Report on the tapes
tim keene
subject of tapes, supposedly recording conversations between Nikki Craft,
and Chris Flaubert.
Before beginning, I wanted to state that I don't have a favorite position
on this issue; I came here to read relaxing stories on the net, to get
away from work for a while, and to relax. None of this has happened, and
I doubt that it will. I guess I've gotten smarter. I can agree with
those who post that the subject is off topic here; this group is a rec.
group, and provides a wonderful place to post lots of messages, some
humorous, some not; crazy people probably post here, and some quite
intelligent ones too. Both, to the best of my knowledge, are given an
equal platform. That platform is the reason I agreed to audit the
tapes. I believe the truth is a finite thing, like pregnancy. Either
you are telling the truth, or you aren't.
I'm not a lawyer, and at my age, it is unlikely that I will ever take the
California State Bar Exam; I have studied for it, however, at the request
of several of my clients. I hope this explains why I try to make my
writing both short, and succinct, but why I *won't* give legal advice. I
don't like making statements that I can't back up with documentary
evidence, even if I personally believe the information to be true; what I
believe, personally, doesn't matter (even to me) *nearly* so much as what
I can back up with proof. When Nikki wasn't giving case information, so
that one could look it up, I got on her case; when she gave the proper
information, I let her off. Gently, in fact. Now, Chris Flaubert has
made statements, which he claims he can back up with a tape, and, through
E-Mail (which I kept), agreed to provide it.
Those tapes have not been sent during the last ten days or so, even
though I sent him E-Mail, and gave him another notice on the net, and
additional time to provide the material. I do not now believe they
exist, in the manner claimed, and I believe that Chris Flaubert lied
about their existence.
I would like to say now, no one volunteered to help me do this, no one
assisted me, and no one wanted to take the flak if I didn't 'make a
ruling' the way they wanted it to go - but they certainly wanted me to
know how they wanted it to go!
Nikki, if you want me to do anything like this again, I want to tie you
to a chair, and gag you (at least as to this matter) until the matter is
resolved.
Chris, I won't believe anything you say, in the future, because you have
already shown yourself to be a liar. I can't accept that you can begin
*any* mission with a lie. I have said the same types of things to my
children, when they have lied, and I told them the way to fix it; I will
leave that part of the discussion to your own discretion. You have
defamed yourself, I believe you have slandered Nikki, (not, by the way,
legal advice, but an opinion) and you have exposed me to the possibility
of being called as a witness to such an action.
Why didn't you just call her a name? At least then, *I'd* still have
some respect for you.
attilla
--
attilla the hun (Tim Keene)
Best Process server/Skip-Tracer
in known world. (408-262-7021)
att...@netcom.com
DeMahoney
You have done a service to Nikki, as well as the rest of the newsgroup.
I'm sure she appreciated the unbias way you have conducted yourself in
this action. I know I have.
Nikki, congradulations on the outcome. Looks like you deserve to take a
break from the ole computer and go celebrate. :-)
Once again Attilla, thanks for the way this was handled.
Debbie Mahoney
Cheef Dan
: Once again Attilla, thanks for the way this was handled.
Well, I for one am darn unhappy about it.
I sent atilla my $24.99 for a copy of "The Great Naturist Debate Tape".
It looks like I'm not only never going to see my tape, but I doubt I
will ever receive my bonus t-shirt with a photo of Pat O'Brien and
Stuart Smalley trying to convince NAMBLA members to try AA instead.
--
"They say they don't understand me, but I'm not surprised
because you can't see nothin' when you close your eyes" -- Larry Norman
tim keene
>DeMahoney (dema...@aol.com) wrote:
>: Once again Attilla, thanks for the way this was handled.
>
>Well, I for one am darn unhappy about it.
>
>I sent atilla my $24.99 for a copy of "The Great Naturist Debate Tape".
>It looks like I'm not only never going to see my tape, but I doubt I
>will ever receive my bonus t-shirt with a photo of Pat O'Brien and
>Stuart Smalley trying to convince NAMBLA members to try AA instead.
Sorry, we held up shipment on all shipments where the check didn't
clear. I'm sure this is a bank error, and we'll be shipping any day,
now. We did have to make some supstitutions, however. For the tape, we
have substituted Ramona, singing along with the chickens, doing 'White
Christmas', and the T-shirt is now graced with a picture of me, in a
Tutu, and pink tights. Hope this meets with your approval . . . .
t...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
> I sent atilla my $24.99 for a copy of "The Great Naturist Debate Tape".
> It looks like I'm not only never going to see my tape, but I doubt I
> will ever receive my bonus t-shirt with a photo of Pat O'Brien and
> Stuart Smalley trying to convince NAMBLA members to try AA instead.
You should have called "...before midnight tonight!" like the Ad. said. ;-)
Now you'll never get to hear the tape. I understand it had a whole chapter
on how to "MAKE MONEY FAST" and how to "MEET BABES" with a forward by the
famous USENET poster Jay Sexy.
Terry
Obnude: The "Obnude line is required by RFC 1024 and the 1984 ECPA". It
stands for "OBnoxious NUDE poster". It's true! Really! I have a tape
that proves it, but Romona ate it.
DeMahoney
>In article <3onq85$d...@netaxs.com> chee...@netaxs.com (Cheef Dan)
writes:
>>>DeMahoney (dema...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>>Well, I for one am darn unhappy about it.
>
>>It looks like I'm not only never going to see my tape, but I doubt I
>>will ever receive my bonus t-shirt with a photo of Pat O'Brien and
>>Stuart Smalley trying to convince NAMBLA members to try AA instead.
>Sorry, we held up shipment on all shipments where the check didn't
>clear. I'm sure this is a bank error, and we'll be shipping any day,
>now. We did have to make some supstitutions, however. For the tape, we
>have substituted Ramona, singing along with the chickens, doing 'White
>Christmas', and the T-shirt is now graced with a picture of me, in a
>Tutu, and pink tights. Hope this meets with your approval . . . .
>attilla
Well I'm not sure it meets with CheefDan's approval but I would
certainly like to get a copy of the substituted one. :-)
Debbie Mahoney
Martin B Willoughby - Capitol Broadcasting Co. - NC News Network
As far as I can tell from the over 8MB's I have personally listened to,
Nikki Craft is a very uncreative Liar.
God. I can't believe she is coming here and disrupting this forum EXACTLY
like she did to the Naturist Forum on P-Link years ago. Same MO, same
bullshit rhetoric
She is disgusting.
Sign me an EX-Rec.Nuder
Because I am Outta here.
Fencer
: I'm not a lawyer, and at my age, it is unlikely that I will ever take the
: California State Bar Exam; I have studied for it, however, at the request
: of several of my clients. I hope this explains why I try to make my
: writing both short, and succinct, but why I *won't* give legal advice. I
: don't like making statements that I can't back up with documentary
: evidence, even if I personally believe the information to be true; what I
: believe, personally, doesn't matter (even to me) *nearly* so much as what
: I can back up with proof. When Nikki wasn't giving case information, so
: that one could look it up, I got on her case; when she gave the proper
: information, I let her off. Gently, in fact. Now, Chris Flaubert has
: made statements, which he claims he can back up with a tape, and, through
: E-Mail (which I kept), agreed to provide it.
Whoa, Ned. I sent you a tape, just as you requested. What's with this
crap?
: Those tapes have not been sent during the last ten days or so, even
: though I sent him E-Mail, and gave him another notice on the net, and
: additional time to provide the material. I do not now believe they
: exist, in the manner claimed, and I believe that Chris Flaubert lied
: about their existence.
Ahh. Tim, old boy, we had several exchanges of mail regarding this, several
in one day. And I had verified to you that I sent you the tape, to the
address you specified. They most certainly do exist. I have made that tape
widely available to the people on rec.nude. More to the point, that tape is
publically available on more than one site. You are making emphatic
statements based on what? I seriously question your "impartial" status.
This thread is sounding more and more like MS. CRAFT than Atilla.
You do not believe that they exist. And you believe I am a liar. What I
suspect is that you don't like what you heard on the tape. I wondered why
she picked you. Now I know.
: I would like to say now, no one volunteered to help me do this, no one
: assisted me, and no one wanted to take the flak if I didn't 'make a
: ruling' the way they wanted it to go - but they certainly wanted me to
: know how they wanted it to go!
Yuh. I tried to get Pat O'Brien to accept a copy of the tape but he
refused. He is taking the position that, because of me, he was called names
in a International Forum and that pisses him off. He wants nothing to do
with this - and I don't blame him. *I* certainly wasn't the one who started
slinging mud at Pat O'Brien. But then again, I am not the Paranoid who
thinks TNS is out to get her either.
: Chris, I won't believe anything you say, in the future, because you have
: already shown yourself to be a liar. I can't accept that you can begin
: *any* mission with a lie. I have said the same types of things to my
Whoa. And just how have *I* shown myself to be a liar? I said she said it,
and she said it. I refer to her admitting the thefts on this newsgroup.
She can deny it all day long, but I, and others, clearly recall the thread.
And of course, I keep copies of all of this. So I have the benefit of the
original threads, and Niki's mail to me telling me that if I cause any more
trouble for her on the nets, she'll start a slam-campaign that will
completely discredit me with the Naturist Society. Well? She is only doing
what she promised. Niki has reversed herself too many times to count, and
lied about the lies she has told. That is fact. You need to review the
digests, d00dio.
: children, when they have lied, and I told them the way to fix it; I will
: leave that part of the discussion to your own discretion. You have
: defamed yourself, I believe you have slandered Nikki, (not, by the way,
: legal advice, but an opinion) and you have exposed me to the possibility
: of being called as a witness to such an action.
Bah. This is more Niki Trash. Court? Do you know why no one has sued
Niki? Do you know why no Civil Suits are ever levied against her? Because
(and she proudly admits this) she has nothing to take. A hollow victory if
that. I have *not* slandered her, I have called her what she is. A Liar
and a Thief. BTW you might want to look up the word defamed in the
dictionary.
As for your being called as a witness, I doubt that. I seriously doubt
that.
: Why didn't you just call her a name? At least then, *I'd* still have
: some respect for you.
Because sinking to her level and slapping labels on people is not my thing.
Chris
--
.
`n. .rP'
`qb ,dP' Chris Faubert
TLb. ,dMP' Privateer Systems
TML.dMMP the Privateer Project
,nmm`XXMPX
,#MP'~~XNXYNXTb. ro...@epee.ultranet.com
,d~' dNNP `YNTb.
,~ ,NN' `YNb anonymous ftp @typhoon.ultranet.com
dNP `Yb.
,NN' `b.
dP `
,N'
P
Fencer
: Attilla, my faith has been restored in truth prevailing.
What truth? This is Hyperbole.
: You have done a service to Nikki, as well as the rest of the newsgroup.
: I'm sure she appreciated the unbias way you have conducted yourself in
: this action. I know I have.
The only service that has been done is to prolong this. And if you consider
what he just did to be unbiased, consider this. He has the tape he says he
doesn't have. So.... unbiased? Nah.
: Nikki, congradulations on the outcome. Looks like you deserve to take a
: break from the ole computer and go celebrate. :-)
In any event, it is doubtful she'll take a break from her computer.
John Atkins
: I now have a report to give the 'residents' of this newsnet, on the
: and Chris Flaubert.
I don't want to be involved with any of this. I mean that. I am not interested in this, and never was. I am delurking to say one thing. I have heard the tape. It pretty much agrees with what Flaubert said it said. Other than the fact that Nikki laughed a lot on the tape.
I don't understand why Tim wasn't given a copy of the tape. Flaubert has played that tape several time in public. Most recently at the ex-NENA gathering and again at the Hot-Tub Party. We all think it's kind of funny. It's obvious to me that Tim is leaning a little toward Nikki in view of what he wrote in this thread and how he wrote it. I just want to say that, we (members of NENA) have known all along what Niki Craft was. She lied to our board, she lied about us to the N.L.C. and she claimed that the
Michell Handler thing is what killed NENA.
That's crazy. NENA died because we put all our eggs in one basket with the beach club. And Nikki? You are not welcome back.
Jojo
Bob Kern
I heard the .au file from the web page. That woman is a liar.
She says right in that sound file that she stold the computer in an
out-of court settlement.
What amazes me is that she is so well liked here.
Just my .02 cents
ReRe33
Atkins) wrote:
Are you a real person or just another one of Faubert's alias addresses?
>tim keene (att...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: I now have a report to give the 'residents' of this newsnet, on the
>: subject of tapes, supposedly recording conversations between Nikki
Craft,
>: and Chris Flaubert.
>
>I don't want to be involved with any of this.
hehehehe too late, Jo Jo.
>I mean that. I am not interested in this, and never was. I am delurking
to
>say one thing. I have heard the tape. It pretty much agrees with what
>Flaubert said it said.
What you are saying isn't true.
>Other than the fact that Nikki laughed a lot on the tape.
Soooo what?-) I laugh a lot all the time. Don't make it sound like such a
crime.
>I don't understand why Tim wasn't given a copy of the tape.
I do.
>Flaubert has played that tape several time in public. Most recently at
the ex-
>NENA gathering and again at the Hot-Tub Party. We all think it's kind of
>funny.
Now *that's* funny. Faubert playing tapes of me in social settings and at
parties? (Whooopeee! So maybe I'll get famous from this thing yet ;-) He
really DOES have a hard time ignoring me and abiding by what he tells
others to do, doesn't he?
Haha, I can't tell you how funny *I* think it is to hear that these people
are sitting around listening to these tapes at parties knowing that
Faubert refused to send them to someone who is going to scrutinize them in
the way that Tim Keene is able to do. hehehehe.
>It's obvious to me that Tim is leaning a little toward Nikki in view
>of what he wrote in this thread and how he wrote it.
Don't you know bias when you see it? You heard a tape played by a
master-baiter and deceit artist in a social setting and got manipulated
into taking part in something you *claim* you aren't even interested in. I
doubt you'd know bias if it stared you in the face.
>I just want to say that, we (members of NENA) have known all
>along what Niki Craft was.
Why be so vague? What AM I?
>She lied to our board,
Why be so vague? What did I lie to your board about?
>she lied about us to the N.L.C.
Why all this innuendo? What did I lie to the N.L.C. about?
>and she claimed that the Michell Handler thing is what killed NENA.
What killed NENA is a matter of opinion and it's never a crime to express
one's opinion. I am sure one conversation with long time NENA organizer
Tom Callabro and my viewpoint would be substantiated.
But none of that is what is at issue with regards to the tape and when
Faubert plays you that part of the tape it is solely for your
entertainment, nothing more.
>That's crazy. NENA died because we put all our eggs in one basket with
the beach club.
I agree with that as well. There were a number of factors that causes NENA
to fail and the split between Dennis Kirkpatrick and Tom was not the least
of them and Tom's disillusionment and final split from naturism after
being an activist for so many years with NENA resulted a great deal from
the way Michelle Handler was treated and also because of the photos that
Lee Baxandall published in CwS.
>And Nikki? You are not welcome back.
>Jojo
Yo Jojo, I never *was* a member of NENA. Not welcome back where? To the
hot tub parties of a defunct organization?
rere
ReRe33
>
>She says right in that sound file that she stold the computer in an
>out-of court settlement.
>
>What amazes me is that she is so well liked here.
>
>Just my .02 cents
Faubert's a hacker. He likes to play games. He can't turn the tape over to
Tim Keene because his dirty tricks will become apparent. That's why he
wanted to send some audio file to him instead. What you are hearing on
that file is where Faubert has used clipped versions from different parts
of the interview to say what he wants. Ask him to play the part where for
three or four minutes I explained to him over -- and over again -- (as
insistently as I have done here) that the computer was a gift and that I
wanted NO misunderstanding about that, why don't ya?
Faubert had an agenda when he interviewed me. He was baiting me to say
certain things that he wanted me to say and, as I've said, this guy is a
master-baiter if there ever was one.
I'm even starting to think Faubert had an agenda when he instructed me for
hours about how to get access to the internet. He's the primary reason I'm
here. Did you know that? Maybe these pranks he's doing are just cheap
thrills for a bored computer guy, I don't know.
re re
Coyote
>I don't want to be involved with any of this. I mean that.
Then why even open your mouth, John. I say, BS! You do want to get involved.
You just can't wait to make a statement. I would say that your fingers
were just itching to get at the keyboard.
>I am not interested in this, and never was. I am delurking to say
>one thing. I have heard the tape. It pretty much agrees with what
>Flaubert said it said. Other than the fact that Nikki laughed a lot
>on the tape.
You have heard the tape? What, is Chris playing it for your enjoyment?
How crass. BTW, how do you define "pretty much"? Is that to say that
all Chris's claims are vindicated on this tape? Or does that mean that
"it" does have both Chris and Nikki recorded?
>I don't understand why Tim wasn't given a copy of the tape. Flaubert
>has played that tape several time in public. Most recently at the
>ex-NENA gathering and again at the Hot-Tub Party. We all think it's kind
>of funny. It's obvious to me that Tim is leaning a little toward Nikki
>in view of what he wrote in this thread and how he wrote it. I just want
>to say that, we (members of NENA) have known all along what Niki Craft was.
Perhaps Tim wasn't provided with a copy because with his background he
would have the ability to recognize a splice job? So, Chris is playing
a recording, that may or may not be legal, for the enjoyment of public
audiences!? Has this man no sense of propriety? And everyone is getting
a big kick out of listening, eh? What a bunch of low lifes. I doubt
very seriously if your club died because of lossess at the beach. I
believe that it would have died because the members were so petty.
If Tim is leanin g towards any view it is due solely to the inaction
of Mr. Faubert. Perhaps he is looking around for a new editing machine,
one that doesn't leave such obvious evidence of splicing.
BTW, you might ask Chris why there is nothing of interest to naturists
at his ftp site. He did state that there would be such material.
William Epperly | Any advertising man who is guilty
epp...@cs.odu.edu | of perpetrating such drivel as you
dsn...@dsn10.med.navy.mil | have sent me has something wrong
with his medulla oblongata. --
-- Dale Carnagie
wharfie
Tune in tomorrow for the next episode of As the Newsgroup Turns.
J. Owens
Why don't you people nip it in the bud and carry on with life?
Something negative happened. That's a shame. Life goes on. Let it go.
wharfie
>Because I am Outta here.
DLTDHYITAOTWO.
tim keene
>: I now have a report to give the 'residents' of this newsnet, on the
>: subject of tapes, supposedly recording conversations between Nikki Craft,
>: and Chris Flaubert.
>
>have heard the tape. It pretty much agrees with what Flaubert said it
Oh, gad, get the thought police, she laughed! What do you mean by
'pretty much agrees'? Preserving deniability?
>I don't understand why Tim wasn't given a copy of the tape. Flaubert has
>played that tape several time in public.
The tape? An edited version? an .au?
>Most recently at the ex-NENA
>gathering and again at the Hot-Tub Party. We all think it's kind of
>funny.
That's strange. You don't *sound* like you're laughing.
>It's obvious to me that Tim is leaning a little toward Nikki in view
>of what he wrote in this thread and how he wrote it.
Exactly what did I say that leads you to this conclusion? Please be
specific, and use as much space as you need. It almost sounds to me as if
you're accusing me of doing a puff job. I want to hear you *say* that,
in words I can take 'to the bank'.
I just want to say that, we (members of NENA) have
>known all along what Niki Craft was. She lied to our board, she lied
>about us to the N.L.C. and she claimed that t he
I really don't care what you think of her, I asked to hear the tapes, and
Faubert promised to send them to me; when he didn't, I asked (several
times, in fact) that he do so. He did not. If he has tapes (unedited,
of course) which confirmed his conversations, one would think he would
send them, especially as sending them would, by her own admission, get
Nikki off the net.
> Michell Handler thing is what killed NENA.
>
>That's crazy. NENA died because we put all our eggs in one basket with the beach club. And Nikki? You are not welcome back.
>
>Jojo
JoJo, I don't remember seeing your name here before, and I'm curious.
What made you post now, expecially since Chris Faubert hasn't entered the
least denial to the allegations? Or are you 'Chris Faubert'?
I think people on the net who know me, know how I feel about lying, and
related forms of dishonesty. I was asked to comment on this issue in
part because I once mentioned to Nikki that I would go to court, if
necessary. It is my impression that, while I have not 'chosen sides' in
this debate, my preference would be for her to take the discussion to a
different group. She and I are not best friends, although I have come to
understand what she says. I have told her she is too verbose, too vulgar,
and too demeaning in her treatment of men. She overgeneralizes. I don't
think she likes to hear this, but I have been unable to catch her in any
lie told to me. If you wish to rid youself of her, you can either use
your 'killfile' capability, or you can leave rec.nude. There are
probably other ways - but one of them if *not* creating lies, or backing
them up.
Send me a copy of a tape where you claim she tells these lies, and let me
test it for editing - or sit and sulk. Don't claim to have heard what
you won't let me (or others) listen to. It won't wash.
tim keene
>tim keene (att...@netcom.com) had to say:
>
>: I'm not a lawyer, and at my age, it is unlikely that I will ever take the
>: California State Bar Exam; I have studied for it, however, at the request
>: made statements, which he claims he can back up with a tape, and, through
>: E-Mail (which I kept), agreed to provide it.
>
>Whoa, Ned. I sent you a tape, just as you requested. What's with this
>crap?
No tape arrived. When I asked why not, you did not answer. Now you plan
to claim that you sent them?
>Ahh. Tim, old boy, we had several exchanges of mail regarding this, several
>in one day. And I had verified to you that I sent you the tape, to the
>address you specified. They most certainly do exist. I have made that tape
>widely available to the people on rec.nude. More to the point, that tape is
>publically available on more than one site. You are making emphatic
>statements based on what? I seriously question your "impartial" status.
>This thread is sounding more and more like MS. CRAFT than Atilla.
What is your correct address? Mine is 1000 Ames Avenue, Suite D20,
Milpitas, California, zip 95035. And I believe we really need to sit
down and discuss this matter, head to head.
>You do not believe that they exist. And you believe I am a liar. What I
>suspect is that you don't like what you heard on the tape. I wondered why
>she picked you. Now I know.
Again, we really need to discuss this in person, so that you can bring
any claims you have about me into the open.
>Yuh. I tried to get Pat O'Brien to accept a copy of the tape but he
>refused. He is taking the position that, because of me, he was called names
>in a International Forum and that pisses him off. He wants nothing to do
>with this - and I don't blame him. *I* certainly wasn't the one who started
>slinging mud at Pat O'Brien. But then again, I am not the Paranoid who
>thinks TNS is out to get her either.
>Whoa. And just how have *I* shown myself to be a liar? I said she said it,
>and she said it. I refer to her admitting the thefts on this newsgroup.
>She can deny it all day long, but I, and others, clearly recall the thread.
>And of course, I keep copies of all of this. So I have the benefit of the
>original threads, and Niki's mail to me telling me that if I cause any more
>trouble for her on the nets, she'll start a slam-campaign that will
>completely discredit me with the Naturist Society. Well? She is only doing
>what she promised. Niki has reversed herself too many times to count, and
>lied about the lies she has told. That is fact. You need to review the
>digests, d00dio.
Are you calling me a name here? d00dio? I don't understand. You'll
have to be a little more clear. Please try to act like a man over this.
>that. I have *not* slandered her, I have called her what she is. A Liar
>and a Thief.
And a court action would include and evidence you might have against her,
and If you were to provide any, they you might win. In the absence of
any evidence, a jury would vote in favor of the plaintiff. I did not, by
the way, say anything about whatever else she may have done in her life;
I was asked to verify if any of three specific things were addressed in
the tape. The only defense against a charge of slander, by the way, is
that what was said was the truth. And yes, I do understand the word
'defamed'. I use the one in Witkin, Summary of California Law (9th
Edition).
>Because sinking to her level and slapping labels on people is not my thing.
May I refer you to your sentence above, beginning, 'You need to refer to
the digests . . .' Will you then define 'D00dio' for me, now?
>
>Chris
>
>--
>
> .
> `n. .rP'
> `qb ,dP' Chris Faubert
> TLb. ,dMP' Privateer Systems
> TML.dMMP the Privateer Project
> ,nmm`XXMPX
> ,#MP'~~XNXYNXTb. ro...@epee.ultranet.com
> ,d~' dNNP `YNTb.
> ,~ ,NN' `YNb anonymous ftp @typhoon.ultranet.com
> dNP `Yb.
> ,NN' `b.
> dP `
> ,N'
> P
Attilla
tim keene
>DeMahoney (dema...@aol.com) had to say:
>: Attilla, my faith has been restored in truth prevailing.
>
>What truth? This is Hyperbole.
>what he just did to be unbiased, consider this. He has the tape he says he
>doesn't have. So.... unbiased? Nah.
Chris, you have again stated that I have the tape. I had it sent to my
office for a reason. *I don't receive the mail there*. You see, I've
dealt with this kind of think before. Feel free to subpoena my office
staff, if we go to trial. I did not receive the tape. And I think you
know that, don't you?
>In any event, it is doubtful she'll take a break from her computer.
Yes. It's too bad your body couldn't back up your mouth, here.
attilla
tim keene
>tim keene (att...@netcom.com) wrote:
>
>
>She says right in that sound file that she stold the computer in an
>out-of court settlement.
>
>What amazes me is that she is so well liked here.
>
>Just my .02 cents
That wasn't what was being discussed. Can an .au file be edited? I
don't know, and don't care to learn right now. I suppose if I have to, I
will, but I've notice a lot of people jump right into this. Don't you
understand, I don't want to do this? But as long as my own veracity is
questioned, I will have to. Why, if you knew so much, didn't you respond
when Nikki asked for an impartial observer?
Ed Falk
>In article <3op0ad$7...@sundog.tiac.net> ja...@max.tiac.net (John Atkins) writes:
>
> Tune in tomorrow for the next episode of As the Newsgroup Turns.
I haven't had this much fun since the 18-minute gap.
Perhaps someone could post a URL pointer to this .au file I keep
hearing about? I couldn't find it in John Meaker's naturist home page,
and that's the only one I know about.
--
-ed falk, sun microsystems
fa...@sun.com
"Towards the end, the smell of their air began to change"
ReRe33
Operator wrote:
>
>You do not believe that they exist. And you believe I am a liar. What I
>suspect is that you don't like what you heard on the tape. I wondered
why
>she picked you. Now I know.
Wow. You've been responsible for so much of the sabotage that has taken
place here since January and you've been doing this stuff -- and worse --
to me for months. But I can't see how you are going to get away with doing
it to others.
>
>Yuh. I tried to get Pat O'Brien to accept a copy of the tape but he
>refused. He is taking the position that, because of me, he was called
names
>in a International Forum and that pisses him off. He wants nothing to do
>with this - and I don't blame him.
Pat O'Brien's special project seems to be sticking his head in the sand. I
just can't fathom someone not wanting to know the truth about something
like this when he is as directly involved as he is.
Unless of course he was/is in on it with you, and the more this unfolds
the more I'm starting to think that is what happened. You also did tell me
when we talked a year ago that he called me a "bitch" and that he had told
you all about things that should have been--YOU SAID-- between me and
Baxandall until you finally told him (O'Brien) something like: Look, these
two people were in a relationship, this is none of your business. Did that
really happen, or was that just another lie/lure?
*I* certainly wasn't the one who started
>slinging mud at Pat O'Brien. But then again, I am not the Paranoid who
>thinks TNS is out to get her either.
>
>: Chris, I won't believe anything you say, in the future, because you
have
>: already shown yourself to be a liar. I can't accept that you can begin
>: *any* mission with a lie. I have said the same types of things to my
>
>Whoa. And just how have *I* shown myself to be a liar? I said she said
it,
>and she said it.
Double talker. How can you clearly recall it? You can't even clearly
*state* it. You're intentionally vague here and you know it.
I refer to her admitting the thefts on this newsgroup.
>She can deny it all day long, but I, and others, clearly recall the
thread.
>And of course, I keep copies of all of this.
You keep the threads? Okay, I keep the threads too. Now post where I
admitted on rec.nude that I admitted to stealing that computer? Why do you
keep talking *about* it and why haven't you posted the quote? Simple.
Because you are lying.
>So I have the benefit of the
>original threads, and Niki's mail to me telling me that if I cause any
more
>trouble for her on the nets, she'll start a slam-campaign that will
>completely discredit me with the Naturist Society. Well? She is only
doing
>what she promised. Niki has reversed herself too many times to count,
and
>lied about the lies she has told. That is fact.
For the record: I have only ever written Faubert one letter and that was
one year ago. Anything I have written to him since has been posted
publicly on rec.nude. I don't even copy posts to him. He's making up
*every* word of that.
You need to review the
>digests, d00dio.
>
>
>: children, when they have lied, and I told them the way to fix it; I
will
>: leave that part of the discussion to your own discretion. You have
>: defamed yourself, I believe you have slandered Nikki, (not, by the way,
>: legal advice, but an opinion) and you have exposed me to the
possibility
>: of being called as a witness to such an action.
>
>Bah. This is more Niki Trash. Court? Do you know why no one has sued
>Niki? Do you know why no Civil Suits are ever levied against her?
Because (and she proudly admits this) she has nothing to take.
I proudly admit that no one has sued me because they don't have grounds to
do so -- and I did explain to you specifically in our phone conversation
that it was for that reason and NOT because I had no money. And then it
was posted when I came on rec.nude (probably by you) that I kept from
having financial resources so I wouldn't be sued. How
p-r-e-p-o-s-t-e-r-o-u-s. I have little money because I am a political
activist, not for any other reason. I said just the opposite to you on the
phone and you know it.
>A hollow victory if
>that. I have *not* slandered her, I have called her what she is. A Liar
>and a Thief. BTW you might want to look up the word defamed in the
>dictionary.
Trying to get Tim Keene's respect here by calling me a few names, or what?
Well, I think it's way too late for that. In one of your last posts you
wrote that you weren't calling me a liar and that YOU didn't necessarily
BELIEVE I was a liar. What are you baiting for here?
Btw: I called you a hacker, not a *master*hacker. [Three words: delusions
of grandeur] As far as I know you are just a guy with some computer
knowledge, an agenda and a lot of computer accounts. You told me you've
even maintained your own account in New Zealand for years and that it's a
real account, not any anon mailer. That probably was a lie, too, but you
did say it. What I called you was a master-baiter.
>As for your being called as a witness, I doubt that. I seriously doubt
>that.
>
>
>: Why didn't you just call her a name? At least then, *I'd* still have
>: some respect for you.
>
>Because sinking to her level
You can't *sink* to any level. You are as low as they go.
>and slapping labels on people is not my thing.
This is very funny.
re re
wharfie
> [ garbage deleted ]
Why can't you people learn to be concise? It doesn't take 112 lines
to call someone a lying shithead.
ReRe33
keene) wrote to "John Atkins":
>If you wish to rid youself of her, you can either use
>your 'killfile' capability, or you can leave rec.nude. There are
>probably other ways - but one of them if *not* creating lies, or backing
>them up.
No, there's another way to get me off rec.nude. He, or anyone else around
here, can get Faubert/Oz to submit an unedited tape and if it says what
Faubert claims I said about Pat O'Brien or Lee Baxandall then *I* will
leave rec.nude FOREVER--not another post. THIS IS A NO JIVE OFFER.
But, it can't be done because Faubert is lying and pulling from perhaps as
much as twenty hours of taping and editing it down to a few minutes and
splicing from a wide assortment of conversations about a wide variety of
topics where he manipulated me into saying what he wanted me to say after
he brought up every topic under the sun. Even if it's done honestly it's
called entrapment, but he's added all kinds of twists of deceit and lies
into it at ever turn.
>Send me a copy of a tape where you claim she tells these lies, and let me
>test it for editing - or sit and sulk. Don't claim to have heard what
>you won't let me (or others) listen to. It won't wash.
re re
Fencer
: >In message-ID: <3op7sl$k...@cthia.sojourn.com> bk...@sojourn1.sojourn.com
: Faubert's a hacker. He likes to play games. He can't turn the tape over to
: Tim Keene because his dirty tricks will become apparent. That's why he
: wanted to send some audio file to him instead. What you are hearing on
Huh. I am a hacker? And where did you get this impression? And more to
the point, when you use the word HACKER, do you say it like Nigger or like
Plumber? My dirty tricks? Bwahahahahahaha. So if I tell the truth, it's a
dirty trick. And if You tell a lie, it's a clean trick? I wanted to send an
audio file because it is a here/now kind of thing. And an audio file is one
hell of a lot harder to hide editing in than a tape. Because an audio file
can be graphed to detect changes. I think I understand now, tho. Even if
that tape had come to light, you would have claimed it was a edited put-up,
right?
: that file is where Faubert has used clipped versions from different parts
: of the interview to say what he wants. Ask him to play the part where for
: three or four minutes I explained to him over -- and over again -- (as
: insistently as I have done here) that the computer was a gift and that I
: wanted NO misunderstanding about that, why don't ya?
You never said that to me. Never. Except here in rec.nude. and only AFTER
you admitted, *here* that you stole it.
: Faubert had an agenda when he interviewed me. He was baiting me to say
: certain things that he wanted me to say and, as I've said, this guy is a
: master-baiter if there ever was one.
That is correct. I did have an agenda. And I fulfilled it.
As fo my being a master-baiter... I consider myself to be an
apprentice-baiter. =] Even your innuendo is lame and stale.
: I'm even starting to think Faubert had an agenda when he instructed me for
: hours about how to get access to the internet. He's the primary reason I'm
: here. Did you know that? Maybe these pranks he's doing are just cheap
: thrills for a bored computer guy, I don't know.
Whoa. Say WHAT? When you asked me about that I told you RTFM. You did, I
assume. And let me tell you another thing, *I* wouldn't send my biggest
enemy to aol for net access. Aol Sux.
DeMahoney
From: ro...@epee.ultranet.com (Fencer)/Chris
>DeMahoney (dema...@aol.com) had to say:
>>: Attilla, my faith has been restored in truth prevailing.
>What truth? This is Hyperbole.
Now I'm really getting confused? Are you saying
Attilla is secretly helping Nikki spread falsehoods?
I have been here long enough to know - Attilla
doesn't beat to anyones drum!
That wasn't said to be unkind Attilla. :-)
>>You have done a service to Nikki, as well as the rest of the newsgroup.
>>I'm sure she appreciated the unbias way you have conducted yourself in
>>this action. I know I have.
>The only service that has been done is to prolong this. And if you
consider
>what he just did to be unbiased, consider this. He has the tape he says
he
>doesn't have. So.... unbiased? Nah.
Attilla have you sent me the *new copy*
of the tape yet? Maybe CheefDan will give
me his? :-)
>>Nikki, congradulations on the outcome. Looks like you deserve to take a
>> break from the ole computer and go celebrate. :-)
From reading her posts I don't think she
took my suggestion to heart.
>In any event, it is doubtful she'll take a break from her computer.
I think you're right on this one. But then it
doesn't look like you will either.
>Chris
Debbie Mahoney
--
N.K. Danger
"J. Owens" <sow...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> writes:
> Am I the only one that could care less about these damned tapes?
Once someone makes a claim in a public forum, I think the object of that
claim has the right to say "Put up or shut up". That's what's going on
here. One can do a two-step all around the issue (lord knows I've
seen that so many times before on USENET) but it still comes down to "Put up
or shut up". In this case, it's a fairly binary situation.
> Why don't you people nip it in the bud and carry on with life?
The "nip" is simply the production of the tapes. Either they exist or they
don't. It's as simple as that. All the rest is smoke and mirrors.
If this had been said about me, I wouldn't be wasting megabytes on posts
and reposts and calling people liars. I'd simply say: "Put up or shut up,
what's it gonna be?" To *any* of the two-step postings, I'd reply:
"Put up or shut up, what's it gonna be?" There is no excuse for not
producing the tapes. You can't claim that the "dog" ate them, or for that
matter, the postal service. There are ways to verify that the items were
sent. This ain't rocket science. It's just an audio tape.
> Something negative happened. That's a shame. Life goes on. Let it go.
Perhaps if your good name was on the line, you might feel differently about
it. I can easily understand why one would choose NOT to "let it go";
especially when the "proof" should be so easy to produce. But I don't see
the need for large amounts of flamage. That only detracts from the point:
Do the tapes exist or not? A simple "Put up or shut up" would do.
Of course, it would not surprise me for the object of the claim to
repeatedly rub the "claimants" nose in it, should the proof never be
produced. In such a situation, it would almost be impossible for the
claimant to show his face in the newgroups every again. Then again, some
people have no shame! ;-)
But there need not be all of these postings on the subject. If the tape
exists, send a copy. If it keeps getting lost, send it certified mail.
If the tape is "lost" after that, one has "proof" that it was at least
delivered and signed for. Make a GIF of the receipt and post it.
Of course, keep in mind that there are those "old timers" on the net who
have built a level of trust and if a relative "newbie" comes on the net and
claims that the old timer is lying, the "newbie" isn't going to be believed.
Not everyone who posts here has the same reputation. It isn't a level playing
field in that regard. Sometimes "newbies" forget that and wonder why nobody
believes them.
So, it's "Put up or shut up" time. Which is it gonna be?
That's the bottom line.
--
N. K. Danger
tim keene
Criminey, I wish I'd thought of that!
tim keene
"put up or shut up." I guess the whole net knows my secret. I'm too wordy.
Coyote
Tim, et. al, this is getting crazier and crazier. As you may have
seen, I responded to the same message which you did from Jojo. After
that I received an e-mail message, purportedly from Chris Faubert,
in which Jojo's infomation was soundly denied to be truth. I responded
by offering an apology for mis-stating of facts, should it be true
that Jojo was reporting lies. This morning, when I checked my mail,
I had a reply to the e-mail I sent yesterday. It was from the same
account as the first, but this one was wondering why I should be
sending e-mail to that account. Almost as if we had not exchanged
messages previously.
Although I don't usually post e-mail messages from others, I think
that in this case it is important to do so. It is quite obvious
that something is rotten in Denmark (my apologies to Danes). Either
Chris Faubert's account has been breached, or the gentleman is
suffering from MPD.
My apologies to you all for this breach of netiquette and waste
of bandwidth. I felt it was important.
Here is the first letter that I received: It is from 10 May 1995
>From ro...@typhoon.ultranet.com Wed May 10 09:08:06 1995
>From: Operator <ro...@typhoon.ultranet.com>
>To: epp...@lilac.cs.odu.edu (Coyote)
>Subject: Re: Report on the tapes
>Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 09:14:10 -0400
>
>In article <3oq7d8$1...@xanth.cs.odu.edu> you wrote:
>: You have heard the tape? What, is Chris playing it for your enjoyment?
>
>I have *not* played that tape for any one and I don't know who that person is.
>
>: Perhaps Tim wasn't provided with a copy because with his background he
>: would have the ability to recognize a splice job? So, Chris is playing
>
>I sent Tim a copy of that tape.
>
>: If Tim is leanin g towards any view it is due solely to the inaction
>: of Mr. Faubert. Perhaps he is looking around for a new editing machine,
>: one that doesn't leave such obvious evidence of splicing.
>
>The above statement is petty, flaming. Period.
>
>: BTW, you might ask Chris why there is nothing of interest to naturists
>: at his ftp site. He did state that there would be such material.
>
>Ask me yourself. Or check the site.
>
> `qb ,dP' Chris Faubert
> TLb. ,dMP' Privateer Systems
> TML.dMMP the Privateer Project
> ,nmm`XXMPX
> ,#MP'~~XNXYNXTb. ro...@epee.ultranet.com
> ,d~' dNNP `YNTb.
> ,~ ,NN' `YNb anonymous ftp @typhoon.ultranet.com
> dNP `Yb.
> ,NN' `b.
> dP `
> ,N'
> P
And here is the message I received this morning: 11 May 1995
>From ro...@typhoon.ultranet.com Wed May 10 19:53:48 1995
>From: Operator <ro...@typhoon.ultranet.com>
>To: Coyote <epp...@cs.odu.edu>
>Subject: Re: Report on the tapes
>Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 19:59:48 -0400 (EDT)
>
>Who are you and why are you writing to me?
>
>If the below quoted message is supposed to be from me, I didn't write it.
>
>BTW, I take my mail at ro...@epee.ultranet.com and I was was wondering why
>you wrote me at typhoon?
>
>Chris
>
>On Wed, 10 May 1995, Coyote wrote:
>
> Operator writes:
> > In article <3oq7d8$1...@xanth.cs.odu.edu> you wrote:
> > : You have heard the tape? What, is Chris playing it for your enjoyment?
> >
> > I have *not* played that tape for any one and I don't know who that person is.
>
> If you have not, then say so in open forum please. If you don't know who
> this person is, then please say so in open forum. Seems that this person
> is spreading lies about you.
>
>
> > : Perhaps Tim wasn't provided with a copy because with his background he
> > : would have the ability to recognize a splice job? So, Chris is playing
> >
> > I sent Tim a copy of that tape.
>
> Perhaps it got lost in the mail? Or, we may see Tim posting a retraction
> regarding the receipt of the tape very soon. I can understand the mail
> service being slow. Of course, if you used a commercial carrier, such
> as FedEx, then this could not be the problem.
>
> > : If Tim is leanin g towards any view it is due solely to the inaction
> > : of Mr. Faubert. Perhaps he is looking around for a new editing machine,
> > : one that doesn't leave such obvious evidence of splicing.
> >
> > The above statement is petty, flaming. Period.
>
> I submit that the second sentence is flaming and petty. The first
> sentence, however, is quit correct. Tim has never taken a stand
> one way or the other on this issue. Until his most recent post, that
> is. I've had several e-mail discussion with him on the subject, but
> he refused to say one way or the other what his position was. Nor
> could it be gleaned by reading between the lines.
>
> > : BTW, you might ask Chris why there is nothing of interest to naturists
> > : at his ftp site. He did state that there would be such material.
> >
> > Ask me yourself. Or check the site.
>
> Actually, I did ftp to your site. I saw several directories devoted
> to computing (OS'es stick in my mind. And may a take this moment
> to commend you for including Linux at your site. Linux is just
> fabulous), but saw none relating to naturism. This is what I
> saw as of 3 days ago. Perhaps you've updated it since then?
So, what's up? Are we dealing with multiple Chris Fauberts?
William Epperly | Any advertising man who is guilty
epp...@cs.odu.edu | of perpetrating such drivel as you
dsn...@dsn10.med.navy.mil | have sent me has something wrong
with his medulla oblongata. --
-- Dale Carnagie
end of file
^L
ReRe33
Faubert called me asking me information about Tim Wilcox and other
pedophiles. In the process of those conversations he gave me much
information with regards to getting onto the internet. We talked about
many other things. During those conversations he feigned being friendly. I
was being set up and manipulated with each moment he was talking to me. At
the time I was somewhat suspicious, but certainly didn't realize the full
extent of what he was doing. I realize it now. I was not informed the
conversation was being recorded. We talked over a period of a week or two.
He called me and I called him during that period. We talked a LONG time.
It was over a year ago and I don't remember EXACTLY how long. It could
have been ten or 15 hours, or it could have been AS MUCH AS 20. That can
all be substantiated from phone records when/if need be by combining his
phone records with mine. Of the hours, all total that we talked, I don't
know what portion of that conversation he taped. I only learned it was
taped a few weeks ago when he posted the partial transcript of the tape.
The length of the conversation is not nor has it been an issue here, nor
does it matter how long the tapes are except when the issue is brought up
about him splicing it together with regards to how much he has to work
with. THAT's why I never brought it up before now. It was never relevant.
Whoooooops, can't say any more for now. . . Seems Tim Keene has me tied to
this here chair. So any reply from me will have to wait.
For now, I can only say this:
Faubert needs to turn those tapes over.
Faubert needs to send AT LEAST the ********relevant******** parts of that
long conversation (I don't guess I need to restate what those relevant
parts are--the part about O'Brien, Baxandall and the computer), which
consist of about one hour or two (considering leaving time on either side
to make sure of the context) to Tim Keene for evaluation.
No, I didn't say what he claimed with regards to Lee Baxandall and Pat
O'Brien and lots of other things. No I did not say I stole the computer.
The whole conversation was a set up on Faubert's part. He baited me. He
set up conversations about topics he wanted covered. Then he lied about it
-- and I didn't --in an international forum.
Richard, can you cite any comparable behavior on my part? If not, then why
don't YOU put up or shut up. You know Faubert said he would make the tape
available. He has not. You now Faubert said he would send the tape to Tim
Keene. Tim Keene hasn't gotten it and Faubert is hedging and casting blame
against Tim.
*I am the one who first said that the tape should be turned over.
*I am the one who is offering to pay four people (not my friends) one
hundred dollars per person when Faubert does turn over the tape.
*AND I am offering to get off rec.nude today if he turns over the tape.
Don't you know me well enough yet to know that I wouldn't be making such
an offer unless I KNOW that it will be Faubert who looks bad when the
tapes are revealed. He can never turn over those tapes because he is a
fraud and a LIAR and the tapes will show it.
WHAT???!!
No Tim, no, not that gal darned dirty old bandana . . .
ANYthing but that. . .
It's not 116 lines yet is it?
Let me just explain this ONE last thing here . . .
Richard, you need to stop **speculating** about that tape and put up or
shut up. Did I say that yet?
re re
P.S. No, I HAVEn't posted ALL the details of my life YET (At some point
would you like me to do that?). Nor have I posted all the details of the
conversation with Faubert. That means nothing except that -- believe it or
not -- I've tried to spare you a few of the details--not many, but a few.
Neil Faiman
Greetings.
Something smells very fishy here. I can't even tell the players any more
(and I seem to have lost my score card); but my best reconstruction looks
something like this:
1 - Chris Faubert appeared on rec.nude out of nowhere to engage in a
shouting match with Nikki Craft about various things that nobody
much cared about.
2 - The subject of the dispute was distilled down to the content of a
phone conversation that Nikki Craft may or may not have had with
Chris Faubert, and that ChrisFaubert may or may not have tape recorded.
3 - Since NC and CF were convinced that this was a matter of great concern
to the rec.nude readership, someone (I don't remember who) suggested
sending the purported tape recording to an unbiased third party, who
could then issue an independent report to rec.nude.
4 - Tim Keene having been around rec.nude long before either NC or CF showed
up here, and having established a reputation here for independence and
forthrightness, and clearly *not* being a NC-running-dog, and being in
an investigative profession, it was apparently suggested, and agreed to
by both NC and CF, that he would be an appropriate choice for the unbiased
third party.
5 - Tim Keene reported that he never received the tape, and therefore, in
accordance with the agreement that had been made, he had to "render
judgment" in favor of NC.
6 - And here's where it gets interesting. If CF had said "Oh, the tape must
have got lost in the mail, I'll send you another copy", that might have
been believable; but instead, he claimed: that Tim Keene really did have
the tape; that Tim was a liar; that Tim was obviously biased toward NC
from the beginning; and that Tim's opinion didn't matter anyway, because
CF had put some or all of the tape in a sound recording file (an easily
editable form) on the network.
7 - Meanwhile, a bunch of other people with no history at all on rec.nude
started popping out of the woodwork, saying that *they* had heard the
tape, and it was all true, and throwing in all the old gratuitous
character slurs against NC for good measure.
Does anyone else sense a set-up here? Personally, I had written NC off as
too paranoid to be a reliable reporter on anything months ago; but after
all this, I'm starting to have second thoughts. If this is the sort of thing
she has to put up with, maybe it's understandable that she jumped the gun
over the silly pedophile mail forgeries last winter.
Regards,
Neil Faiman
fai...@zko.dec.com
Richard Kenner
>But, it can't be done because Faubert is lying and pulling from perhaps as
>much as twenty hours of taping and editing it down to a few minutes and
>splicing from a wide assortment of conversations about a wide variety of
>topics where he manipulated me into saying what he wanted me to say after
>he brought up every topic under the sun. Even if it's done honestly it's
>called entrapment, but he's added all kinds of twists of deceit and lies
>into it at ever turn.
20 *HOURS* of tapes???
From the way this started, it sounded like this was referring to one
or a few relatively short conversations, perhaps 15-20 minutes total.
It's a very good thing I didn't get those tapes since I certainly
wouldn't have wanted to do that much listening!
Also, it seems like you may now be admitting that you literally said
what he claims, though it was "out of context".
Though I certainly understand the value of taking things in context,
somebody taking things out of context is not a "liar". He is somebody
who distorts facts to their own goals.
But that's exactly what *you* do. Perhaps that explains the vehemence
of your attack on him; I've heard it said that people get the most
upset about attributes of others that are the same as bad attributes
they themselves have.
The fact there are 20 hours of tapes is very significant to anybody
trying to understand what's going on here, but you chose to say this
only now (to be fair, so did Faubert).
When you dribble facts out like this, you don't enhance your own
position.
It's *far* better to start off with a concise and complete description
of the facts rather than playing "20 questions" with the world.
It sounds to me like you and Faubert may well be two of a kind.
BTW, can you fill us on how these 20 hours of conversation took place?
Were you aware at the time they were being taped?
Ricardo Ben-Safed
I agree with Debbie, Attilla the Hun has behaved admirally.
He will probably now received the same lies and inneundos
that Nikki Craft had been receiving for a long time.
Hats off to you Attilla! You've done a great service!
--
Nude and Naturally... Ricardo
a...@mtketc1.mt.att.com
tim keene <att...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <3op7sl$k...@cthia.sojourn.com>
bk...@sojourn1.sojourn.com (Bob Kern) writes:
>>I heard the .au file from the web page. That woman is a liar.
>>
Sun microsystems includes, with every sound-capable SUN workstation,
a software program called xsoundtool. xsoundtool can generate .au
files from an analog source, such as a tape recording; edit the file
with any combination of cut/paste/splice and other operations;
and edit the waveform at the point of each splice to eliminate
completely all audible effects of splicing (no telltale burbles
or clicks). The resulting waveform file may be recorded back
onto analog audio tape and sound like it was never spliced. It
takes professional audio analysis equipment to establish the
fact that an analog tape was recorded from a digital .au file -
to analyze the superharmonics, the playback bandwidth must be
at least 40KHz. It is at least theoretically possible to produce a
perfect forgery by manipulating the superharmonics, but equipment for
this is not generally available.
Like any digital file, a .au file may be protected against future
forgery with a cryptographic timestamp and the cryptographic
signature of the authority certifying file content at the specified
time. The digital timestamp can prove that the file was not modified
after the stamped date. It does not certify that the file had not been
edited prior to the timestamp.
Adam_...@ATT.com
Ricardo Ben-Safed
In a previous posting, N.K. Danger (nkda...@telerama.lm.com) writes:
> (((snip, snip snip) Am going to quote from nkdanger's point with
which I agree 100%
One can do a two-step all around the issue (lord knows I've
> seen that so many times before on USENET) but it still comes down to "Put up
> or shut up". In this case, it's a fairly binary situation.
>
>
> don't. It's as simple as that. All the rest is smoke and mirrors.
I'd simply say: "Put up or shut up,
> what's it gonna be?" To *any* of the two-step postings, I'd reply:
> "Put up or shut up, what's it gonna be?"
But I don't see
> the need for large amounts of flamage. That only detracts from the point:
> Do the tapes exist or not? A simple "Put up or shut up" would do.
> So, it's "Put up or shut up" time. Which is it gonna be?
>
> That's the bottom line.
> --
> N. K. Danger
Faubert, no amount of artful dodging,having friends come on rec.nude
and say "Yeah the tapes really exist and I have heard them", or
proclaiming how pure you are and how evil,sinful,etc.etc. Nikki
Craft is....just doesnt wash!
As NKDanger has so eloquently said: [Put up or shut up!!]
-Ricardo
email: av...@yfn2.ysu.edu
t...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
> but instead, he claimed: that Tim Keene really did have
> the tape; that Tim was a liar; that Tim was obviously biased toward NC
> from the beginning; and that Tim's opinion didn't matter anyway, because
> CF had put some or all of the tape in a sound recording file (an easily
> editable form) on the network.
First off, I'd never believe that Tim was a liar. I'd never buy into that.
Second off, before I'd ever have the guts to say this about Tim (he is,
after all, the World's Best Process Server/Skip Tracer and Ramona supposedly
will bite on his command) I would resend the tape via certified mail if I
were Chris.
Third off, I'd never believe that Tim is/was/will-be a liar. It just ain't
his style, pure and simple.
> 7 - Meanwhile, a bunch of other people with no history at all on rec.nude
> started popping out of the woodwork, saying that *they* had heard the
> tape, and it was all true, and throwing in all the old gratuitous
> character slurs against NC for good measure.
You missed one point however. These same readers "delurked", made their claim
AND signed off USENET/rec.nude forever. Now that should make you suspicious
right off. I've seen that done too many times in soc.women over the years
to take it seriously. It's "hit and run" tactics that made soc.women famous.
> Does anyone else sense a set-up here? Personally, I had written NC off as
> too paranoid to be a reliable reporter on anything months ago; but after
> all this, I'm starting to have second thoughts. If this is the sort of thing
> she has to put up with, maybe it's understandable that she jumped the gun
> over the silly pedophile mail forgeries last winter.
It could be all sorts of things. I'm not sure you can make out what the
genuine senario is. I could probably list no less than 5 possible senarios
that could all be supported by what we've seen. I'm not about to draw any
conclusions about the character of any of the parties from this classic
USENET situation, other than to say that I'd never believe that Tim is a liar.
Terry
Richard Kenner
>Richard, can you cite any comparable behavior on my part?
No, because I didn't accuse you of behavior of the type you cited.
But your message was a perfect example of what I *did* accuse you of:
trying to warp the truth into something that fits your agenda.
wharfie
>Does anyone else sense a set-up here?
No, just exponentially increasing boredom.
wharfie
>It's "hit and run" tactics that made soc.women famous.
That's not funny.
er...@earth.execpc.com
<deletions>
> I was not informed the
> conversation was being recorded.
As regards the recording of telephone calls, the law is certain to vary by
jurisdiction. According to the Ameritech phone book for Milwaukee:
<Begin quote>
"Recording conversations. If your conversation is being recorded for
business or other reasons, one of the following conditions *MUST* apply:
When recording conversations within Wisconsin: The person recording the
conversation is a party to the communication. Or, one of the parties to
the communication has given prior consent to the recording of the
conversation.
Recording interstate conversations is not permitted unless:
All parties consent verbally or in writing, or
A distinctive tone sounds every 15 seconds during the recording, or
The party intending to record the conversation notifies the other party -
at the begining of the conversation - that the call is being recorded.
Exceptions include recordings made by law enforcement officers and
broadcast stations recording for the sole purpose of broadcast."
<End quote>
So had this conversation(s) taken place within WI (for example) it would
have been legal, as I understand the above. If it was an interstate call,
it seems it would not have been, based on re re's statement.
Perhaps re re will post the conditions under which the recording took
place for those who are interested in this silliness. Check your phone
book re re for the governing law in your state.
Does this have something to do with the tapes not showing up?
<deletions>
> That can
> all be substantiated from phone records when/if need be by combining his
> phone records with mine.
Isn't this a bit extreme? Sounds a little paranoid to me. No manner of
compunction other than a court order could make such a thing happen.
Unless
re re files suit over 1) illegal interstate recordings; or 2) slander (I
think that is what would apply), such an event will never happen. As we
all know only too well, re re has the records to do this.
BTW re re, what is the ***ction count up to? :-)
Re re's willingness to back her position is admirable, but could be
construed as posturing. "Oh look! Re re is willing to open her records.
She must be right." This statement doesn't mean anything *at all* unless
it happens.
<deletions>
> *I am the one who first said that the tape should be turned over.
>
> *I am the one who is offering to pay four people (not my friends) one
> hundred dollars per person when Faubert does turn over the tape.
>
> *AND I am offering to get off rec.nude today if he turns over the tape.
Yes re re, we know you are holy. Has anybody said it yet? For the record:
Don't go away mad, just go away.
Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
> P.S. No, I HAVEn't posted ALL the details of my life YET (At some point
> would you like me to do that?).
Thank goodness, and in direct answer to your question, NO! If you want
attention buy a puppy.
ericu
--
-=<>=- -=<>=- -=<>=- -=<>=- -=<>=- -=<>=- -=<>=- -=<>=- -=<>=- -=<>=-
There *will* be a snappy sig file here sometime - just not today!
er...@earth.execpc.com
-=<>=- -=<>=- -=<>=- -=<>=- -=<>=- -=<>=- -=<>=- -=<>=- -=<>=- -=<>=-
Ricardo Ben-Safed
How about a CNN type of report on the status of the status of the
tapes. The last I heard (errr....read here on rec.nude) Flaubert
never sent tapes to prove his slander against someone else.
This lack of evidence was published on rec.nude. Then Flaubert
had a number of his friends post that they had heard tapes and
Flaubert was "right". Then Flaubert makes available some
"doctored" tapes to prove that he is innocent as snow. And then
he is called on that too!
So what else is new in this soap opera drama?
-Ricardo
email: av...@yfn2.ysu.edu
Ricardo Ben-Safed
I agree with Terry....Tim might be obnoxious, in love with his
own joking style....but a liar.......NEVER!!!!!!
--Ricardo