>> The people who *really* make decisions about UDPs are, essentially,
>> the people who implement them. However, to be effective, those people
>> need support for their actions - and this is one place where the
>> presence or absence of that support is established.
>
>Are there other places where the presence or absence of said support
>is established? If so, are they open to the great unwashed?
No. You must join the cabal.
>- Raoul F. Xemblinosky III -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> a.f.k-m.n Visit the Gareth Starley, FORGER and LIAR site
> alt.flame http://super.zippo.com/~shpxurnq/dickboxr.html
> alt.evil -- . --- .--
>- http://super.zippo.com/~shpxurnq/home.htm =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Michael Martinez
In article <1997072823...@f21.hotmail.com>, "Matthew L. Bruce" <mlb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>But it only condemns non cabal members.
nana.ua doesn't condemn only non-kooks. It condemns anyone who crosses the
line. The (Kook) cabalists do happen to cross the line more often than
others, of course. I presume you were giving them special exemption from your
generalistic overview because we should all assume the Kooks are always
crossing the line and being very abusive anyway.
>For instance, all nana.* types are opposing spark from cancelling posts
>whose author uses a name of "Spark" or "Heretic". On the other hand,
>Chris Lewis has cancelled _every_ post I have ever made from this
>account on the grounds that it is not written by a different Matt Bruce.
>Odds are he will cancel this also.
The presence of your article belies your sincerity.
>No condemnation or opposition was expressed by nana.* types at Chris
>Lewis' forged cancels. To be consistent, they should support Spark
>in using a cancelbot or condemn Chris Lewis.
Chris Lewis doesn't forge cancels. Try being truthful. More people will then
believe you.
>>> The people who *really* make decisions about UDPs are, essentially,
>>> the people who implement them. However, to be effective, those people
>>> need support for their actions - and this is one place where the
>>> presence or absence of that support is established.
>>
>>Are there other places where the presence or absence of said support
>>is established? If so, are they open to the great unwashed?
>
>No. You must join the cabal.
So now you're requiring people to join the Kooks.
Ick.
--
++ ++ "Well Samwise: What do you think of the elves now?"
||\ /|| --fbag...@mid.earth.com
|| v ||ichael Martinez (mich...@swcp.com)
++ ++------------------------------------------------------
Gunter Bergman
On Tue, 29 Jul 97 03:34:50 GMT, mich...@swcp.com (Michael Martinez)
wrote:
)In article <1997072823...@f21.hotmail.com>, "Matthew L.
Bruce" <mlb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
)>But it only condemns non cabal members.
)
)nana.ua doesn't condemn only non-kooks. It condemns anyone who
crosses the
)line. The (Kook) cabalists do happen to cross the line more often
than
)others, of course. I presume you were giving them special exemption
from your
)generalistic overview because we should all assume the Kooks are
always
)crossing the line and being very abusive anyway.
)
)>For instance, all nana.* types are opposing spark from cancelling
posts
)>whose author uses a name of "Spark" or "Heretic". On the other
hand,
)>Chris Lewis has cancelled _every_ post I have ever made from this
)>account on the grounds that it is not written by a different Matt
Bruce.
)>Odds are he will cancel this also.
)
)The presence of your article belies your sincerity.
Obviously, you know nothing about usenet propagation.
)>No condemnation or opposition was expressed by nana.* types at Chris
)>Lewis' forged cancels. To be consistent, they should support Spark
)>in using a cancelbot or condemn Chris Lewis.
You didn't address the issue.
)Chris Lewis doesn't forge cancels. Try being truthful. More people
will then
)believe you.
See spam.19970...@despams.ocunix.on.ca for cancel report. Were
you born stupid or did you have a lobotomy?
)>>> The people who *really* make decisions about UDPs are,
essentially,
)>>> the people who implement them. However, to be effective, those
people
)>>> need support for their actions - and this is one place where the
)>>> presence or absence of that support is established.
)>>
)>>Are there other places where the presence or absence of said
support
)>>is established? If so, are they open to the great unwashed?
)>
)>No. You must join the cabal.
)
)So now you're requiring people to join the Kooks.
I'm now convinced that you were born stupid.
)Ick.
)
)--
) ++ ++ "Well Samwise: What do you think of the elves now?"
) ||\ /|| --fbag...@mid.earth.com
) || v ||ichael Martinez (mich...@swcp.com)
) ++ ++------------------------------------------------------
Matthew L. Bruce
In article <33DBF6...@bungmunch.edu>, Raoul F. Xemblinosky III
<rao...@bungmunch.edu> wrote:
>
>Andrew Gierth wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> "Spark" == Spark The Heretic <her...@spark.org> writes:
>>
>> >> Because it's irrelevent.
>> >>
>> >> Active UDPs for whole domains are a solution for a problem that
>> >> doesn't really *have* any other solutions.
>>
>> Spark> But who made nan-au the judge/jury/executioner? Is not the
>> Spark> internet to be run and administered by all servers, not just
a
>> Spark> few?
>>
>> nan-au isn't judge or executioner - but in some sense it can be an
>> informal jury.
But it only condemns non cabal members. For instance, all nana.* types
are opposing spark from cancelling posts whose author uses
a name of "Spark" or "Heretic". On the other hand, Chris Lewis has
cancelled _every_ post I have ever made from this account on the grounds
that it is not written by a different Matt Bruce. Odds are
he will cancel this also.
No condemnation or opposition was expressed by nana.* types at Chris
Lewis' forged cancels. To be consistent, they should support Spark
in using a cancelbot or condemn Chris Lewis.
>> The people who *really* make decisions about UDPs are, essentially,
>> the people who implement them. However, to be effective, those people
>> need support for their actions - and this is one place where the
>> presence or absence of that support is established.
>
>Are there other places where the presence or absence of said support
>is established? If so, are they open to the great unwashed?
No. You must join the cabal.
IRS Agent
On 29 Jul 1997 19:15:50 GMT, cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
wrote:
>In article <5rjocq$380...@thepope.basis.com>,
>Michael Martinez <mich...@swcp.com> wrote:
>>>For instance, all nana.* types are opposing spark from cancelling posts
>>>whose author uses a name of "Spark" or "Heretic". On the other hand,
>>>Chris Lewis has cancelled _every_ post I have ever made from this
>>>account on the grounds that it is not written by a different Matt Bruce.
>>>Odds are he will cancel this also.
>
>>The presence of your article belies your sincerity.
>
>Actually, as per the request of the real owner of mlb...@hotmail.com,
>(who happens to be the real Matt L. Bruce ;-)) _all_ usenet postings with a
>From: line of "mlb...@hotmail.com" get cancelled as forgeries. I've
>confirmed the identity of the real Matt Bruce by way of phone conversations
>with his system administrators at Harvard, and have conversed directly
>by email with several of his confirmed addresses (including the
^^^^^^^^^^
>mlb...@hotmail.com one).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is a baldfaced lie. I challenge you to prove that assertion.
>Note that the postings from "mlb...@hotmail.com" do not originate on
>hotmail.com. These postings are originating on Zippo or
>the nym.alias.net anonymous remailer by way of monicals.com or
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If this is anonymous, how do you know where they come from?
>netgate.aauw.org. Thus there is no evidence whatsoever that whoever posted
>these messages is actually the person at "mlb...@hotmail.com".
There is no proof to the contrary. All that exists is net abuse on
your part, Chris. You have no credibility whatsoever.
>As a matter of course, and as can be seen in the notifications I issue,
>I do welcome people responding to me by email if they believe the
>cancellations are in error. Most compelling is the fact that this
>person has _never_ emailed me, preferring instead to bluster and accuse
I was on bcc for a post made by Matt on November 15, 1996 which cc:ed
you and ab...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca. You are a liar with no credibility
at all,Chris. The post is archived in numerous places for those who
wish to verify.
>me of all sorts of nonsense to innocent third parties by email -
>behaviour which is perfectly consistent with, for example, Grubor or
>Vulis being the real person behind this.
Ah, invective. Perhaps you are using this to persuade people to
ignore the facts and believe your lies.
>Now, it's entirely possible that the mlbruce address at hotmail has
>changed hands.
Obviously you don't know how hotmail works.
> But, until that's proven, the UDP for forging stands.
And a fine example you are setting. If, for instance, my name was
Mike, using your logic I could cancel all other posts from "Mike" as
being forgeries.
Chris, you are a net-abuser of the worst kind. And you lie.
In Article: Pine.SUN.3.95.96101...@crl.crl.com
Stan Kalisch (sjk...@crl.com) said:
"I hated the cat when I picked him out when I was two years old.
And I censor whatever I don't agree with, and I eat small
animals for breakfast. And I'm a cruel, heartless, meaningless
person that doesn't love anyone or anything. And I have no
ethics, and no regard for my fellow man."
ooo ooooo oooooooooooo .oooooo. oooooo oooooo oooo
`88. .888' `888' `8 d8P' `Y8b `888. `888. .8'
888b d'888 888 888 888 `888. .8888. .8'
8 Y88. .P 888 888oooo8 888 888 `888 .8'`888. .8'
8 `888' 888 888 " 888 888 `888.8' `888.8'
8 Y 888 888 o `88b d88' `888' `888'
o8o o888o o888ooooood8 `Y8bood8P' `8' `8'
88b d88 88888888888 ,ad8888ba, I8, 8 ,8I
888b d888 88 d8"' `"8b `8b d8b d8'
88`8b d8'88 88 d8' `8b "8, ,8"8, ,8"
88 `8b d8' 88 88aaaaa 88 88 Y8 8P Y8 8P
88 `8b d8' 88 88""""" 88 88 `8b d8' `8b d8'
88 `8b d8' 88 88 Y8, ,8P `8a a8' `8a a8'
88 `888' 88 88 Y8a. .a8P `8a8' `8a8'
88 `8' 88 88888888888 `"Y8888Y"' `8' `8'
__ __ ______ ______ __
| \/ | ____/ __ \ \ / /
| \ / | |__ | | | \ \ /\ / /
| |\/| | __|| | | |\ \/ \/ /
| | | | |___| |__| | \ /\ /
|_| |_|______\____/ \/ \/
_| _| _|_|_|_| _|_| _| _|
_|_| _|_| _| _| _| _| _|
_| _| _| _|_|_| _| _| _| _| _|
_| _| _| _| _| _| _| _|
_| _| _|_|_|_| _|_| _| _|
# # ### # # #
### # # # # #
### ## # # ###
# # # # # ###
# # ### # # #
# # ####### ####### # #
## ## # # # # # #
# # # # # # # # # #
# # # ##### # # # # #
# # # # # # # #
# # # # # # # #
# # ####### ####### ## ##
_______ _______ _______ _ _ _
(_______|_______|_______|_)(_)(_)
_ _ _ _____ _ _ _ _ _
| ||_|| | ___) | | | | || || |
| | | | |_____| |___| | || || |
|_| |_|_______)\_____/ \_____/
/ |/ / ____/ __ \ | / /
/ /|_/ / __/ / / / / | /| / /
/ / / / /___/ /_/ /| |/ |/ /
/_/ /_/_____/\____/ |__/|__/
Chris Lewis
In article <33de8614...@news.alt.net>,
IRS Agent <ta...@yourwallet.empty.gov> wrote:
>>Note that the postings from "mlb...@hotmail.com" do not originate on
>>hotmail.com. These postings are originating on Zippo or
>>the nym.alias.net anonymous remailer by way of monicals.com or
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>If this is anonymous, how do you know where they come from?
Because the headers indicate originating IP addresses corresponding to
monicals.com and netgate.aauw.org, silly. Look 'em up yourself.
>>netgate.aauw.org. Thus there is no evidence whatsoever that whoever posted
>>these messages is actually the person at "mlb...@hotmail.com".
>
>There is no proof to the contrary. All that exists is net abuse on
>your part, Chris. You have no credibility whatsoever.
Well let's see here then. You are the one TOSed from earthlink for
forging dozens of Tale newgroups and rmgroups, and probably did many
other batches from elsewhere. You are the one responsible for a vast
flood of test autoresponder bombs of the real Matt Bruce and many
others. You were responsible for a very large part of the massive meow
attacks on soc.college.bowl, nana.* and other groups.
Guess who people will believe? Not you.
Net abuse is all you do. Now go away little boy.
--
For more information on spam, including countermeasures and resources, see
the Internet Spam Boycott, at <URL:http://spam.abuse.net/spam/>.
Fight spam, support Rep. Chris Smith's TCPA extension by joining
CAUCE: http://www.cauce.org
IRS Agent
>In article <33de8614...@news.alt.net>,
>IRS Agent <ta...@yourwallet.empty.gov> wrote:
>
>>>Note that the postings from "mlb...@hotmail.com" do not originate on
>>>hotmail.com. These postings are originating on Zippo or
>>>the nym.alias.net anonymous remailer by way of monicals.com or
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>If this is anonymous, how do you know where they come from?
>
>Because the headers indicate originating IP addresses corresponding to
>monicals.com and netgate.aauw.org, silly. Look 'em up yourself.
I saw them the first time which is why I found your claim that they
were posted through an "anonymous remailer" so ridiculous. You really
should update your handle from "clewis" to "clueless".
>Net abuse is all you do. Now go away little boy.
You must have been looking in the mirror as you wrote that. Your high
quantity of continuing net abuse is well known.
It appears that you have tried to evade the issues of your lies by not
responding to them. Relevant parts are reposted below.
Lie #1
----------------Begin Quote---------------------
>have conversed directly
>by email with several of his confirmed addresses (including the
^^^^^^^^^^
>mlb...@hotmail.com one).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is a baldfaced lie. I challenge you to prove that assertion.
-----------------End Quote----------------------
Lie #2
----------------Begin Quote---------------------
>As a matter of course, and as can be seen in the notifications I issue,
>I do welcome people responding to me by email if they believe the
>cancellations are in error. Most compelling is the fact that this
>person has _never_ emailed me, preferring instead to bluster and accuse
I was on bcc for a post made by Matt on November 15, 1996 which cc:ed
you and ab...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca. You are a liar with no credibility
at all,Chris. The post is archived in numerous places for those who
wish to verify.
-----------------End Quote----------------------
I'm surprised that I only found 2 lies in that post of yours. There
may have been more that I didn't notice. Of course, I am not
surprised that you fail to address them. You are a liar, a forger and
a person without credibility. It is a wonder that you manage to
retain your job at Bell Northern Research with such low moral
character and personal qualities.
Now are you going to address your lies or evade again?
Steve Boursy
ta...@yourwallet.empty.gov (IRS Agent) wrote:
-
-cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) wrote:
-
->IRS Agent <ta...@yourwallet.empty.gov> wrote:
->
->>>Note that the postings from "mlb...@hotmail.com" do not originate on
->>>hotmail.com. These postings are originating on Zippo or
->>>the nym.alias.net anonymous remailer by way of monicals.com or
->> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
->>If this is anonymous, how do you know where they come from?
->
->Because the headers indicate originating IP addresses corresponding to
->monicals.com and netgate.aauw.org, silly. Look 'em up yourself.
-
-I saw them the first time which is why I found your claim that they
-were posted through an "anonymous remailer" so ridiculous. You really
-should update your handle from "clewis" to "clueless".
ccensor would be more appropriate--more on Chris Lewis and his
long history of content censorship can be found at:
Lewis is a worthless human being. He used to atleast make
the pretense of being a spam canceller--now he's quite open
about content cancels--down the path of no return (called
the Way of Jan Isley).
Steve
news.admin.censorship
-
->Net abuse is all you do. Now go away little boy.
-
-You must have been looking in the mirror as you wrote that. Your high
-quantity of continuing net abuse is well known.
-
-It appears that you have tried to evade the issues of your lies by not
-responding to them. Relevant parts are reposted below.
-
-
-Lie #1
-----------------Begin Quote---------------------
-
->have conversed directly
->by email with several of his confirmed addresses (including the
-
-^^^^^^^^^^
->mlb...@hotmail.com one).
- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-
-That is a baldfaced lie. I challenge you to prove that assertion.
-
------------------End Quote----------------------
-
-Lie #2
-----------------Begin Quote---------------------
-
->As a matter of course, and as can be seen in the notifications I issue,
->I do welcome people responding to me by email if they believe the
->cancellations are in error. Most compelling is the fact that this
->person has _never_ emailed me, preferring instead to bluster and accuse
-
-I was on bcc for a post made by Matt on November 15, 1996 which cc:ed
-you and ab...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca. You are a liar with no credibility
-at all,Chris. The post is archived in numerous places for those who
-wish to verify.
-
------------------End Quote----------------------
-
-I'm surprised that I only found 2 lies in that post of yours. There
-may have been more that I didn't notice. Of course, I am not
-surprised that you fail to address them. You are a liar, a forger and
-a person without credibility. It is a wonder that you manage to
-retain your job at Bell Northern Research with such low moral
-character and personal qualities.
-
-Now are you going to address your lies or evade again?
-
-
-
-In Article: Pine.SUN.3.95.96101...@crl.crl.com
-Stan Kalisch (sjk...@crl.com) said:
-"I hated the cat when I picked him out when I was two years old.
-And I censor whatever I don't agree with, and I eat small
-animals for breakfast. And I'm a cruel, heartless, meaningless
-person that doesn't love anyone or anything. And I have no
-ethics, and no regard for my fellow man."
-
-ooo ooooo oooooooooooo .oooooo. oooooo oooooo oooo
-`88. .888' `888' `8 d8P' `Y8b `888. `888. .8'
-888b d'888 888 888 888 `888. .8888. .8'
-8 Y88. .P 888 888oooo8 888 888 `888 .8'`888. .8'
-8 `888' 888 888 " 888 888 `888.8' `888.8'
-8 Y 888 888 o `88b d88' `888' `888'
-o8o o888o o888ooooood8 `Y8bood8P' `8' `8'
-
-
-88b d88 88888888888 ,ad8888ba, I8, 8 ,8I
-888b d888 88 d8"' `"8b `8b d8b d8'
-88`8b d8'88 88 d8' `8b "8, ,8"8, ,8"
-88 `8b d8' 88 88aaaaa 88 88 Y8 8P Y8 8P
-88 `8b d8' 88 88""""" 88 88 `8b d8' `8b d8'
-88 `8b d8' 88 88 Y8, ,8P `8a a8' `8a a8'
-88 `888' 88 88 Y8a. .a8P `8a8' `8a8'
-88 `8' 88 88888888888 `"Y8888Y"' `8' `8'
-
-
- __ __ ______ ______ __
- | \/ | ____/ __ \ \ / /
- | \ / | |__ | | | \ \ /\ / /
- | |\/| | __|| | | |\ \/ \/ /
- | | | | |___| |__| | \ /\ /
- |_| |_|______\____/ \/ \/
-
-
- _| _| _|_|_|_| _|_| _| _|
- _|_| _|_| _| _| _| _| _|
- _| _| _| _|_|_| _| _| _| _| _|
- _| _| _| _| _| _| _| _|
- _| _| _|_|_|_| _|_| _| _|
-
-
- # # ### # # #
- ### # # # # #
- ### ## # # ###
- # # # # # ###
- # # ### # # #
-
-
- # # ####### ####### # #
- ## ## # # # # # #
- # # # # # # # # # #
- # # # ##### # # # # #
- # # # # # # # #
- # # # # # # # #
- # # ####### ####### ## ##
-
- _______ _______ _______ _ _ _
- (_______|_______|_______|_)(_)(_)
- _ _ _ _____ _ _ _ _ _
- | ||_|| | ___) | | | | || || |
- | | | | |_____| |___| | || || |
- |_| |_|_______)\_____/ \_____/
-
-
- / |/ / ____/ __ \ | / /
- / /|_/ / __/ / / / / | /| / /
- / / / / /___/ /_/ /| |/ |/ /
- /_/ /_/_____/\____/ |__/|__/
-
Michael Martinez
In article <33de24eb...@news.alt.net>, the clueless ber...@solvang.com
>)
>)The presence of your article belies your sincerity.
>
>Obviously, you know nothing about usenet propagation.
Apparently you want to look stupid in front of thousands of people. The
article in question had not been cancelled by the time it got to my system.
There might have been a cancel floating around out there, but it hadn't caught
up. Since
>)>No condemnation or opposition was expressed by nana.* types at Chris
>)>Lewis' forged cancels. To be consistent, they should support Spark
>)>in using a cancelbot or condemn Chris Lewis.
>
>You didn't address the issue.
I didn't write the above, either. Oh, you mean I didn't respond to that. Too
bad. I wasn't under any obligation to do so. I was merely pointing out the
obvious -- that the article had not yet been cancelled.
>)Chris Lewis doesn't forge cancels. Try being truthful. More people
>will then
>)believe you.
>
>See spam.19970...@despams.ocunix.on.ca for cancel report. Were
>you born stupid or did you have a lobotomy?
You seem to lack the intelligence to understand simple asyncronicity. There
is no point in trying to lecture you on basic Usenet propagation -- you'll
never get it.
>)>No. You must join the cabal.
>)
>)So now you're requiring people to join the Kooks.
>
>I'm now convinced that you were born stupid.
That just demonstrates your inability to understand simple concepts. Since
the Kooks are the only cabal, it's obvious he wanted people to join the Kooks.
After all, There Is No Cabal (tm).
Get it?
I didn't think so.
I see by your followups in other threads that you are, indeed, a bona fide
member of the (Kook) cabal.
Your childish troll demonstrated that, and you seem to prove it with every
article you post. You're just another abuser.
--
++ ++ "Well Samwise: What do you think of the elves now?"
M. L. Bruce
Chris Lewis wrote:
>
> In article <33de8614...@news.alt.net>,
> IRS Agent <ta...@yourwallet.empty.gov> wrote:
>
> >>hotmail.com. These postings are originating on Zippo or
> >>the nym.alias.net anonymous remailer by way of monicals.com or
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >If this is anonymous, how do you know where they come from?
>
> >>these messages is actually the person at "mlb...@hotmail.com".
> >
> >There is no proof to the contrary. All that exists is net abuse on
> >your part, Chris. You have no credibility whatsoever.
>
> forging dozens of Tale newgroups and rmgroups, and probably did many
> other batches from elsewhere. You are the one responsible for a vast
> flood of test autoresponder bombs of the real Matt Bruce and many
> others. You were responsible for a very large part of the massive meow
> attacks on soc.college.bowl, nana.* and other groups.
>
> Guess who people will believe? Not you.
>
Said the internet's most famuos forger. Pot Kettle Black.
Jim Griffith
Some forger who doesn't even have the courage to identify himself said:
>Chris Lewis wrote:
>> Well let's see here then. You are the one TOSed from earthlink for
>> forging dozens of Tale newgroups and rmgroups, and probably did many
>> other batches from elsewhere. You are the one responsible for a vast
>> flood of test autoresponder bombs of the real Matt Bruce and many
>> others. You were responsible for a very large part of the massive meow
>> attacks on soc.college.bowl, nana.* and other groups.
>>
>> Guess who people will believe? Not you.
>>
>> Net abuse is all you do. Now go away little boy.
>Said the internet's most famuos forger. Pot Kettle Black.
...which, of course, doesn't change the fact that the kettle's black.
Be sure to let us know when you have something *substantive* to say.
Jim
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Griffith /--OO--\ | Two great powers are on our side: the power of
grif...@netcom.com | Love and the power of Arithmetic. These two are
BEWARE BATS WITHOUT NOSES! | stronger than anything else in the world.
Michael Martinez
In article <33de8614...@news.alt.net>, ta...@yourwallet.empty.gov (IRS Agent) wrote:
>>Note that the postings from "mlb...@hotmail.com" do not originate on
>>hotmail.com. These postings are originating on Zippo or
>>the nym.alias.net anonymous remailer by way of monicals.com or
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>If this is anonymous, how do you know where they come from?
Try "finger postm...@nym.alias.net" and you'll see that the service is
anonymous. And, of course, the header of the forged article had nym.alias.net
all over it.
>>netgate.aauw.org. Thus there is no evidence whatsoever that whoever posted
>>these messages is actually the person at "mlb...@hotmail.com".
>
>There is no proof to the contrary. All that exists is net abuse on
>your part, Chris. You have no credibility whatsoever.
Nonsense. He has plenty of credibility, since he does work out in the open
and doesn't try to hide behind faked addresses like
"ta...@yourwallet.empty.gov (IRS Agent)".
>>As a matter of course, and as can be seen in the notifications I issue,
>>I do welcome people responding to me by email if they believe the
>>cancellations are in error. Most compelling is the fact that this
>>person has _never_ emailed me, preferring instead to bluster and accuse
>
>I was on bcc for a post made by Matt on November 15, 1996 which cc:ed
>you and ab...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca. You are a liar with no credibility
>at all,Chris. The post is archived in numerous places for those who
>wish to verify.
There is indeed an article archived on Dejanews which might have been posted
from a hotmail account. Of course, visiting their Web site at
http://www.hotmail.com/, it doesn't look like hotmail allows you to post to
Usenet -- you have to send email to some other service, and yet the header of
the archived message indicates it came directly from hotmail.
A random sampling of other hotmail accounts archived on Dejanews indicates
that people are using other systems to post to Usenet and just want to get
their email directed to hotmail accounts. So, the article from Matt Bruce
looks kinda flaky.
>>me of all sorts of nonsense to innocent third parties by email -
>>behaviour which is perfectly consistent with, for example, Grubor or
>>Vulis being the real person behind this.
>
>Ah, invective. Perhaps you are using this to persuade people to
>ignore the facts and believe your lies.
Kind of hard to reach the conclusion that Chris Lewis is lying if you only
judge by what is archived.
>Chris, you are a net-abuser of the worst kind. And you lie.
[meows snipped]
Any statement from a meower may be disregarded as a genuine fabrication.
Kook Snuggler
On Tue, 29 Jul 1997 17:13:43 GMT, John Grubor, pretending to be
ber...@solvang.com (Gunter Bergman) wrote:
/He does have value as a horse's ass. That is the
/only value he has.
Johnny, did you forget how to trim? I did it for you. Smile now!
*SweetyNuzzles*FurryHuggles*TweetyWuzzles*FuzzyTickles*
*Happyhugglez*SunnySnugglez*ChirpyCuddlez*TeasingTicklez*
*hug*hug*hug*hug*hug*hug*hug*hug*hug*hug*hug*hug*hug*
*hug*hug*hug*hug*hug*hug*hug*hug*hug*hug*hug*hug*hug*
SQUEEEEEEZES!!
K.S.
Hug a kook, make it smile
Everyone relax awhile;
E.Holmes may have started a trend
And happy days are here again.
Peter da Silva
In article <imp-030897...@dial59.phoenix.net>, impLAnt <impLAnt> wrote:
>> So you're going to quit whining when people trim their newsgroups line?
>Not me. Redirecting all followups to a post, particularly unannounced like
>this latina Martinez cocksucker did, is the sneaky trick of a chickenshit.
I didn't say "redirect", I said "trim".
If you have a reading comprehension problem I'm sure there's any number of
good vocation schools that can help.
>Tsk. Even given the insane corruption of news.admin.* by censorous
>net-hacking liars and vigilantes, to deny the existence of the newsgroup
>creation Cabal, their cancel-forging "despam" enforcers and rogue
>forge-cancelling followers seems so.. churlish, don't you think?
If by "newsgroup creation cabal" you mean people who are involved in the
newsgroup creation process, I haven't been part of it in at least five years.
What that has to do with spam-cancelling, though, I'm at quite a loss to
understand. The intersection between the UVV folks and the spam-cancellers
is pretty small.
Any definition of "Cabal" broad enough to include all the folks that have been
accused one time or another of being in it is broad enough to include you.
>Or at least tiresome. It's 1997 outside, Pete, wake the fuck up: The Cabal
>is out of control. Cancels don't work.
Fine. Come up with something that does less damage. Write the code. Distribute
it. Until someone does that there is NO alternative. Until one of you blokes
who think you're some kind of conscience of the net actually gets out of your
newsreader long enough to do something you're just a bunch of hopeless whiners.
>And you're CAUSING massive abuse
>and destroying the freedom of the net besides.
Who are you talking to here? Are you under some misapprehension that I'm
the one behind the Winternet cancels, or the kikecancels, or something
like that?
>Or perhaps you have a better explanation of why there is so much "spam"?
There's so much spam because it's cheap, and it doesn't matter too much if
it's ineffective and inefficient and abusive because one positive response
pays these con-artists for their throwaway $20.00 PPP accounts.
If they weren't being cancelled, they'd be more effective, and there would
be more spam. Basic economics.
You can take a course on that when you sign up for the one on reading
comprehension.
--
Thought for the day:
According to Eileen Harrington of the FTC, out of 283 pieces of spam
received in FTC email in one week, only two were clearly not fraudulent.
If you're a legitimate business, is this the company you want to keep?
Ehud Gavron
In article <imp-100897...@dial128.phoenix.net>, impLAnt writes...
#In article <5sgjd8$s...@bonkers.taronga.com>, pe...@taronga.com (Peter da
#Silva) wrote:
#
#> In article <imp-030897...@dial59.phoenix.net>, impLAnt <impLAnt> wrote:
#> >> So you're going to quit whining when people trim their newsgroups line?
#>
#> >Not me. Redirecting all followups to a post, particularly unannounced like
#> >this latina Martinez cocksucker did, is the sneaky trick of a chickenshit.
#>
#> I didn't say "redirect", I said "trim".
#
#I said "Redirecting", as in "And...".
#
#> If you have a reading comprehension problem I'm sure there's any number of
#> good vocation schools that can help.
#
#How droll.
Droll is "funny" in French. Did you mean something else, are are
you a moron?
#
#> >Tsk. Even given the insane corruption of news.admin.* by censorous
#> >net-hacking liars and vigilantes, to deny the existence of the newsgroup
#> >creation Cabal, their cancel-forging "despam" enforcers and rogue
#> >forge-cancelling followers seems so.. churlish, don't you think?
#>
#> If by "newsgroup creation cabal" you mean people who are involved in the
#> newsgroup creation process, I haven't been part of it in at least five years.
#
#Sure. But when was the last time you cancelled a post that was not yours?
Yesterday. What's your point, fuckwit?
#
#> What that has to do with spam-cancelling, though, I'm at quite a loss to
#> understand. The intersection between the UVV folks and the spam-cancellers
#> is pretty small.
#
#That's only because the number of UVV cabalists is pretty small.
UVV is off the net, fuckwit. Read posts with "UUnet UDP" in them. Fuckwit.
#
#> Any definition of "Cabal" broad enough to include all the folks that have been
#> accused one time or another of being in it is broad enough to include you.
#
#I have been accused of many things, none of which is germane.
I accuse you of being a moron and a fuckwit. Both are germane and
both are correct.
#
#> >Or at least tiresome. It's 1997 outside, Pete, wake the fuck up: The Cabal
#> >is out of control. Cancels don't work.
#>
#> Fine. Come up with something that does less damage.
#
#We have. It's called "Do not process cancels".
Do no process idiots. Human evolution took a step backward when you spoke.
#
#> Write the code. Distribute
#> it. Until someone does that there is NO alternative.
#
#
#Yes there is. It's called "Do not process cancels".
See above, fuckwit.
#
#> Until one of you blokes who think you're some kind of conscience of the net
#
#Someone's got to have one. You blokes who think you're some kind of
#arbiters of the net make me sick.
Blokes? Are you some native aborigine loser ass convict swine on the small
side of a pond with A bIG FUCKiNG inSEcurITY ComPLEX?
#
#> actually gets out of your newsreader long enough to do something you're just a
#> bunch of hopeless whiners.
#
#I have good access. Good tools. I see no damage.. save for the long-term
#destruction caused by illicit forged cancel campaigns, and the artificial,
#attempted regulation of USENET by a cabal.
Blah blah blah blah. Your death has been ordained. Hit [Y] to cancel.
#
#Whining, eh? Love It or Fix It, pfeh. I'm a lover, not a fixer.
^
Typo. You mean "loser." Yes you are.
#
#> >And you're CAUSING massive abuse
#> >and destroying the freedom of the net besides.
#>
#> Who are you talking to here? Are you under some misapprehension that I'm
#> the one behind the Winternet cancels, or the kikecancels, or something
#> like that?
#
#I meant anyone who supports cancels. Cancels other people's on-topic posts
#from unmoderated groups, advises newbie newsadmins to run NoCeM on spool,
#etc. etc.
Wait. My dress is getting smoke up it...
#
#Why are you being so defensive? How many messages from other people would
#you guess that you have cancelled from other people's servers, Peter?
#
#Count carefully. You might have to answer for these in Hell you know.
Sign me up too, fuckwit. Say hi to Stan Kalisch IIIMEMEME for me.
#
#> >Or perhaps you have a better explanation of why there is so much "spam"?
#>
#> There's so much spam because it's cheap, and it doesn't matter too much if
#> it's ineffective and inefficient and abusive because one positive response
#> pays these con-artists for their throwaway $20.00 PPP accounts.
#>
#> If they weren't being cancelled, they'd be more effective, and there would
#> be more spam. Basic economics.
#
#If they weren't being cancelled, they'd be fewer in number, less abusive
#in quantity, and more easily killfiled. Common sense.
If gramma had skates... yada yada yada.
Boredom alert: Skip until "END OF BOREDOM" :
#
#The ability for anyone to cancel someone else's message?: It causes those
#who will seek undue access to the net to do such stuff as use throwaway
#accounts, use shitty freeware MailBlaster type garbage, forge their bang
#paths, use multiple From identities, and repeatedly respond to cancels
#with even more reposts. Ergo, honor cancels and you are causing carpet
#bombing at a minimum. Maybe even junk e-mail: much UCE is a direct
#*result* of "spammers" (nee "advertisers") being so hounded and vilified
#on USENET.
#
#Personally I detest any advertising whatsoever on USENET, but I know that
#you condone it in certain groups. But I do not believe our personal tastes
#and opinions should be inflicted upon other people. That is what I see
#happening with postmaster complaint attack squads, forged cancels,
#unwanted e-mail, spam FAQ zealots, newbie-bashing whiners, and moderation
#without representation.
#
#To "ban spam" and permit an unauthorized, unaccountable band of
#technoelite (most of whom work for commercial telecommunications players)
#to regulate USENET is not something I am comfortable with. Neither is the
#average netizen. Once even the most causal user of USENET discovers that
#other people have the ability to cancel something they post, they don't
#like it.
#
#Once they are educated on just how easy it is to ignore what they don't
#wish to see, they REALLY don't like it. As well they shouldn't: Junk mail
#sucks, but censorship is scary. And BOFH...your moderating, user-spanking,
#plug-pulling, busybody "LOOK AT ME", rules-making cancel-forging
#CENSORS...are REALLY scary.
#
#Oh wait. No, Martin Hannigan...now THAT's scary. I do wish you were a
#little easier in coming out with condemnations of some of the monkeyshines
#round here Peetah. Easier to spank the neophytes, yes?
#
#> You can take a course on that when you sign up for the one on reading
#> comprehension.
#
#Yes. But unfortunately you will never learn common sense.
"END OF BOREDOM"
Dude, you need a calabacita.
Ehud
#
#-iMp
#
#---------------------------------------------------------------------
#NO MORE CANCELS! Get an Altopia newsfeed for $5/mo. <www.altopia.net>
#---------------------------------------------------------------------
#| any replies go here | no e-mail replies to usenet posts |
#---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stan Kalisch III
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 11 Aug 1997, Ehud Gavron wrote:
> #That's only because the number of UVV cabalists is pretty small.
>
> UVV is off the net, fuckwit. Read posts with "UUnet UDP" in them. Fuckwit.
The UUNET UDP (active) was lifted effective 00:00:00 GMT on August 6th.
Stan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: http://www.crl.com/~sjkiii/PGP.Current_Public_Key
iQCVAwUBM+7t/5yiGl9g1kgJAQH+aAQAvNPcw33A2hxuNGNcX2gwTJBUAWQ0eXv3
250Wpke2aPMgkWp+vG48L9S6pFhQG9x5hi7lvNNCEY3ibPvcnqvYYFgCEVFVK9va
SMhko4kn1tGYZLR7ZxpU9runhdva7A6P9uuTHsIGczFJDIve11LLRSnCv0Uvv+4B
aCmZcu4Vw2I=
=wHvo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Stan Kalisch III
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 11 Aug 1997, Ehud Gavron wrote:
> In article <imp-100897...@dial128.phoenix.net>, impLAnt writes...
<...>
> #Count carefully. You might have to answer for these in Hell you know.
>
> Sign me up too, fuckwit. Say hi to Stan Kalisch IIIMEMEME for me.
Funny you should say that--Implant's the only person on Usenet I flat-out
refuse to speak to.
In fact, Ehud, a month or two ago, I would have said that you and Imp
deserved time locked alone in a room with each other--it could have been
the perfect punishment for you both.
Stan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: http://www.crl.com/~sjkiii/PGP.Current_Public_Key
iQCVAwUBM+7sfpyiGl9g1kgJAQFnWQP/RwENk3xEyDdpX88CDiu/cZTJnC8b1cf0
4tYx94c1EyNu1Tb5EoAaNPqlUztQjgxyPVBPADA3QPpR0MkMNRu7hQFUSyjyd4sG
bbmEB+qwDMcAGYKYQMtE/koSxVx7eNKqmBIPYPgJqoajNvQOfQlAiG271ALambob
09rgtlR9j2U=
=0tca
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Andrew Gierth
>>>>> "Stan" == Stan Kalisch <sjk...@crl.com> writes:
> On 11 Aug 1997, Ehud Gavron wrote:
>>
>> UVV is off the net, fuckwit. Read posts with "UUnet UDP" in them. Fuckwit.
Stan> The UUNET UDP (active) was lifted effective 00:00:00 GMT on August 6th.
And the UVV were never affected by the active UDP anyway (though sites
that are shunning UUNET will not see the daily UVV reports).
--
Andrew.
Peter da Silva
In article <imp-100897...@dial128.phoenix.net>, impLAnt <impLAnt> wrote:
>In article <5sgjd8$s...@bonkers.taronga.com>, pe...@taronga.com (Peter da
>> In article <imp-030897...@dial59.phoenix.net>, impLAnt <impLAnt> wrote:
>> >> So you're going to quit whining when people trim their newsgroups line?
>> >Not me. Redirecting all followups to a post, particularly unannounced like
>> >this latina Martinez cocksucker did, is the sneaky trick of a chickenshit.
>> I didn't say "redirect", I said "trim".
>I said "Redirecting", as in "And...".
So your response was a non-sequiter, unrelated to my question. Just a handy
place to hang words like "cocksucker" and "chickenshit". Fair enough.
I'll keep that in mind in the future.
>> If by "newsgroup creation cabal" you mean people who are involved in the
>> newsgroup creation process, I haven't been part of it in at least five years.
>Sure. But when was the last time you cancelled a post that was not yours?
Me, personally? About the time the last spam-cancel moratorium started. I
haven't done any spam-cancelling since, even after the moratorium was lifted.
>> >Or at least tiresome. It's 1997 outside, Pete, wake the fuck up: The Cabal
>> >is out of control. Cancels don't work.
>> Fine. Come up with something that does less damage.
>We have. It's called "Do not process cancels".
And what does "Do not process cancels" do to deal with the simple fact that
the majority of postings are now junk advertising, and the trend is increasing,
and that without the cancels more people would be engaged in this practice?
>> Until one of you blokes who think you're some kind of conscience of the net
>Someone's got to have one. You blokes who think you're some kind of
>[consciences] of the net make me sick.
I hope you don't mind my correcting the typo in your message there.
>I meant anyone who supports cancels.
I oppose cancels. I had a long knock-down drag-out fight with Chris Lewis
over them. I have simply been convinced by the spammers themselves that
until a better solution has been devised there is simply no alternative.
>Why are you being so defensive? How many messages from other people would
>you guess that you have cancelled from other people's servers, Peter?
I'm sure it's at least several thousand, in groups that were being flooded
by spam but weren't at the time being monitored by the standard spam
cancellers. Now that they are, I've stopped.
Maybe I should have made some big fancy self-serving announcement or
something? Pshaw.
>> There's so much spam because it's cheap, and it doesn't matter too much if
>> it's ineffective and inefficient and abusive because one positive response
>> pays these con-artists for their throwaway $20.00 PPP accounts.
>> If they weren't being cancelled, they'd be more effective, and there would
>> be more spam. Basic economics.
>If they weren't being cancelled, they'd be fewer in number, less abusive
>in quantity, and more easily killfiled. Common sense.
And how do you come by this conclusion? Cancelling reduces the effectiveness
of spam, by hiding it from its captive audience so they can go about their
business undisturbed. If it wasn't cancelled, it would be more profitable,
and there would be more people doing it.
>The ability for anyone to cancel someone else's message?: It causes those
>who will seek undue access to the net to do such stuff as use throwaway
>accounts,
They would be doing that anyway, without cancels.
>use shitty freeware MailBlaster type garbage,
The content of their spam is irrelevant, and that includes formatting problems
caused by this sort of poor software. It's a minor problem compared with the
volume of spam itself.
>forge their bang paths, use multiple From identities,
Neither of which changes the character of spam.
>and repeatedly respond to cancels with even more reposts.
Outside of a couple of areas where spam has pretty much already destroyed
the groups (alt.binaries, misc.jobs) only a handful of spammers engage in
blanket reposts: the PSYCHIC spammer and Woodside are about the only ones
that are doing this on a broad scale. And in those black spots the majority
of reposts are, by the statements of the spammers themselves, an attempt
to get their messages heard over the other spam... not over the cancels.
Without the cancels, their would be more spam for them to compete with,
and this effect would itself be greater. Spam is a positive feedback loop
that left to itself increases to the carrying capacity of the channel.
>Ergo, honor cancels and you are causing carpet
>bombing at a minimum. Maybe even junk e-mail: much UCE is a direct
>*result* of "spammers" (nee "advertisers") being so hounded and vilified
>on USENET.
They don't care if they're hounded or vilified. They glory in bad publicity,
and a lost account is counted as a cost of doing business. Even if there
were no cancels, they would still be spamming email... the biggest email
spammer of all, Sanford Wallace, came here from spamming FAX machines not
Usenet.
>Personally I detest any advertising whatsoever on USENET, but I know that
>you condone it in certain groups. But I do not believe our personal tastes
>and opinions should be inflicted upon other people.
But that's what *spam* is doing.
>To "ban spam" and permit an unauthorized, unaccountable band of
>technoelite (most of whom work for commercial telecommunications players)
>to regulate USENET is not something I am comfortable with.
Then come up with a better solution. We've tried the rest, and they don't
work.
>Neither is the
>average netizen. Once even the most causal user of USENET discovers that
>other people have the ability to cancel something they post, they don't
>like it.
*I* don't like it. I'm actually *working* on an alternative. What are you
doing?
>Once they are educated on just how easy it is to ignore what they don't
>wish to see, they REALLY don't like it.
Ah, you have a psychic newsreader too. I notice that Dave Hayes is using
Netscape Communicator. I'll have to try it out... Navigator has been a
big disappointment, though, so I don't have much hope.
>As well they shouldn't: Junk mail
>sucks, but censorship is scary.
And what censorship is this? Dimitri's kikecancels? Spam-cancellers don't
restrict what people can say in any way... just *where* and *how* they
can say it.
>And BOFH...your moderating, user-spanking,
>plug-pulling, busybody "LOOK AT ME", rules-making cancel-forging
>CENSORS...are REALLY scary.
But on BOFH-net we don't even *look* at the messages that are being junked.
How can we censor something that we don't even see?
If you want to piss and moan about censors, go bother Solid Oak software and
CyberSitter.
>Oh wait. No, Martin Hannigan...now THAT's scary. I do wish you were a
>little easier in coming out with condemnations of some of the monkeyshines
>round here Peetah. Easier to spank the neophytes, yes?
I rarely "spank" neophytes, Imp. And I've "spanked" Martin on more than
one occasion.
Lysander Spooner
On 11 Aug 1997 07:00 MST, gav...@matrix.aces.com (Ehud Gavron) wrote:
>In article <Pine.SUN.3.96L-rev3_1-10....@crl3.crl.com>, Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> writes...
>..
>#On 11 Aug 1997, Ehud Gavron wrote:
>..
>#> UVV is off the net, fuckwit. Read posts with "UUnet UDP" in them. Fuckwit.
>#
>#The UUNET UDP (active) was lifted effective 00:00:00 GMT on August 6th.
>
>Really? What behavioral or post-junk-ratio changed occurred between
>August 1 and midnight August 6th? Let me ask again in simple words:
>How did UUnet "Get Well" suddenly August 5th?
They pulled the plug on ALL their Alterdial customers' posting
priveliges. Unfortunately, they have since restored it, with the
predictable result.
-- Rick
------------
** Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering? **
Ehud Gavron
Edited for obscurity:
In article <Pine.SUN.3.96L-rev3_1-10....@crl3.crl.com>, Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> writes...
..
#On 11 Aug 1997, Ehud Gavron wrote:
..
#> In article <imp-100897...@dial128.phoenix.net>, impLAnt writes...
..
#> #Count carefully. You might have to answer for these in Hell you know.
..
#> Sign me up too, fuckwit. Say hi to Stan Kalisch IIIMEMEME for me.
..
#
#Funny you should say that--Implant's the only person on Usenet I flat-out
#refuse to speak to.
Damn, I thought you held yourself above those kind of things.
#In fact, Ehud, a month or two ago, I would have said that you and Imp
#deserved time locked alone in a room with each other--it could have been
#the perfect punishment for you both.
That's not punishment. He'd start talking, and I'd finally
catch up on all that sleep that I've been missing...
;-)
E
#Stan
Ehud Gavron
In article <Pine.SUN.3.96L-rev3_1-10....@crl3.crl.com>, Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> writes...
..
#On 11 Aug 1997, Ehud Gavron wrote:
..
#
#The UUNET UDP (active) was lifted effective 00:00:00 GMT on August 6th.
Really? What behavioral or post-junk-ratio changed occurred between
August 1 and midnight August 6th? Let me ask again in simple words:
How did UUnet "Get Well" suddenly August 5th?
Ehud
#Stan
Stan Kalisch III
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
[alt.usenet.kooks added--if anyone wants to chop off a group, chop...]
On 11 Aug 1997, Ehud Gavron wrote:
> Edited for obscurity:
>
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.96L-rev3_1-10....@crl3.crl.com>, Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> writes...
> ..
> #On 11 Aug 1997, Ehud Gavron wrote:
> ..
> #> In article <imp-100897...@dial128.phoenix.net>, impLAnt writes...
> ..
> #> #Count carefully. You might have to answer for these in Hell you know.
> ..
> #> Sign me up too, fuckwit. Say hi to Stan Kalisch IIIMEMEME for me.
> ..
> #
> #Funny you should say that--Implant's the only person on Usenet I flat-out
> #refuse to speak to.
>
> Damn, I thought you held yourself above those kind of things.
There's nothing really *there* to hold myself *above*--communication of a
useful nature isn't possible with such a reasonably intelligent person who
so easily *lies*...it's a better use of time making a statement by not
talking to Imp than it is talking to him; that's how useless our
discussions have been.
(Too bad there isn't an alt.usenet.cretins)
> #In fact, Ehud, a month or two ago, I would have said that you and Imp
> #deserved time locked alone in a room with each other--it could have been
> #the perfect punishment for you both.
>
> That's not punishment. He'd start talking, and I'd finally
> catch up on all that sleep that I've been missing...
Eh, I'd make sure there were no portable metal objects in that room before
I went to sleep.
Besides, can you sleep *that* long?...
Stan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: http://www.crl.com/~sjkiii/PGP.Current_Public_Key
iQCVAwUBM/FlAZyiGl9g1kgJAQEUfAQAsu7bTyT90eADU4OXNRR41UEOxmSw20vm
6I6Rh5zK+bRmK+GEwJOGgRsf5WWgJZlZgUXB7KLCzH7/z7rCObg0hqLS8Qoz1G9q
xq/eQ6W+nlAtbZczPZzXaP1KjSimO5FnnalCZygv8ObABujIn9W/7wtqn5cpeXGr
cx0K56CZ9Rk=
=d3Is
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ronald F. Guilmette
In article <5snb1c$p...@bonkers.taronga.com>,
Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:
>... Spam is a positive feedback loop
>that left to itself increases to the carrying capacity of the channel.
Thank you for having so succinctly summed up the _real_ problem with spam...
spam of _both_ the news and E-mail varieties.
--
-- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, CA -------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. --------
---- E-mail: r...@e-scrub.com ------------ http://www.e-scrub.com/ ----------
------ Copyright (c) 1997 by Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. -----