Tales of the Semi-bold
Magnate
Got to 3000' with this diver and thought I would risk a posting - probably
the kiss of death but hey. Started with my "standard" HERa: 18/30 STR, 18/10
DEX, 18 INT, 16 CON, base WIS & CHR. With my 500gp I bought a longbow, main
gauche (there were no rapiers), ?WoR, ?MB1, 2 ?PD, ?food, 3 torches and 65
arrows. First kill was Fang at 100' for 60xp, getting my cl2 and 3. It was a
tough fight, and only after he died did I notice that my main gauche was
unwielded. No idea why.
First trip ended abruptly at 550' (cl8) when Wormy woke up and would not
leave me alone (no stairs reachable). He stole over 100 of my then pitiful
1000gp so I recalled to salvage what was left. Managed to buy nothing other
than 2 ?WoR, more arrows and a couple of ?+dam.
Second trip started off eerily similar - the first kill was Grip. Killed a
pseudo-dragon at cl9 for 167xp which was a fairly big jump. Again, the trip
ended in a panic recall at 950' after a crebain woke up and hasted a
homunculus. Had about 2900gp and bought lots of ?+dam and !resSTR which I
needed. Was cl14 that this point.
Third trip nearly killed me as I descended to 1000' into a room with 14
white wolves AND 12 fire hounds (I had no resists) - I had ?MB2 with me and
succeeded at *tSelf despite 34% fail. Lost DEX to a trap though so had to
recall, but it had been a busy level and I had 2000gp and a full inv so was
not too unhappy. At this point I was cl17 with 178hp (and still with my base
16 CON). One of the items in my inv turned out to be my first ego item - the
HA I still have at home.
On the fourth trip I killed a hill giant for 220xp to reach cl18 - not
terribly impressive but my best kill so far. At this point I was a little
slow (still at 1350' and 168k turns) because I was resting for mana for
*dVis. It was a policy decision to stay alive and see more of the dungeon.
Fifth trip also had a dangerous beginning: the only stairs were guarded by a
4-headed hydra, a master rogue and a vampire. Fortunately none of them woke
up. Killed a half-troll for 755xp and cl19, and then got INT & CON swapped
by nexus hounds - not too awful as they were only 1 point apart - cost me
about 5hp. Trip ended in a third panic recall as I was surrounded by trolls
with a mind flayer buddy. At this point I'd reached cl20 and my bow was at
+8,+6 or thereabouts. Was only at 1400' though, after 195k turns.
The extra shot made a huge difference, as you would expect, but I didn't
speed up much because I didn't have enough money for ID. I'm very tempted to
hack p_class.txt and give all classes strong pseudo, as weak pseudo is just
pants. Not because of the lack of {excellent} and {average}, but because
there's a 20% chance that something which doesn't pseudo is NOT average, so
you have to use ID on everything which isn't cursed. Very painful.
Sixth trip was very short but notable because I found my first usable ego
item - the sabre which I'm still using - and my first stat potion. It was
STR, and took me to 18/20 base (18/50 total), which gave me three attacks
with the sabre. Perfect - especially as I had found two damage rings by this
point (+8 and +10). At the end of trip six I was cl22 at 1500'.
On the seventh trip I took on and killed a law drake and I was into serious
xp territory (~2000). Again, trip was quite short because I didn't have
enough ID so my inventory filled up.
On the eighth trip I took 20 ?ID, found my first !CON, and =FA, but also had
my first proper defeat (i.e. could not defeat a monster I had chosen to
fight). It was a greater mummy, with 1_IN_2 casting and summoning and stat
draining attacks. It summoned a shade which drained more stats and I
recalled in panic (fourth panic recall out of eight).
On the ninth trip I found a troll pit at 1850' and realised that they could
ALL drop stat potions (the weakest were stone trolls). So I killed them all,
and found 4 !WIS, 1 !DEX and my second !CON. I had to recall at the end of
the level though, as I had run out of ID. I bought _speed at the BM but was
so used to avoiding fast monsters that I've hardly used it since.
On the 10th trip I found my first ego launcher - a Hxbow of Accuracy
(+10,+13) - which I binned as inferior to my two-shot longbow (+9,+9). I
also found my one and only artifact, though kept it at home because I could
not *ID* it and it had no obvious powers. At this point I was still using
armour for rCold, "rAcid and a swap weapon of *slay demon* for rFire.
Finally by the 11th trip I got the balance right between ?ID and ?dObj, and
stayed down for a while. I found my second ego launcher - a short bow of
Extra Might (+1) - so it was a longbow with +20 damage. Good enough for now.
I also found two more !DEX which took me to four blows with the sabre. When
I recalled with 15k gold there was of course nothing interesting for sale -
funny how money goes from critical to irrelevant in a single trip. I
bought -drainLife from the BM but otherwise just bought out consumables.
Maggot appeared and dropped a crappy short bow in a cruel parody of my life.
My twelfth trip was notable because I had to make some major inventory
decisions: I squelched -LightArea and _curing, which I had been carrying for
ages. The former because I now had plenty of mana and the latter because I
was now carrying !CCW as disposable rather than for emergencies. I also
squelched -tOther when I found -TelOther. I also found my first !INT, first
!speed and my first ?MB5, and got my bow disenchanted twice by a storm of
unmagic (which unerringly avoided all my other equipment, getting the bow
with its only two breaths). I also found an elven shield, my first source of
rbase. I also found two *ID*, which I used on the shield and on the artifact
armour. Together they were so heavy that I had to dump all other armour
pieces, and still I lose a point of mana.
I'm now on trip 13 at 3000', and have still killed only Grip, Fang and
Maggot. I'm thinking of a strategy for uniques: I will kill any which have
dangerous spells (mind blast, brain smash,
S_MONSTER/DEMON/UNDEAD/DRAGON/HOUND, TELE_TO/AWAY/LEVEL) and leave all the
others, in the hope that Morgy surrounds me with orcs. Grateful for any
views on this, or comments on the dump. In case anybody cares, here's a
table of progress:
Trip Depth(') Clev hp Gold Turns(k) Reason
1 550 8 96 919 38 Panic
2 950 15 157 2889 114 Panic
3 1000 17 178 2045 143 ID/DEX
4 1350 18 177 1929 168 ID/CON
5 1400 20 178 2970 195 Panic
6 1500 22 198 6812 221 ID
7 1650 24 214 4444 245 ID
8 1850 25 213 5174 273 ID/CON
9 1850 27 266 8761 302 ID
10 2200 27 280 5752 317 ID
11 2800 28 289 15757 356 ID
12 2900 29 292 29019 402 ID
[Angband 3.0.9ef Character Dump]
Name Phelps V Self RB CB EB Best
Sex Male Age 108 STR: 18/20 +1 +2 +0 18/50
Race High-Elf Height 90 INT: 15 +3 +2 +0 18/20
Class Ranger Weight 193 WIS: 15 -1 +0 +0 14
Title Guide Status 41 DEX: 18/27 +3 +1 +1 18/77
HP 292/292 Maximize Y CON: 18 +1 +1 +0 18/20
SP 45/45 CHR: 11 +5 +1 +4 18/30
Level 29 Armor [24,+33] Saving Throw 78
Cur Exp 151525 Fight (+2,+13) Stealth 10
Max Exp 151525 Melee (+11,+22) Fighting 186
Adv Exp 172500 Shoot (+11,+18) Shooting 260
MaxDepth 2900 ft Blows 4/turn Disarming 66
Turns 407381 Shots 2/turn Magic Device 85
Gold 17200 Infra 40 ft Perception 30
Burden 172.6 lbs Energy 100% Searching 27
You are one of several children of a Telerin Archer. You have light
grey eyes, straight silver hair, and a fair complexion.
abcdefghijkl@ abcdefghijkl@
Acid:........+.... Blind:.............
Elec:........+.... Confu:.............
Fire:........+.... Sound:.............
Cold:......+.+.... Shard:.............
Pois:........+.... Nexus:.............
Fear:............. Nethr:.............
Lite:............+ Chaos:.............
Dark:......+...... Disen:.............
abcdefghijkl@ abcdefghijkl@
S.Dig:............. Stea.:........+....
Feath:............. Sear.:.............
PLite:......+...... Infra:.............
Regen:............. Tunn.:.............
Telep:............. Speed:.............
Invis:............+ Blows:.............
FrAct:..+.......... Shots:.............
HLife:............. Might:.+...........
[Character Equipment]
a) a Sabre of *Slay Orc* (1d7) (+9,+9) (+1) {floor 1400'}
It increases your dexterity by 1. It slays orcs. It sustains your
dexterity. You get 4 blows per round with this weapon. With
additional +3 dex you would get 5 blows.
b) a Short Bow of Extra Might (x2) (+9,+18) (+1) {floor 2200'}
It increases your shooting power by 1.
c) a Bronze Ring of Free Action {law drake 1750'}
It grants you immunity to paralysis.
d) an Azurite Ring of Damage (+10) {floor 1500'}
e) an Amber Amulet of Charisma (+4) {floor 2700'}
It increases your charisma by 4. It sustains your charisma.
// This slot is empty when I go down. Have not found any useful amulets (and
have already squelched "infra and "searching - should perhaps think about
unsquelching the former)
f) a Lantern (10712 turns)
It usually provides light of radius 2. It cannot be harmed by fire.
g) The Metal Brigandine Armour of Thengel (-3) [19,+15] {young green 2100'}
It provides resistance to cold and dark. It usually provides light
of radius 4. It cannot be harmed by the elements.
Not great - I'm basically wearing 29lbs of armour for rdark, which isn't
really an issue for another thousand feet or so. Can't be too careful, and
didn't have any other armour except single-low-resist.
h) (nothing)
i) a Large Metal Shield of Elvenkind { rPoison } [5,+15] (+3 to stealth)
{half-troll 2800'}
It increases your stealth by 3. It provides resistance to acid,
lightning, fire, cold, and poison. It cannot be harmed by the
elements.
j) (nothing)
k) (nothing)
l) (nothing)
[Character Inventory]
a) a Book of Magic Spells [Magic for Beginners] {@m1@b1@G1!d!k!v}
b) a Book of Magic Spells [Conjurings and Tricks] {@m2@b2@G2!d!k!v}
c) a Book of Magic Spells [Incantations and Illusions] {@m3@b3@G3!d!k!v}
// *ID is still pants but carrying this for *food and *mud.
d) a Book of Magic Spells [Resistances of Scarabtarices] {@m5@b5@G5!d!k!v}
It cannot be harmed by the elements.
//Have not yet used the temp resists, but could conceivably take on an
ancient white or red now. Or green, even.
e) a Flask of oil
f) 9 Yellow Speckled Potions of Cure Critical Wounds {!q!d!k!v}
g) 12 Scrolls titled "quant brinwet" of Phase Door {@r2}
h) 2 Scrolls titled "ladeo nast" of Word of Recall {!r!d!k!v}
i) 61 Scrolls titled "lompluma" of Identify {@r1}
j) a Scroll titled "osga do nitath" of Recharging {!r!d!k!v}
k) 43 Scrolls titled "eastie get mon" of Object Detection {@r5}
l) a Steel Rod of Teleport Other {!! @z1!d!k!v}
Your success rate is 97.5%, if confused 9.5%.
m) 4 Chromium Rods of Light {!! @z2}
Your success rate is 98.6%, if confused 96.8%.
//I don't think I will ever have enough mana to do without these.
n) 2 Magnesium Rods of Fire Bolts {!! @z4}
Your success rate is 98.1%, if confused 91.6%.
o) a Gold-Plated Rod of Frost Bolts {!! @z3}
Your success rate is 98.3%, if confused 94.1%.
//This is next to go when I need inv space.
p) an Ashen Staff of Teleportation (8 charges) {!u!d!k!v}
Your success rate is 98.4%, if confused 95.4%.
q) a Hemlock Staff of Speed (2 charges) {!u!d!k!v}
Your success rate is 97.7%, if confused 33.3%.
r) an Aspen Staff of *Destruction* (2 charges) {!u!d!k!v}
Your success rate is 97.1%, if confused 5.5%.
//Never yet had to use this. But now I have the only truly guaranteed escape
in the game. And even then it's a 2.9% fail ...
s) 74 Arrows (1d4) (+2,+4) {@f1}
[Home Inventory]
a) 4 Books of Magic Spells [Conjurings and Tricks] {@m2@b2@G2!d!k!v}
b) 2 Books of Magic Spells [Incantations and Illusions] {@m3@b3@G3!d!k!v}
c) 3 Books of Magic Spells [Sorcery and Evocations] {@m4@b4@G4!d!k!v}
d) 3 Brown Mushrooms of Restore Strength {!E!d!k!v}
e) 3 Dark Red Mushrooms of Restore Constitution {!E!d!k!v}
f) 15 Yellow Speckled Potions of Cure Critical Wounds {!q!d!k!v}
g) 4 Purple Speckled Potions of Restore Mana {!q!d!k!v}
h) 3 Metallic Red Potions of Restore Life Levels
i) a Black Potion of Restore Wisdom
j) 60 Scrolls titled "quant brinwet" of Phase Door {@r2}
k) 2 Scrolls titled "egor anas erth" of Enchant Weapon To-Hit
l) 2 Scrolls titled "inces anguo" of Enchant Weapon To-Dam
m) 26 Scrolls titled "osga do nitath" of Recharging {!r!d!k!v}
n) a Runed Wand of Teleport Other (7 charges) {@a2!d!k!v}
Your success rate is 98.4%, if confused 95.4%.
//This is a leftover. I have squelched these now.
o) 5 Ashen Staffs of Teleportation (39 charges) {!u!d!k!v}
Your success rate is 98.4%, if confused 95.4%.
p) a Gnarled Staff of Object Location (7 charges) {@u3}
Your success rate is 98.7%, if confused 97.2%.
q) a Fluorite Ring of Strength (+3) {floor 1850'}
It increases your strength by 3. It sustains your strength.
r) an Azurite Ring of Damage (+8) {mummified thing 1500'}
s) an Iron Helm of Light [5,+5]
It provides resistance to light. It usually provides light of
radius 1.
//Too heavy until I can replace the body armour with something better
(elvenkind or another artifact, basically).
t) a Long Sword of *Slay Demon* (2d5) (+9,+9) (+1) {chest 1850'}
It increases your intelligence by 1. It is especially deadly
against demons. It provides resistance to fire. You get 2 blows
per round with this weapon. With additional +3 str you would get 3
blows. With additional +1 dex you would get 3 blows.
//This was my swap for rFire until I found the elven shield.
u) a Scythe of *Slay Evil* { } (5d3) (+12,+13) (+2) {nether wraith 2850'}
It increases your wisdom by 2. It slays all evil creatures. It is
blessed by the gods. It has a random power from { S.Dig FF SI FA
HLife }.You get 1 blow per round with this weapon. With additional
+6 str you would get 2 blows. With additional +1 dex you would get
2 blows.
//At 25lb I'm not sure this will ever be a contender, but at the moment I
have space to keep it.
v) a Battle Axe (Holy Avenger) { } (2d8) (+11,+10) [+1] (+2) {ranger 1000'}
It increases your wisdom by 2. It slays demons, undead, and all
evil creatures. It provides resistance to fear. It is blessed by
the gods. It grants you the ability to see invisible things. It
sustains a random stat.You get 1 blow per round with this weapon.
With additional +2 str you would get 2 blows. With additional +1
dex you would get 2 blows.
//My first ego weapon, and at the moment it's still not worth carrying. I'd
have to swap the =FA for =STR to get two blows, and my damage output would
still be less than with the sabre. (68 vs non-evil, 86 vs evil cf. 104
w/sabre)
[Options]
Adult: Maximize effect of race/class bonuses : yes (adult_maximize)
Adult: Randomize some of the artifacts (beta): yes (adult_randarts)
//I am using my own randart patch, from 2002, updated for use with
Eddieband.
Adult: Auto-scum for good levels : no (adult_autoscum)
Adult: Restrict the use of stairs/recall : no (adult_ironman)
Adult: Restrict the use of stores/home : no (adult_no_stores)
Adult: Restrict creation of artifacts : no (adult_no_artifacts)
Adult: Don't stack objects on the floor : no (adult_no_stacking)
Adult: Preserve artifacts when leaving level : no (adult_no_preserve)
Adult: Don't generate connected stairs : yes (adult_no_stairs)
Adult: Monsters chase current location : yes (adult_ai_sound)
Adult: Monsters chase recent locations : yes (adult_ai_smell)
Adult: Monsters act smarter in groups : yes (adult_ai_packs)
Adult: Monsters learn from their mistakes : yes (adult_ai_learn)
Adult: Monsters exploit players weaknesses : no (adult_ai_cheat)
Adult: Monsters behave more intelligently (broken): no (adult_ai_smart)
Score: Peek into object creation : no (score_peek)
Score: Peek into monster creation : no (score_hear)
Score: Peek into dungeon creation : no (score_room)
Score: Peek into something else : no (score_xtra)
Score: Know complete monster info : no (score_know)
Score: Allow player to avoid death : no (score_live)
Timo Pietilä
> Hi All,
>
> Got to 3000' with this diver and thought I would risk a posting - probably
> the kiss of death but hey. Started with my "standard" HERa: 18/30 STR, 18/10
> DEX, 18 INT, 16 CON, base WIS & CHR.
Next time try to play Ranger like Warrior with detection spells and
excellent distance attack. Much faster than playing it as mage with bow.
IE. spend your points to STR, DEX and CON (in that order) and put rest
to INT. Use scrolls for ID until you have plenty of mana and low failure
on it.
> g) The Metal Brigandine Armour of Thengel (-3) [19,+15] {young green 2100'}
>
> It provides resistance to cold and dark. It usually provides light
>
> of radius 4. It cannot be harmed by the elements.
>
> Not great - I'm basically wearing 29lbs of armour for rdark, which isn't
> really an issue for another thousand feet or so. Can't be too careful, and
> didn't have any other armour except single-low-resist.
Well, you don't have resist blindness, so this is preventing blindness
from dark hounds. Not too bad.
Timo Pietilä
Magnate
[snip lots of stuff]
> table of progress:
>
> Trip Depth(') Clev hp Gold Turns(k) Reason
>
> 1 550 8 96 919 38 Panic
> 2 950 15 157 2889 114 Panic
> 3 1000 17 178 2045 143 ID/DEX
> 4 1350 18 177 1929 168 ID/CON
> 5 1400 20 178 2970 195 Panic
> 6 1500 22 198 6812 221 ID
> 7 1650 24 214 4444 245 ID
> 9 1850 27 266 8761 302 ID
> 10 2200 27 280 5752 317 ID
> 11 2800 28 289 15757 356 ID
> 12 2900 29 292 29019 402 ID
Bloody OE and WordPad - I've never had a dump messed up before. Hey - do
you think someone intercepted my post and deliberately cocked up the
formatting before propagating it around the world? Someone is trying to
make me look stupid - I WILL NOT STAND FOR IT, DO YOU HEAR?
tigpup
> Bloody OE and WordPad - I've never had a dump messed up before. Hey - do
> you think someone intercepted my post and deliberately cocked up the
> formatting before propagating it around the world? Someone is trying to
> make me look stupid - I WILL NOT STAND FOR IT, DO YOU HEAR?- Hide quoted text -
>
lol - that certainly seems the only reasonable explanation.
:oþ
pete m
I said the sparrow, with my little bow and arrow, I kill'd cock
robin...
I wouldn't squelch Wands of Teleport Other, ever. Sometimes you need
to teleport a whole lot of monsters at once (eg, before they wake up
in a GV), and the fail rate is ~25% lower than the Rod.
Magnate
Hmm. Since I don't have space to carry both in my inv, you're talking about
a scenario where I need to teleport a whole lot of monsters at once
and -tOther *just happens* to be lying about on the level, within reach,
before I need to do so. I'm content to forego that possibility.
My fail rate with -TelOther is 2.5%, which is plenty good enough. The
fail-rate-when-confused is irrelevant with aimed devices, because you aim
at random when confused.
CC
Eddie Grove
> Magnate wrote:
> [snip lots of stuff]
FWIW, my news provider never even distributed the orinal message. It must
have been deleted as spam somehow. I was wondering about some other messages,
but I am sure about that one.
Eddie
twerp...@gmail.com
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.
twerp...@gmail.com
> On Aug 11, 2:17 pm, Magnate <no.tha...@try.skype> wrote:
>
> > Bloody OE and WordPad - I've never had a dump messed up before.
>
> [implied insult deleted]
No. None of the nasty things that either of you have said or implied
twerp...@gmail.com
> On Aug 11, 9:17 am, Magnate <no.tha...@try.skype> wrote:
> > Bloody OE and WordPad - I've never had a dump messed up before.
>
> [suspected implied insult deleted]
No. None of the nasty things that either of you have said or implied
about me are at all true.
> I wouldn't squelch Wands of Teleport Other, ever ...
Ditto.
twerp...@gmail.com
> pete m wrote:
> > On Aug 11, 9:17 am, Magnate <no.tha...@try.skype> wrote:
> >> Bloody OE and WordPad - I've never had a dump messed up before.
>
> > [suspected implied insult deleted]
No. None of the nasty things that either of you have said or implied
about me are at all true.
> > I wouldn't squelch Wands of Teleport Other, ever ...
>
> Hmm. Since I don't have space to carry both in my inv ...
> The fail-rate-when-confused is irrelevant with aimed devices, because you
> aim at random when confused.
Perhaps the patch should reflect this fact, and reduce the success-
when-confused by a factor of 8 for these ones. (The success being nil,
mind you, when aiming away from any of the 8 primary aim directions.
Perhaps it should just show zero when confused for these, then.)
Timo Pietilä
> Bloody OE and WordPad - I've never had a dump messed up before.
Don't use Wordpad, it uses formatting. Use notepad (or notepad++ or
notetab or...)
Timo Pietilä
Magnate
But my dumps are created in Linux, and Notepad cannot handle Linux files.
I'm almost certain I've posted successfully after using WordPad before. I'll
see if I can think of a better solution (other than convincing my employer
to ditch Windows, that is).
CC
Timo Pietilä
Try notepad++. It can handle linux/unix-type textfiles just fine. And is
all other ways zillion times better than notepad (except that you need
to install it, and it isn't standard windows OS component)
Timo Pietilä
Magnate
As is traditional with public authorities and tyrannical corporations the
world over, I don't have admin rights on my PC. I did, however, succeed in
booting from my USB stick, shrinking the Windoze partition and installing
Linux and GRUB on it, so if I really want to, I can reboot into Linux and
post from there. Thank God for organisations whose IT divisions don't bother
locking down the BIOS or the boot sector.
CC
Phil Carmody
Even if they do - take the HD out, perform the repartitioning on
a different machine, and re-insert it! Make sure you wedge something
over the case's tamper-switch, if there is one, to stop it triggering
as you open it.
Been there, done that.
Phil
--
The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the
point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.
The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.
-- George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), Preface to Androcles and the Lion
The Wanderer
> "Timo Pietil�" <timo.p...@helsinki.fi> wrote
>
>> Magnate wrote:
>>> But my dumps are created in Linux, and Notepad cannot handle
>>> Linux files. I'm almost certain I've posted successfully after
>>> using WordPad before. I'll see if I can think of a better
>>> solution (other than convincing my employer to ditch Windows,
>>> that is).
>>
>> Try notepad++. It can handle linux/unix-type textfiles just fine.
>> And is all other ways zillion times better than notepad (except
>> that you need to install it, and it isn't standard windows OS
>> component)
>
> As is traditional with public authorities and tyrannical corporations
> the world over, I don't have admin rights on my PC. I did, however,
> succeed in booting from my USB stick, shrinking the Windoze partition
> and installing Linux and GRUB on it, so if I really want to, I can
> reboot into Linux and post from there. Thank God for organisations
> whose IT divisions don't bother locking down the BIOS or the boot
> sector.
If you're capable of using a USB Flash drive (as in, they don't restrict
those severely for security reasons), you can try Notepad++ Portable
from portableapps.com; it can be installed to the drive from any
computer, and then will run just fine from that drive no matter what
computer the drive is connected to.
--
The Wanderer
Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.
Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.
Magnate
Thank you. You're an inspiration.
CC
Magnate
> Magnate wrote:
>> "Timo Pietil�" <timo.p...@helsinki.fi> wrote
>>> Magnate wrote:
>
>>>> But my dumps are created in Linux, and Notepad cannot handle
>>>> Linux files. I'm almost certain I've posted successfully after
>>>> using WordPad before. I'll see if I can think of a better
>>>> solution (other than convincing my employer to ditch Windows,
>>>> that is).
>>>
>>> Try notepad++. It can handle linux/unix-type textfiles just fine.
>>> And is all other ways zillion times better than notepad (except
>>> that you need to install it, and it isn't standard windows OS
>>> component)
>>
>> As is traditional with public authorities and tyrannical corporations
>> the world over, I don't have admin rights on my PC. I did, however,
>> succeed in booting from my USB stick, shrinking the Windoze partition
>> and installing Linux and GRUB on it, so if I really want to, I can
>> reboot into Linux and post from there. Thank God for organisations
>> whose IT divisions don't bother locking down the BIOS or the boot
>> sector.
>
> If you're capable of using a USB Flash drive (as in, they don't restrict
> those severely for security reasons), you can try Notepad++ Portable
It's not really about security, it's about the fact that the user base is
full of idiots. When I arrived I said to IT "my last employer gave every
employee admin rights to his/her PC, and yet none of them accidentally
trashed their hard disks or drowned in a sea of porn". The response was
brilliant: "Hmmm ... but were any of them social workers?"
> from portableapps.com; it can be installed to the drive from any
> computer, and then will run just fine from that drive no matter what
> computer the drive is connected to.
I'll give this a try. As long as it doesn't attempt to write anything to the
registry or the C: drive, I'll be able to use it. In fact I don't even need
to run it from USB - if it will install to any drive I can install it to my
private network share (H:\) and run it from there.
Thanks for the tip,
CC
George Smith
> It's not really about security, it's about the fact that the user base is
> full of idiots. When I arrived I said to IT "my last employer gave every
> employee admin rights to his/her PC, and yet none of them accidentally
> trashed their hard disks or drowned in a sea of porn". The response was
> brilliant: "Hmmm ... but were any of them social workers?"
Couldn't they at least let people have admin rights on a case-by-case
basis if they demonstrated a certain level of competence? Heck, the mere
fact that you're asking for admin rights is a big clue that you know
more about computers than the average employee there.
The proviso perhaps being that you're then expected to be a bit more
self-reliant before calling their IT division for support.
The Wanderer
> The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> Magnate wrote:
>>> As is traditional with public authorities and tyrannical
>>> corporations the world over, I don't have admin rights on my PC.
>>> I did, however, succeed in booting from my USB stick, shrinking
>>> the Windoze partition and installing Linux and GRUB on it, so if
>>> I really want to, I can reboot into Linux and post from there.
>>> Thank God for organisations whose IT divisions don't bother
>>> locking down the BIOS or the boot sector.
>>
>> If you're capable of using a USB Flash drive (as in, they don't
>> restrict those severely for security reasons),
>
> It's not really about security,
And (I infer) they don't actually restrict them, either. I mentioned
that just because multiple people I know, who I believe work directly or
indirectly for the military, are in fact explicitly prohibited from
carrying Flash drives in and out, specifically for security reasons - on
one case, a fellow took a Flash drive home by accident, and the Navy
confiscated every computer in the house for the security investigation.
(One laptop, which actually belongs to *my* employer, still hasn't been
given back yet.)
> it's about the fact that the user base is full of idiots. When I
> arrived I said to IT "my last employer gave every employee admin
> rights to his/her PC, and yet none of them accidentally trashed their
> hard disks or drowned in a sea of porn". The response was brilliant:
> "Hmmm ... but were any of them social workers?"
Oh, God.
The amusing thing is, I work as a computer tech/administrator in a
public school system, and some of the people I support probably *are*
social workers... and only two that I recall have ever even gotten much
in the way of viruses, much less destroyed their system, despite the
fact that we *do* give them admin rights to their own computers. (The
student computers, despite not getting admin rights by default, get
viruses and so forth much more frequently - but they can also be wiped
clean without having to worry about it.)
>> you can try Notepad++ Portable from portableapps.com; it can be
>> installed to the drive from any computer, and then will run just
>> fine from that drive no matter what computer the drive is connected
>> to.
>
> I'll give this a try. As long as it doesn't attempt to write anything
> to the registry or the C: drive, I'll be able to use it. In fact I
> don't even need to run it from USB - if it will install to any drive
> I can install it to my private network share (H:\) and run it from
> there.
Yep, it'll work from there - I did that with Firefox Portable and
Thunderbird Portable at my own workplace (on, yes, an H:\ "home" drive),
before the files involved got so big as to make that unwieldy (and
before the Powers That Be informed me that using anything other than
Microsoft Outlook and/or Outlook Web Access to access my work mail
account could get me fired).
> Thanks for the tip,
You're quite welcome.
Magnate
Nice thought, but too difficult for large organisations to implement.
Where do you draw the line of competence? How do you measure/prove it?
Who decides? Who arbitrates disagreements/appeals? Etc. Large
organisations don't like having to deal with those sorts of questions -
so treating everyone equally like an idiot is a great deal simpler.
CC
George Smith
> George Smith wrote:
>> Magnate wrote:
>>> It's not really about security, it's about the fact that the user
>>> base is
>>> full of idiots. When I arrived I said to IT "my last employer gave every
>>> employee admin rights to his/her PC, and yet none of them accidentally
>>> trashed their hard disks or drowned in a sea of porn". The response was
>>> brilliant: "Hmmm ... but were any of them social workers?"
>>
>> Couldn't they at least let people have admin rights on a case-by-case
>> basis if they demonstrated a certain level of competence? Heck, the
>> mere fact that you're asking for admin rights is a big clue that you
>> know more about computers than the average employee there.
>>
>> The proviso perhaps being that you're then expected to be a bit more
>> self-reliant before calling their IT division for support.
>
> Nice thought, but
No. No "buts". No criticism of me is valid.
> Where do you draw the line of competence? How do you measure/prove it?
> Who decides?
The user decides. He asks for more rights, he gets them. If he then
hoses things, it's on him. Anyone who proves RETROactively that they
can't be trusted gets those rights yanked again or just plain gets fired.
Employers should treat their employees as adults capable of making
various sorts of decisions for themselves, and fire/not hire anyone who
proves otherwise, rather than treat them all as children that must be
led around by the nose.
> so treating everyone equally like an idiot is a great deal simpler.
And it's also wrong. See above.
Magnate
> Magnate wrote:
>> The Wanderer wrote:
>>> Magnate wrote:
>
>>>> As is traditional with public authorities and tyrannical
>>>> corporations the world over, I don't have admin rights on my PC.
>>>> I did, however, succeed in booting from my USB stick, shrinking
>>>> the Windoze partition and installing Linux and GRUB on it, so if
>>>> I really want to, I can reboot into Linux and post from there.
>>>> Thank God for organisations whose IT divisions don't bother
>>>> locking down the BIOS or the boot sector.
>>>
>>> If you're capable of using a USB Flash drive (as in, they don't
>>> restrict those severely for security reasons),
>>
>> It's not really about security,
>
> And (I infer) they don't actually restrict them, either. I mentioned
> that just because multiple people I know, who I believe work directly or
> indirectly for the military, are in fact explicitly prohibited from
> carrying Flash drives in and out, specifically for security reasons - on
> one case, a fellow took a Flash drive home by accident, and the Navy
> confiscated every computer in the house for the security investigation.
> (One laptop, which actually belongs to *my* employer, still hasn't been
> given back yet.)
Ah yes. My wife works for the MoD and the same applies - no flash drives
in the building, nor plugged into her laptop etc. etc. *That's* real
security - why allow flash drives when you can just leave the whole
laptop on the train ...
>> it's about the fact that the user base is full of idiots. When I
>> arrived I said to IT "my last employer gave every employee admin
>> rights to his/her PC, and yet none of them accidentally trashed their
>> hard disks or drowned in a sea of porn". The response was brilliant:
>> "Hmmm ... but were any of them social workers?"
>
> Oh, God.
>
> The amusing thing is, I work as a computer tech/administrator in a
> public school system, and some of the people I support probably *are*
> social workers... and only two that I recall have ever even gotten much
> in the way of viruses, much less destroyed their system, despite the
> fact that we *do* give them admin rights to their own computers. (The
> student computers, despite not getting admin rights by default, get
> viruses and so forth much more frequently - but they can also be wiped
> clean without having to worry about it.)
Then your social workers are an awful lot more competent than ours.
>>> you can try Notepad++ Portable from portableapps.com; it can be
>>> installed to the drive from any computer, and then will run just
>>> fine from that drive no matter what computer the drive is connected
>>> to.
>>
>> I'll give this a try. As long as it doesn't attempt to write anything
>> to the registry or the C: drive, I'll be able to use it. In fact I
>> don't even need to run it from USB - if it will install to any drive
>> I can install it to my private network share (H:\) and run it from
>> there.
>
> Yep, it'll work from there - I did that with Firefox Portable and
> Thunderbird Portable at my own workplace (on, yes, an H:\ "home" drive),
> before the files involved got so big as to make that unwieldy (and
> before the Powers That Be informed me that using anything other than
> Microsoft Outlook and/or Outlook Web Access to access my work mail
> account could get me fired).
Isn't that illegal?? I guess not, but I didn't realise that the evil
empire was quite so powerful as to have employers threatening the sack
to those seeking to avoid using its products. I used to use Evolution to
connect to OWA, before work upgraded its Exchange server to one that the
evolution-exchange plugin cannot deal with. If they'd fired me for that
I'd have taken them all the way to the House of Lords - the onus would
have been on them to prove that it was somehow an "abuse" of the IT system.
Wow, that's really bugged me. And your employer is also a public
authority, right? The school board? Let me write to the CEO and complain
about this policy ...
CC
The Wanderer
> The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> Magnate wrote:
>>> I'll give this a try. As long as it doesn't attempt to write
>>> anything to the registry or the C: drive, I'll be able to use it.
>>> In fact I don't even need to run it from USB - if it will install
>>> to any drive I can install it to my private network share (H:\)
>>> and run it from there.
>>
>> Yep, it'll work from there - I did that with Firefox Portable and
>> Thunderbird Portable at my own workplace (on, yes, an H:\ "home"
>> drive), before the files involved got so big as to make that
>> unwieldy (and before the Powers That Be informed me that using
>> anything other than Microsoft Outlook and/or Outlook Web Access to
>> access my work mail account could get me fired).
>
> Isn't that illegal?? I guess not, but I didn't realise that the evil
> empire was quite so powerful as to have employers threatening the
> sack to those seeking to avoid using its products.
The argument is one of maintaining a consistent policy - the use of
outside mail accounts for work purposes is forbidden, and if they allow
an exception for one person, what can they say to the high-ranking users
(the school board, the superintendent of schools, et cetera) who ask why
this person is allowed to do it when they themselves aren't?
Of course, that doesn't account for the fact that I'm *not* using an
outside mail account, just non-provided software... nor for the fact
that, in the *exact same conversation*, the same boss gave me permission
to use the same non-provided mail client to access a Gmail account I had
created to work around the limited storage space of my work account
(since I had a work-related reason to subscribe to the LKML - no way
the traffic from *that* is going to fit in a 20MB limit)... nor for the
fact that - as a member of the Technology department, the one in charge
of running the servers (and maintaining the workstations, et cetera) for
more than one school in the county - I'm effectively a sysadmin and so
should (and, in fact, in other respects do) get different rules. But
this boss has proven unreasonable in numerous ways, and attempting to
push for some consistent explanation would be likely to get me in his
bad books, which I've got enough reason to be in already.
> I used to use Evolution to connect to OWA, before work upgraded its
> Exchange server to one that the evolution-exchange plugin cannot deal
> with. If they'd fired me for that I'd have taken them all the way to
> the House of Lords - the onus would have been on them to prove that
> it was somehow an "abuse" of the IT system.
>
> Wow, that's really bugged me. And your employer is also a public
> authority, right? The school board? Let me write to the CEO and
> complain about this policy ...
I appreciate the support (it makes a big difference psychologically, if
nothing else), but please, don't - at least not right off. I'm seriously
considering going elsewhere anyway, and if that doesn't pan out any
third-party complaint which was specific enough to have any effect would
also be enough to get me in trouble; I'm not pleased with the policy,
but I'm not looking to burn any bridges just yet.
Timo Pietilä
George doesn't understand corporation-scale security, he is way too
young for that. So I bet he doesn't understand your comment.
Timo Pietilä
George Smith
> Magnate wrote:
>> Where do you draw the line of competence? How do you measure/prove it?
>> Who decides? Who arbitrates disagreements/appeals? Etc. Large
>> organisations don't like having to deal with those sorts of questions
>> - so treating everyone equally like an idiot is a great deal simpler.
That is disrespectful and rude. Your employees are not children, for
God's sweet sake!
> [slurs]
No. You're wrong about me, Timo.
George Smith
> Magnate wrote:
>> The Wanderer wrote:
>>> Magnate wrote:
>
>>>> I'll give this a try. As long as it doesn't attempt to write
>>>> anything to the registry or the C: drive, I'll be able to use it.
>>>> In fact I don't even need to run it from USB - if it will install
>>>> to any drive I can install it to my private network share (H:\)
>>>> and run it from there.
>>>
>>> Yep, it'll work from there - I did that with Firefox Portable and
>>> Thunderbird Portable at my own workplace (on, yes, an H:\ "home"
>>> drive), before the files involved got so big as to make that
>>> unwieldy (and before the Powers That Be informed me that using
>>> anything other than Microsoft Outlook and/or Outlook Web Access to
>>> access my work mail account could get me fired).
>>
>> Isn't that illegal?? I guess not, but I didn't realise that the evil
>> empire was quite so powerful as to have employers threatening the
>> sack to those seeking to avoid using its products.
>
> The argument is one of maintaining a consistent policy - the use of
> outside mail accounts for work purposes is forbidden
That's different from the use of different mail CLIENTS to access the
ALLOWED mail accounts!
> and if they allow
> an exception for one person, what can they say to the high-ranking users
> (the school board, the superintendent of schools, et cetera) who ask why
> this person is allowed to do it when they themselves aren't?
Politics is rarely a good justification for anything, least of all
policy. :P
> Of course, that doesn't account for the fact that I'm *not* using an
> outside mail account, just non-provided software...
Indeed.
> nor for the fact
> that, in the *exact same conversation*, the same boss gave me permission
> to use the same non-provided mail client to access a Gmail account I had
> created to work around the limited storage space of my work account
Welcome to the 21st century corporate workspace.
Our strength is anticompetitive contracts and a nuclear arsenal of
patents and other intangible property.
Our customers are morons just waiting to be fleeced.
Our org chart has nice pie diagrams categorizing our personnel: 40%
legal, 30% marketing, 20% middle management, 5% customer care (recently
updated -- now 35% marketing, 0% customer care), 4% menial staff, 0.99%
research and development (recently updated -- now 40.99% legal and 0%
R&D, we now file patents more efficiently by cutting out the
middleman!), and 0.01% stinkin' goddamn rich.
And, of course, our product is hypocrisy.
> (since I had a work-related reason to subscribe to the LKML
The what?
> I'm not pleased with the policy,
> but I'm not looking to burn any bridges just yet.
And this is how the cycle perpetuates itself.
tigpup
Perhaps, but the clients of my organisation would not engage us in the
work we do if they became aware of anything that could compromise
their confidentiality, and I would not then HAVE a job to go to.
Hence: no web_mail, no usenet access (except GG), no possibility of
admin_rights etc etc.
The point here is not that web_mail etc are inherently BAD things, it
IS that my employer has the right to enforce IT security policy based
on what our clients want, and our IT security professionals advise,
not on what I want.
If that is an incovenience to me - I'm a big boy, and can see the
bigger picture.
Reputation is the defining factor that many large corps strive for. It
seems to me that IT security will remain a hot-potato for some time to
come. Does anyone really expect a large corp to risk it reputation
simply to allow it's employees to use their work equipment as if it
was a home PC?
N
Magnate
> Magnate wrote:
>> The Wanderer wrote:
>>> Magnate wrote:
>>>> I'll give this a try. As long as it doesn't attempt to write
>>>> anything to the registry or the C: drive, I'll be able to use it.
>>>> In fact I don't even need to run it from USB - if it will install
>>>> to any drive I can install it to my private network share (H:\)
>>>> and run it from there.
>>>
>>> Yep, it'll work from there - I did that with Firefox Portable and
>>> Thunderbird Portable at my own workplace (on, yes, an H:\ "home"
>>> drive), before the files involved got so big as to make that
>>> unwieldy (and before the Powers That Be informed me that using
>>> anything other than Microsoft Outlook and/or Outlook Web Access to
>>> access my work mail account could get me fired).
>>
>> Isn't that illegal?? I guess not, but I didn't realise that the evil
>> empire was quite so powerful as to have employers threatening the
>> sack to those seeking to avoid using its products.
>
> The argument is one of maintaining a consistent policy - the use of
> outside mail accounts for work purposes is forbidden, and if they allow
> an exception for one person, what can they say to the high-ranking users
> (the school board, the superintendent of schools, et cetera) who ask why
> this person is allowed to do it when they themselves aren't?
Indeed. As per my reply to George - it's also too difficult to apply and
enforce different rules for different levels of competence. It's the same
reason we have one speed limit for all combinations of drivers and cars,
when a 90-year-old in a 1975 jalopy should not really be allowed the same
speed limit as a competent 30-year-old in a 2005 sedan, given the
differences in the reaction times of the drivers and the safety of the
cars.
>> Wow, that's really bugged me. And your employer is also a public
>> authority, right? The school board? Let me write to the CEO and
>> complain about this policy ...
>
> I appreciate the support (it makes a big difference psychologically, if
> nothing else), but please, don't - at least not right off. I'm seriously
> considering going elsewhere anyway, and if that doesn't pan out any
> third-party complaint which was specific enough to have any effect would
> also be enough to get me in trouble; I'm not pleased with the policy,
> but I'm not looking to burn any bridges just yet.
Not to worry - I don't suppose a ranting letter from some random Brit would
really make any difference anyway. Just wanted you to know you're in good
company.
Best,
CC
Magnate
> Magnate wrote:
>> George Smith wrote:
>>> Magnate wrote:
>>>> It's not really about security, it's about the fact that the user
>>>> base is
>>>> full of idiots. When I arrived I said to IT "my last employer gave
>>>> every employee admin rights to his/her PC, and yet none of them
>>>> accidentally trashed their hard disks or drowned in a sea of porn". The
>>>> response was brilliant: "Hmmm ... but were any of them social workers?"
>>>
>>> Couldn't they at least let people have admin rights on a case-by-case
>>> basis if they demonstrated a certain level of competence? Heck, the
>>> mere fact that you're asking for admin rights is a big clue that you
>>> know more about computers than the average employee there.
>>>
>>> The proviso perhaps being that you're then expected to be a bit more
>>> self-reliant before calling their IT division for support.
>>
>> Nice thought, but
>
> No. No "buts". No criticism of me is valid.
Ladies and gentlemen, did he really just say that??
Good Lord.
The Wanderer
Yep.
And that's precisely why I'm not responding to even his outwardly
normal-looking posts anymore; the risk of inadvertently provoking this
kind of quite-literally-unreasonable response, and consequently the
backlash therefrom, is just too much for it to be worth it.
I haven't yet compromised my principles so far as to actually killfile
him, but I'm seriously considering the possibility. (He does, at least,
seem to be courteous enough to not prohibit that by way of habitual
morphing.)
George Smith
> The point here is not that web_mail etc are inherently BAD things, it
> IS that my employer has the right to enforce IT security policy based
> on what our clients want, and our IT security professionals advise,
> not on what I want.
It's when it gets in the way of employee productivity that it becomes a
problem.
Or even gets in the way of genuine IT security. Forcing everyone to use
IE and OE that would rather use Firefox and Thunderbird makes your
security WORSE.
> Reputation is the defining factor that many large corps strive for.
Eh? Well, perhaps it used to be. These days I wouldn't be so sure,
unless you mean a BAD reputation. Everywhere you look it seems to be a
race to the bottom in terms of quality and other factors.
George Smith
> [slurs]
No, you're wrong about me.
George Smith
> Magnate wrote:
>
> Yep.
>
> [slurs]
No, you're both wrong about me.
Eddie Grove
> The extra shot made a huge difference, as you would expect, but I didn't
> speed up much because I didn't have enough money for ID. I'm very tempted to
> hack p_class.txt and give all classes strong pseudo, as weak pseudo is just
> pants. Not because of the lack of {excellent} and {average}, but because
> there's a 20% chance that something which doesn't pseudo is NOT average, so
> you have to use ID on everything which isn't cursed. Very painful.
If you have a source of ?rCurse, after you have been carrying something for a
while, wield it and wait. I manually inscribe things with the depth where I
picked them up. It will be nice to get that automated in 3.1. Of course,
that depends upon having a slot you can afford to use for testing.
Jewelry pseudoing really helps here. Once something pseudos, you know the
thing you are wielding is average. It might be correct not to squelch things
like rings of stupidity to take advantage of this effect.
Don't try this with melee weapons unless you are willing to suicide or have a
huge supply of enchant scrolls to deal with Morgul weapons.
> On the 10th trip I found my first ego launcher - a Hxbow of Accuracy
> (+10,+13) - which I binned as inferior to my two-shot longbow (+9,+9). I
> also found my one and only artifact, though kept it at home because I could
> not *ID* it and it had no obvious powers.
How do you feel about being told the base item? If it was a Paur you could
chuck it, and know to wield Ringil e.g. Helpful info or unfair crutch?
> I'm now on trip 13 at 3000', and have still killed only Grip, Fang and
> Maggot. I'm thinking of a strategy for uniques: I will kill any which have
> dangerous spells (mind blast, brain smash,
> S_MONSTER/DEMON/UNDEAD/DRAGON/HOUND, TELE_TO/AWAY/LEVEL) and leave all the
> others, in the hope that Morgy surrounds me with orcs. Grateful for any
> views on this, or comments on the dump. In case anybody cares, here's a
> table of progress:
I continue to waffle on whether to kill DROP_GREAT uniques ASAP.
> Trip Depth(') Clev hp Gold Turns(k) Reason
>
> 1 550 8 96 919 38 Panic
>
> 2 950 15 157 2889 114 Panic
>
> 3 1000 17 178 2045 143 ID/DEX
>
> 4 1350 18 177 1929 168 ID/CON
>
> 5 1400 20 178 2970 195 Panic
>
> 6 1500 22 198 6812 221 ID
>
> 7 1650 24 214 4444 245 ID
>
> 8 1850 25 213 5174 273 ID/CON
>
> 9 1850 27 266 8761 302 ID
>
> 10 2200 27 280 5752 317 ID
>
> 11 2800 28 289 15757 356 ID
>
> 12 2900 29 292 29019 402 ID
Do you still think there is too much gold in my patch? I think there is too
little, but I bowed to assorted comments from multiple people.
IMO it is not hard to take home an additional 3K in ego weapons, or 10+K in
spellbooks when you get deeper. Keep in mind that by the time you are halfway
down, gold drops are merely doubled.
> g) The Metal Brigandine Armour of Thengel (-3) [19,+15] {young green 2100'}
>
> It provides resistance to cold and dark. It usually provides light
>
> of radius 4. It cannot be harmed by the elements.
>
> Not great - I'm basically wearing 29lbs of armour for rdark, which isn't
> really an issue for another thousand feet or so. Can't be too careful, and
> didn't have any other armour except single-low-resist.
I think I'd rather go semi-naked.
> n) a Runed Wand of Teleport Other (7 charges) {@a2!d!k!v}
>
> Your success rate is 98.4%, if confused 95.4%.
>
> //This is a leftover. I have squelched these now.
When you pick it up out of your home, it will unsquelch and you will need to
resquelch it. I should add an in-game message about that some day.
Eddie
tigpup
> tigpup wrote:
> > The point here is not that web_mail etc are inherently BAD things, it
> > IS that my employer has the right to enforce IT security policy based
> > on what our clients want, and our IT security professionals advise,
> > not on what I want.
>
> It's when it gets in the way of employee productivity that it becomes a
> problem.
For my organisation: that is not a problem.
> Or even gets in the way of genuine IT security. Forcing everyone to use
> IE and OE that would rather use Firefox and Thunderbird makes your
> security WORSE.
You cannot make that assertion. You know nothing about my
organisation. We use a number of web-based applications that are
unproven on anything expect IE. We also use a Lotus Notes platform
which has thousands of internally built applications on it.
Whether someone *wants* to use Firefix or Thunderbird is irrelevant.
They would be unable to work with these applications.
Whether changing platforms would enhance security or not is a decsison
for our IT security professionals, who know our business, our
platforms, our users and our industry-specific threats. It is not for
an employee, me or George Smith to say what is better.
The Wanderer
> On Aug 16, 9:00 pm, George Smith <gsm...@nospam.munged.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> tigpup wrote:
>>
>>> The point here is not that web_mail etc are inherently BAD
>>> things, it IS that my employer has the right to enforce IT
>>> security policy based on what our clients want, and our IT
>>> security professionals advise, not on what I want.
>>
>> It's when it gets in the way of employee productivity that it
>> becomes a problem.
>
> For my organisation: that is not a problem.
>
>> Or even gets in the way of genuine IT security. Forcing everyone to
>> use IE and OE that would rather use Firefox and Thunderbird makes
>> your security WORSE.
>
> You cannot make that assertion. You know nothing about my
> organisation. We use a number of web-based applications that are
> unproven on anything expect IE. We also use a Lotus Notes platform
> which has thousands of internally built applications on it.
>
> Whether someone *wants* to use Firefix or Thunderbird is irrelevant.
> They would be unable to work with these applications.
Is this because of the "unproven" part?
If the issue is that the Web-based applications are simply not *known*
to work on anything but IE, then I see no problem with allowing people
to try to use Firefox with them, so long as it is understood that they
will fall back to IE for any such applications which do fail to work in
Firefox. There are, indeed, a few such tools in my own organization
(primarily certain aspects of Novell's iManager, as well as some
functionality of the Outlook Web Access interface), and I do precisely
that.
I'm also not sure I see how "we don't know that it works in anything but
IE" touches on security one way or the other, except perhaps in terms of
the notoriety of IE's security holes...
The "Lotus Notes" side of things might be a bit of another story in some
respects, but certainly not in all; TTBOMU (and from what you say) Lotus
Notes is far more than just an E-mail client, and it should certainly be
possible for most purposes to use something else for E-mail purposes and
still use Notes for anything only it can do. And, again, I'm not sure I
see how security is involved.
tigpup
> I'm also not sure I see how "we don't know that it works in anything but
> IE" touches on security one way or the other, except perhaps in terms of
> the notoriety of IE's security holes...
I see what you mean. It's not entirely a matter of security, it's a
matter of policy. If policy says "IE, and nothing else", then that
policy is backed up by various reasons, and security is one of them,
as is certification that an application works (and is supported) on
that browser. I happen to agree that IE is probably not the best or
most secure browser. But, global organisations make their desktop
environment decisions based on a completely different set of reasons
than you or I do as individuals.
> The "Lotus Notes" side of things might be a bit of another story in some
> respects, but certainly not in all; TTBOMU (and from what you say) Lotus
> Notes is far more than just an E-mail client, and it should certainly be
> possible for most purposes to use something else for E-mail purposes and
> still use Notes for anything only it can do. And, again, I'm not sure I
> see how security is involved.
Here I disagree. Giving employees too much power of their email client
is certainly a security risk. Trying to connect a non-Notes client to
an enterprise Domino server? No thanks. And it would be a desktop
management nightmare for IT support staff. Technically, yes - of
course it's possible. But the cost of allowing it far outweighs any
benefit.
As it happens, I don't particulary like either IE or LN, but I have
come to accept that my firm uses them for good reason, and that my own
personal preference is irrelevant.
N
George Smith
> On Aug 16, 9:00 pm, George Smith <gsm...@nospam.munged.invalid> wrote:
>> Or even gets in the way of genuine IT security. Forcing everyone to use
>> IE and OE that would rather use Firefox and Thunderbird makes your
>> security WORSE.
>
> You cannot make that assertion.
I can make any damn assertion that I want, especially if it's a factual one.
> We use a number of web-based applications that are
> unproven on anything expect IE. We also use a Lotus Notes platform
> which has thousands of internally built applications on it.
Then your developers have screwed up. Developing to W3C specs would have
ensured browser portability, and then you would have an easier time
avoiding IE's numerous and notorious security holes (the biggest one
even has an official name from MS itself: "ActiveX"). As for Lotus
Notes, well ... let's just say I'd have considered Commodore 128 BASIC a
superior choice there.
> Whether someone *wants* to use Firefix or Thunderbird is irrelevant.
> They would be unable to work with these applications.
Because they are badly designed and nobody apparently gave a crap about
W3C standards.
> It is not for
> an employee, me or George Smith to say what is better.
It is for the user of a browser to say what browser is better. If IT
insists on ramming security holes down employees' throats, then IT had
better be prepared to clean up after their own messes and deal with it
when (not if) one day your whole network of thousands of office cubicle
PCs comes down with a bad case of Nimda, Sasser, or whatever the
worm-du-jour is at the time.
The Wanderer
> On Aug 17, 1:03 pm, The Wanderer <inversepara...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm also not sure I see how "we don't know that it works in
>> anything but IE" touches on security one way or the other, except
>> perhaps in terms of the notoriety of IE's security holes...
>
> I see what you mean. It's not entirely a matter of security, it's a
> matter of policy. If policy says "IE, and nothing else", then that
> policy is backed up by various reasons, and security is one of them,
> as is certification that an application works (and is supported) on
> that browser. I happen to agree that IE is probably not the best or
> most secure browser. But, global organisations make their desktop
> environment decisions based on a completely different set of reasons
> than you or I do as individuals.
The question is whether it is appropriate to forbid the use of any other
browser on the grounds that that browser is not known to work and that
problems using that browser will not receive support.
I understand that policy might say "IE and nothing else". I would expect
that to require far more justification than I have seen provided in most
cases, but it might indeed be justifiable. I would *not* agree that
simple lack of certainty that anything else will work would be enough to
justify forbidding everything else.
>> The "Lotus Notes" side of things might be a bit of another story in
>> some respects, but certainly not in all; TTBOMU (and from what you
>> say) Lotus Notes is far more than just an E-mail client, and it
>> should certainly be possible for most purposes to use something
>> else for E-mail purposes and still use Notes for anything only it
>> can do. And, again, I'm not sure I see how security is involved.
>
> Here I disagree. Giving employees too much power of their email
> client is certainly a security risk.
I'm not entirely sure I see how, beyond the security issues involved in
"giving employees the ability to install arbitrary programs" (which can
be irrelevant in the case of no-install-needed clients). That is,
however, not the point of my comment; my point was that the "thousands
of internally built applications" functionality would not be relevant to
the E-mail functionality, and so the need to use those applications
would not constitute a justification for forbidding the use of any other
program for that E-mail functionality.
> Trying to connect a non-Notes client to an enterprise Domino server?
> No thanks.
Will it cause problems for people other than the one using that client
(other users, the server admins, et cetera)?
If so, then yes, it should be forbidden - but on those grounds, not on
"it isn't Notes"; what's more, I would be rather surprised if that were
often the case.
Will it cause problems for the person using that client? If so, then
that's their problem, and they have to either fix the problems
themselves or use another client.
Will it simply not work correctly? If so, then that is again the user's
problem, and they have to either make it work themselves or use another
client.
> And it would be a desktop management nightmare for IT support staff.
Then just don't support other configurations. If people want to use
something else, they have to be able to handle it themselves. Support
staff can simply say "if you have problems with something we don't
support, that's your problem"; if the person does not manage to do it
well enough to actually do their job, then they are not fulfilling their
job responsibilities and can be called on the carpet over that.
"Getting the job done" should be the important criterion. What is used
to get the job done should be important to other people only in terms of
how it affects people other than the one doing the using. For Web
browsers, and in most cases for E-mail clients, that should be "not at
all".
> Technically, yes - of course it's possible. But the cost of allowing
> it far outweighs any benefit.
I don't think it's possible to state that last with certainty across the
board. It's probably true in some cases, but I am highly skeptical that
it can be true universally.
George Smith
[snip]
Oh, great. You quoted ALL of tigpup's attacks on me, and now I'm going
to have to answer them ALL again in case someone reads your post and my
reply to it, but not tigpup's original and my reply to that.
>>> Or even gets in the way of genuine IT security. Forcing everyone to
>>> use IE and OE that would rather use Firefox and Thunderbird makes
>>> your security WORSE.
>>
>> You cannot make that assertion.
I can make any damn assertion that I want, especially if it's a factual one.
>> We use a number of web-based applications that are
>> unproven on anything expect IE. We also use a Lotus Notes platform
>> which has thousands of internally built applications on it.
Then your developers have screwed up. Developing to W3C specs would have
ensured browser portability, and then you would have an easier time
avoiding IE's numerous and notorious security holes (the biggest one
even has an official name from MS itself: "ActiveX"). As for Lotus
Notes, well ... let's just say I'd have considered Commodore 128 BASIC a
superior choice there.
>> Whether someone *wants* to use Firefix or Thunderbird is irrelevant.
>> They would be unable to work with these applications.
Because they are badly designed and nobody apparently gave a crap about
W3C standards.
> If the issue is that the Web-based applications are simply not *known*
> to work on anything but IE, then I see no problem with allowing people
> to try to use Firefox with them, so long as it is understood that they
> will fall back to IE for any such applications which do fail to work in
> Firefox.
That is certainly a more sensible policy. "Our developers shall code to
applicable standards, such as the W3C's" would be an even more sensible
policy, but for his organization, instituting such a policy NOW would be
locking the barn door after the horses have already escaped.
> I'm also not sure I see how "we don't know that it works in anything but
> IE" touches on security one way or the other, except perhaps in terms of
> the notoriety of IE's security holes...
Likewise.
George Smith
> Here I disagree. Giving employees too much power of their email client
> is certainly a security risk.
Then your security model is designed wrong. (Not your fault -- your
friendly neighborhood corporate IT department's fault.)
> Trying to connect a non-Notes client to an enterprise Domino server?
> No thanks.
The server must be poorly designed indeed if it's a major security risk
to let people connect to it with the software of their choice. Either it
has massive security holes of the buffer-overrun sort of variety, or it
has a poorly-designed user-authentication scheme that depends on the
client being trusted. We've had better authentication technology for at
least 20 years now.
> And it would be a desktop management nightmare for IT support staff.
I DID suggest that users using their own substitute clients would be on
their own for support with respect to that particular usage.
> Technically, yes - of
> course it's possible. But the cost of allowing it far outweighs any
> benefit.
I disagree.
> As it happens, I don't particulary like either IE or LN, but I have
> come to accept that my firm uses them for good reason, and that my own
> personal preference is irrelevant.
Then you are a fool. If your company makes bad decisions, and you don't
raise your voice about it, and nobody else does either, and then one day
because of a bad decision they go under, guess who (among others) is
back to scanning want ads?
You guessed it.
The Wanderer
> The Wanderer wrote: [snip]
>
> Oh, great. You quoted ALL of tigpup's attacks on me, and now I'm
> going to have to answer them ALL again in case someone reads your
> post and my reply to it, but not tigpup's original and my reply to
> that.
This proves it: you're insane. Goodbye.
George Smith
> George Smith wrote:
>> Oh, great. You quoted ALL of tigpup's attacks on me, and now I'm
>> going to have to answer them ALL again in case someone reads your
>> post and my reply to it, but not tigpup's original and my reply to
>> that.
>
No. You're wrong about me.
tigpup
> George Smith wrote:
> > The Wanderer wrote: [snip]
>
> > Oh, great. You quoted ALL of tigpup's attacks on me, and now I'm
> > going to have to answer them ALL again in case someone reads your
> > post and my reply to it, but not tigpup's original and my reply to
> > that.
>
> This proves it: you're insane. Goodbye.
>
> --
> The Wanderer
I thought The Wanderer and I were having an interseting and civilised
(albeit OT) discussion there, and I was quite enjoying it, despite us
having differing opinions.
Unfortunately, I feel I have to bring it to a close now due to
George's remarks above.
Wanderer: thanks, you've given me some food for thought :o)
tigpup
> tigpup wrote:
> > Here I disagree. Giving employees too much power of their email client
> > is certainly a security risk.
>
> Then your security model is designed wrong. (Not your fault -- your
> friendly neighborhood corporate IT department's fault.)
Please don't patronise me George. We disagree about something that I
have more specific knowledge than you about. I would like to not hear
any more of your views on this.
> > And it would be a desktop management nightmare for IT support staff.
>
> I DID suggest that users using their own substitute clients would be on
> their own for support with respect to that particular usage.
I remember you saying that. Self-supporting users would not be a
healthy option for my organisation. We disagree about something that I
have more specific knowledge than you about. I would like to not hear
any more of your views on this.
> > As it happens, I don't particulary like either IE or LN, but I have
> > come to accept that my firm uses them for good reason, and that my own
> > personal preference is irrelevant.
>
> Then you are a fool. If your company makes bad decisions, and you don't
> raise your voice about it, and nobody else does either, and then one day
> because of a bad decision they go under, guess who (among others) is
> back to scanning want ads?
>
> You guessed it.
No George, I am not a fool. I am a well-respected member of the IT
community in a large organisation which uses policy to esnure that its
employees and clients are both (i) protected from risk and (ii) given
the correct set of tools to deliver outstanding work. There is scope
for anyone in our organisation to challenge policy, in an professional
and adult way, not based on MS-bashing or personal bias. Those
challenges do result in change, when it is deemed appropriate.
I feel insulted and offended by your comments, and will not be
continuing this discussion.
I also perhaps have a few personal feelings about you, based on how
you have responded to myself and others recently.
In this case, I am not going to air those feeling here.
A quote perhaps:
"A closed mouth gathers no foot"
or as I have learnt on rgra:
"A closed mouth gathers no [snipped, suspected, implied] foot"
Regards,
The Wanderer
> On Aug 18, 12:07 am, The Wanderer <inversepara...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>> George Smith wrote:
>>> Oh, great. You quoted ALL of tigpup's attacks on me, and now I'm
>>> going to have to answer them ALL again in case someone reads your
>>> post and my reply to it, but not tigpup's original and my reply
>>> to that.
>>
>> This proves it: you're insane. Goodbye.
>
> I thought The Wanderer and I were having an interseting and civilised
> (albeit OT) discussion there, and I was quite enjoying it, despite
> us having differing opinions.
For the most part, I felt much the same way.
> Unfortunately, I feel I have to bring it to a close now due to
> George's remarks above.
>
> Wanderer: thanks, you've given me some food for thought :o)
You're quite welcome.
If you want to continue the discussion by private mail, rather than keep
it here (since it is, as you note, offtopic), please feel free to do so.
If you'd rather just drop it entirely, I have no problem with that.
George Smith
> On Aug 17, 8:29 pm, George Smith <gsm...@nospam.munged.invalid> wrote:
>> tigpup wrote:
>>> Here I disagree. Giving employees too much power of their email client
>>> is certainly a security risk.
>> Then your security model is designed wrong. (Not your fault -- your
>> friendly neighborhood corporate IT department's fault.)
>
You're wrong about me.
> I would like to not hear any more of your views on this.
As you people are so fond of pointing out, nobody seems to be enforcing
any rules around here.
If you don't like hearing people express opinions that you don't share,
then you are in completely the wrong part of the internet.
>>> And it would be a desktop management nightmare for IT support staff.
>> I DID suggest that users using their own substitute clients would be on
>> their own for support with respect to that particular usage.
>
> I remember you saying that.
Then you knew that your statement, that it would be a "nightmare" for IT
support staff, was wrong at the time that you made that statement, and
yet you made it anyway. Why?
> Self-supporting users would not be a healthy option
How so? They ought to be less of a burden on your IT staff than other
users, not more. Clueless users with little of their own IT expertise
are the ones that will make the most headaches for them.
> We disagree about something that I have more specific knowledge
> than you about.
No, we disagree about something that *I* have more specific knowledge
than *you* about. You should not keep repeating this disparaging and
erroneous nonsense.
You made assumptions about how much knowledge and experience I had about
workplace IT. You assumed wrong.
> I would like to not hear any more of your views on this.
Too bad.
>> Then you are a fool. If your company makes bad decisions, and you don't
>> raise your voice about it, and nobody else does either, and then one day
>> because of a bad decision they go under, guess who (among others) is
>> back to scanning want ads?
>>
>> You guessed it.
>
> No George, I am not a fool.
Yes, you are.
> [self-aggrandizing remarks snipped]
You should be less arrogant and more humble in the future, particularly
when arguing with your elders and betters, "tigpup"!
> There is scope for anyone in our organisation to challenge policy,
> in an professional and adult way, not based on MS-bashing or
> personal bias.
Who has been engaged in MS-bashing or personal bias? It is a well known
FACT in IT that Firefox+Thunderbird is much more secure than IE+OE. That
is not MS-bashing, nor is it biased. It is well-documented fact.
If you feel otherwise, then I find your claims to be gainfully employed
in the IT field to be somewhat surprising and more than a little
dismaying, though sadly quite believable. It is fortunate that not all
organizations have as poor a choice of IT people as yours apparently does.
> Those challenges do result in change, when it is deemed
> appropriate.
Unless your workplace is a boot camp, it should not be nearly as strict
and formal as what you seem to be describing.
> I feel insulted and offended by your comments
That's shocking, considering that YOU are the only person here engaged
in personal name-calling, directed at ME. I have not done anything
except point out that your organization's IT policy is boneheaded and
that certain beliefs apparently held there are erroneous. I have not
been personally bashing YOU, though the reverse cannot truthfully be said.
> and will not be continuing this discussion.
Fine. I have had quite enough of you personally bashing me anyway.
> I also perhaps have a few personal feelings about you
That much is obvious. It's silly, since I have not done a thing wrong,
and it's blinding you to the truth, but it also doesn't seem to be
entirely in your control.
> In this case, I am not going to air those feeling here.
It's too late -- you've already made your nasty, small-minded, negative
opinions of me quite clear.
> A quote perhaps:
>
> [slurs]
You're wrong about me, including about me being that Neo fellow you detest.
George Smith
> On Aug 18, 12:07 am, The Wanderer <inversepara...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> George Smith wrote:
>>> The Wanderer wrote: [snip]
>>> Oh, great. You quoted ALL of tigpup's attacks on me, and now I'm
>>> going to have to answer them ALL again in case someone reads your
>>> post and my reply to it, but not tigpup's original and my reply to
>>> that.
No, The Wanderer is completely and utterly wrong about me.
> I thought The Wanderer and I were having an interseting and civilised
> (albeit OT) discussion there, and I was quite enjoying it, despite us
> having differing opinions.
>
> Unfortunately, I feel I have to bring it to a close now due to
> George's remarks above.
There was nothing wrong with any of my remarks. What was wrong was the
way both of you started bashing me just as soon as I said anything, even
though one of you actually seemed to agree with me more than disagree,
just because you stupidly THINK I'm some other guy and stupidly hate
that other guy's guts and can't get past either piece of stupidity!
George Smith
> tigpup wrote:
>> On Aug 18, 12:07 am, The Wanderer <inversepara...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> George Smith wrote:
>
>>>> Oh, great. You quoted ALL of tigpup's attacks on me, and now I'm
>>>> going to have to answer them ALL again in case someone reads your
>>>> post and my reply to it, but not tigpup's original and my reply
>>>> to that.
>>>
No, you're wrong about me. And must you keep quoting it over and over
again? I don't want to see your groundless slurs and silly insults and
personal attacks ONCE, let alone OVER AND OVER AGAIN!
>> Unfortunately, I feel I have to bring it to a close now due to
>> George's remarks above.
But I didn't do anything wrong. The only problem here is that both of
you hate some guy called Neo, both of you can't get over that hate, both
of you have mistaken me for him, and both of you can't seem to help
making little digs and personal attacks whenever you see my name as a
result of all that nonsense.
And then neither of you likes it much when I don't just meekly accept
your negative judgment of me and instead dare to stand up for myself and
tell you "no, you're both wrong about me"!
tigpup
wrote:
[a whole pile of shite that shows he's missed the point]
>You're wrong about me, including about me being that Neo fellow you detest.
The quote was nothing to do with you as an individual, nor a slur. I
don't detest Neo, and I don't detest you. I simply think your beliefs
are incorrect, and that making personal remarks is both childish and
fruitless.
You called me a fool, and that is a slur. I do however accept your
kind and modest refusal to apologise.
If you feel like adding to the evidence that others hold to believe
you are Neo - go right ahead. There's plenty of scope here. If you
fancy trying to make me as defensive as yourself, please feel free to
have a shot at that too.
N
George Smith
> On Aug 19, 10:52 pm, George Smith <gsm...@nospam.munged.invalid>
> wrote:
>
No, YOU have missed the point.
The whole purpose of this thread, from your standpoint, is to attack me
and try to make people believe bad things about me.
I am pointing out that you are wrong about me (and after this many
repetitions of my proving it and you still repeating your unpleasant
slurs, that you are in fact LYING about me).
Given that "the point" has become "is George Smith a jerk/Neo/whatever",
my response of "no he is not" is certainly not missing the point at all;
it is addressing it directly and forthrightly.
>> You're wrong about me, including about me being that Neo fellow you detest.
>
> The quote was nothing to do with you as an individual, nor a slur.
Don't try my patience. Anyone with half a brain can figure out exactly
what you were implying with that quote. That you didn't just come right
out and say it doesn't mean you now get to deny it completely!
> I don't detest Neo, and I don't detest you.
Then why do you behave as if you do?
> I simply think your beliefs are incorrect
No. Nothing about me is "incorrect". You will stop posting this kind of
nonsense and you will learn some manners young man!
> and that making personal remarks is both childish and fruitless.
Then why do you keep doing so, attacking both me and Neo?
> You called me a fool, and that is a slur.
I called you a fool when you claimed that it would worsen security for
an IT organization to actually let Firefox and Thunderbird be used in
place of Microsoft products with known track records for being very
insecure.
I called you a fool when you claimed that it was pointless for you to
warn the company you work for and suggest a better policy to them
regarding IT security; when you claimed, in fact, that your knowledge of
how insecure IE was was "irrelevant".
I don't think that that my calling you a fool was in any way a
mischaracterization.
Your company is whistling and contemplating climbing up to do roof
repairs while everyone else is evacuating in the wake of a hurricane
warning. You have seen the black storm clouds with your own two eyes but
decided that what you have seen is "irrelevant" to them.
There's always the off chance that it won't make landfall where they
think it will, or will stay out to sea, but in all likelihood, you're
screwed, and you're all just whistling away without a care in the world
like fools do when they don't want to listen to a warning. And you, the
one who knows for sure it's coming but won't tell anyone, is the biggest
fool of them all.
(Why won't you tell them -- because you don't think they'll listen? Tell
them anyway; then at least it's on them, rather than on YOU, when
everything goes pear-shaped, and though you still lose your job in the
massive layoffs, you get the satisfaction of telling them "I told you so"!)
(Or perhaps the appropriate metaphor is sticking one's head in the sand?)
> [nothing else worthwhile]
I have one more slur to add. "Liar". You are a liar as well as a fool.
As proof, I offer the following into evidence, from your previous post
attacking me:
"I ... will not be continuing this discussion." (Tigpup, in RGRA, at
5:00 AM on August 18, 2008, in
<92c5d64c-786b-427f...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>)
Yet you didn't actually do as promised and stop posting. You posted
another long, off-topic attack on my character, to which this post is my
reply (and rebuttal).
You have no more credibility left to lose after that blunder. I hope you
realize this, and realize that in light of that fact you will convince
no-one of anything by posting any more of your unpleasant nonsense, and
will therefore ACTUALLY shut up now.
tigpup
> You have no more credibility left to lose after that blunder. I hope you
> realize this, and realize that in light of that fact you will convince
> no-one of anything by posting any more of your unpleasant nonsense, and
> will therefore ACTUALLY shut up now.
LMFAO!!!
No George, not for you.
Sherm Pendley
> You have no more credibility left to lose after that blunder. I hope
> you realize this, and realize that in light of that fact you will
> convince no-one of anything by posting any more of your unpleasant
> nonsense, and will therefore ACTUALLY shut up now.
You're still trying the "bark orders at everyone" approach, I see.
Good luck with that.
sherm--
--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Sherm Pendley
> I don't want to see your groundless slurs and silly insults and
> personal attacks ONCE, let alone OVER AND OVER AGAIN!
What makes you think anyone gives a flying fuck what you want? I
certainly don't.
George Smith
You are wrong.
George Smith
> George Smith <gsm...@nospam.munged.invalid> writes:
>
>> You have no more credibility left to lose after that blunder. I hope
>> you realize this, and realize that in light of that fact you will
>> convince no-one of anything by posting any more of your unpleasant
>> nonsense, and will therefore ACTUALLY shut up now.
>
You are wrong about me.
George Smith
> George Smith <gsm...@nospam.munged.invalid> writes:
>
>> I don't want to see your groundless slurs and silly insults and
>> personal attacks ONCE, let alone OVER AND OVER AGAIN!
>
I don't want to see your groundless slurs, silly insults, and personal
attacks again.
Sherm Pendley
What part of "I don't give a flying fuck what you want" do you not
understand?
Ray Dillinger
> I don't want to see your groundless slurs, silly insults, and personal
> attacks again.
That's okay, George. You don't have to want to see them. Nobody
minds your not wanting to see them, and you have a perfect god-given
right to not want to see them.
But that's not the same as a right to have anybody actually stop.
Bear
recko...@gmail.com
> On Aug 19, 10:52 pm, George Smith <gsm...@nospam.munged.invalid>
> wrote:
> If you feel like adding to the evidence that others hold to believe
> you are Neo
He is not Neo.
George Smith
> George Smith <gsm...@nospam.munged.invalid> writes:
>
>> Sherm Pendley wrote:
>>> George Smith <gsm...@nospam.munged.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> I don't want to see your groundless slurs and silly insults and
>>>> personal attacks ONCE, let alone OVER AND OVER AGAIN!
>>> [slurs, implied threats, and other nastiness]
>> I don't want to see your groundless slurs, silly insults, and personal
>> attacks again.
>
> What part of "I don't give a flying fuck what you want" do you not
> understand?
What part of "I don't want to see your groundless slurs, silly insults,
threats, and personal attacks again" don't YOU understand?
George Smith
I do, nonetheless, have that right. It's enshrined in law. It's called
"libel" if nasty and false statements about a person are published in
writing, and it's something you can be sued for doing, though not
typically arrested or jailed. Courts can also grant injunctions blocking
the further distribution and publication of the defamatory statements,
so a judge can indeed make you stop if you're found by one to be
defaming me. Whereupon if you continued, it would be contempt of court,
which is usually a fine but IS a jailable offence.
Furthermore, some jurisdictions have laws against intentional infliction
of emotional distress, generally intended to combat harassment of
various kinds, cyber- and otherwise. This, too, creates potential
grounds for a lawsuit.
So, please do be careful. I wouldn't want to see you get sued.
Martin Bazley
spouted the following:
Very probably not, but that doesn't mean he can't resemble you.
--
__<^>__ === RISC OS is a work of art. Some people adore it, ===
/ _ _ \ === others can't see the point of it, and it's really ===
( ( |_| ) ) === expensive. ===
\_> <_/ ======================= Martin Bazley ===================
Magnate
Go for it George. I would love to see Usenet's first successful libel action
in its 30-year history.
CC
Paul Murray
Actually I think there have been sucessful (non-US) libel actions previously.
eg. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CGN/is_1999_March_29/ai_54240229
Demon ended up settling this case.
Ray Dillinger
> On 2008-09-01, Magnate <n...@receiving.here> wrote:
>> "George Smith" <gsm...@nospam.munged.invalid> wrote
>>> So, please do be careful. I wouldn't want to see you get sued.
>> Go for it George. I would love to see Usenet's first successful libel
>> action in its 30-year history.
> Actually I think there have been sucessful (non-US) libel actions
> previously. eg.
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CGN/is_1999_March_29/ai_54240229
> Demon ended up settling this case.
Pfft. I don't feel worried. I haven't said a thing to george that
a rational person would find insulting, let alone damaging in the
sense he'd have to prove for a libel action. I think his noises about
a libel suit are actually pretty funny.
Bear
George Smith
> The date being 22 Aug, recko...@gmail.com
> spouted the following:
>
>> On Aug 19, 6:43 pm, tigpup <n...@ramsay.name> wrote:
>>> If you feel like adding to the evidence that others hold to believe
>>> you are Neo
>> He is not Neo.
>
> Very probably not, but that doesn't mean he can't resemble you.
Is resembling him some sort of a crime?
George Smith
> "George Smith" <gsm...@nospam.munged.invalid> wrote
>
> Go for it George. I would love to see Usenet's first successful libel action
> in its 30-year history.
I find your lack of faith disturbing.
George Smith
> On 2008-09-01, Magnate <n...@receiving.here> wrote:
>> "George Smith" <gsm...@nospam.munged.invalid> wrote
>> Go for it George. I would love to see Usenet's first successful libel action
>> in its 30-year history.
>
> Actually I think there have been sucessful (non-US) libel actions previously.
> eg. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CGN/is_1999_March_29/ai_54240229
> Demon ended up settling this case.
"Settling" is a euphemism for "the libelors paid a large, though
undisclosed, sum to the libelee".
I wonder how much money you lot have?
Oh, no matter. I'm sure the answer will be revealed during the discovery
phase...
George Smith
> Paul Murray wrote:
>
>> On 2008-09-01, Magnate <n...@receiving.here> wrote:
>>> "George Smith" <gsm...@nospam.munged.invalid> wrote
>
>>>> So, please do be careful. I wouldn't want to see you get sued.
>>> Go for it George. I would love to see Usenet's first successful libel
>>> action in its 30-year history.
>
>> Actually I think there have been sucessful (non-US) libel actions
>> previously. eg.
>> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CGN/is_1999_March_29/ai_54240229
>> Demon ended up settling this case.
>
You will be.
You ... will ... be.
Magnate
Ok, two things here:
First, we need to distinguish between libel action brought against the
poster, and libel action brought against the ISP. Demon settled the case
simply because it cost them less to do so than to take it to appeal. The
defence of innocent dissemination (i.e. that an ISP is not responsible for
the actions of its customers) is intact AFAIK IANAL etc. - witness the
ongoing debacle of ISPs quite rightly refusing to take responsibility for
copyright infringement and the RIAA and friends getting ever more antsy.
Second, the action against the poster was successful in a UK court. UK libel
law is notorious worldwide for being pretty much the only law in existence
which reverses the burden of proof - anyone accused of libel in the UK is
guilty until proven innocent (which, in a libel case, is very difficult - I
have removed one of my own web pages after a libel threat precisely because
of this reversal). I would go so far as to say that UK libel law brings the
entire otherwise admirable UK judicial system into disrepute - there are
currently rich arabs suing american authors in London about things printed
in books which are not even published in the UK!
So, if anyone can find any evidence of a libel action about a usenet posting
which which succeeded in a court outside the UK, I'd be very interested
indeed.
OTOH, if George is coming to London to sue people, I'm definitely gonna be
in the public gallery.
CC
tigpup
> OTOH, if George is coming to London to sue people, I'm definitely gonna be
> in the public gallery.
>
> CC
I'll come down to London and join you.
;oþ
Neil.
Nick
I like the confidence that you won't be defendants :)
Nick.
oubl...@mail.md
> "Paul Murray" <p...@murray.net> wrote
> So, if anyone can find any evidence of a libel action about a usenet posting
> which which succeeded in a court outside the UK, I'd be very interested
> indeed.
From the Canadian province of British Columbia,
Griffin v. Sullivan, 2008 BCSC 827
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2008/2008bcsc827/2008bcsc827.html
Magnate
Very interesting reading, thanks.
Now can we please find one in which the defendant was actually represented
by a qualified lawyer?!
CC