Inger isn't stalking me!!!!

[MA]

Inger, it was a joke, a sudden outburst of irony during a dark moment
of fatigue after having read all this endless crap about the Goths. I
hoped that you would be able to read my posting "med glimten i ögat".
So: Inger is not stalking me, but I still think that this goth-thing is
crap. OK?

[Dylan Sung]

"MA" <magnus...@arkeologi.uu.se> wrote in message
news:1127806567.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Did you say stalking? Has she been abusing you also? There are EU laws
against that, surely.

Dyl.

[markovic]

In article <1127806567.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "MA"
<magnus...@arkeologi.uu.se> wrote:

> So: Inger is not stalking me, but I still think that this goth-thing is
> crap. OK?

Yes I agree, Marylyn Manson sucks, but the important question is: who is
Inger stalking? I won't rest until I find out.

[inger]

markovic <mark...@io.com> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:markovic-270...@cpe-24-28-65-232.aust
in.res.rr.com...

I am not stalking anyone - but two more persons here in group reported to
Police today(!!!) for sending me real offending and criminal childsex mails!
If persons here who don't like what Magnus calls the 'Goth' thing, which I
am not in to 'Goth'-thing is one thing, are so fond to be checked by Police
it's their own doings that put them in that position.

Btw. going thru the history of the Swedish Goths many good archaeologists
among them Anders Kaliff done, so Magnus ought to know the difference
between Goths and the 'Goth thing'. Anyhow among scholars of History Magnus
better talk to most here in Sweden would say that Dick Harrison is the best.
Both named Swedish scholar are known to be good ones.
And I don't have any Goths among my ancestors. We are too located in older
ages to places where the Herules are discussed to have settled and to old
Norwegian areas.

Inger E

[Tedd Jacobs]

"inger" wrote...

>
> markovic <mark...@io.com> skrev i
> diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:markovic-270...@cpe-24-28-65-232.aust
> in.res.rr.com...
>> In article <1127806567.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "MA"
>> <magnus...@arkeologi.uu.se> wrote:
>>
>> > So: Inger is not stalking me, but I still think that this goth-thing is
>> > crap. OK?
>>
>> Yes I agree, Marylyn Manson sucks, but the important question is: who is
>> Inger stalking? I won't rest until I find out.
>
> I am not stalking anyone - but two more persons here in group reported to
> Police today(!!!) for sending me real offending and criminal childsex
> mails!

okay, who in the pool had dibs on 'sex mail'?

[Dylan Sung]

"inger" <I_e.jo...@telia.com> wrote in message
news:8kr_e.34829$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net...

>
> markovic <mark...@io.com> skrev i
> diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:markovic-270...@cpe-24-28-65-232.aust
> in.res.rr.com...
>> In article <1127806567.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "MA"
>> <magnus...@arkeologi.uu.se> wrote:
>>
>> > So: Inger is not stalking me, but I still think that this goth-thing is
>> > crap. OK?
>>
>> Yes I agree, Marylyn Manson sucks, but the important question is: who is
>> Inger stalking? I won't rest until I find out.
>
> I am not stalking anyone - but two more persons here in group reported to
> Police today(!!!) for sending me real offending and criminal childsex
> mails!

As a person who has thirty odd years of computer experience, why, after all
the advice given to you over the last few years, have you ***never taken the
precaution to protect yourself*** from unwanted, unsolicited, spam, and such
pornographic email is astounding. You openly use your email address on a
public forum, which is not only shown as newgroups in Google, but mirrored
in several hundred other internet web news listings as well. If Google
Groups does protect itself from email address harvesting, other such news
providers may not. As such, your problem is not going to be resolved.

It may be that the name you think the sex spam came from was directed to you
by that person, but who in their true and sane minds would email such stuff
to you and risk having their names tarnished and investigated by the police
when everyone knows your attitude about such things in this and other forums
about such spam. Madam, you may have recieved what is spoof spam email, and
police will be looking at the email (if you indeed reported it), and will
find a trail back to a spambot somewhere. The person you hold responsible is
left in your mind, as the perpetrator, and the real criminal is still out
there with your email address ready to send you more via the spam bot.

If with, your experience, you are stupid and idiotic enough to use a real
email in your replies, you deserve to get all the crap in your inbox as
there are grains of sand on the seashore. I'd say your experience of
computers is bluff, or rather padding your credentials over much, and being
seen for what they are.

Dyl.

[MA]

Inger, if someone is sending you such disgusting mails, you have to
take action, and I hope sincerely that the perpetrator is caught and
jailed.
But I don't see what it has to do with your "goth-theories"? I still
think that it is out-dated crap!
I know Kaliff very well, so you ought to be very careful when you
implies that he in any respect share your view about the goths. You
have done this before, when you managed to claim that a friend of mine
and his geophysical surveys at Gamla Uppsala had proved that you vere
right about land elevation and god-know-what-else.
That is BAD. Its NO-NO!
That is something you just don't do.

[Alaca]

Dylan Sung wrote: dhdjim$m6d$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk,
> "inger" wrote
>> markovic skrev
>>> "MA" wrote:

And I think her claim of "real offending and criminal
childsex mails" is a lie.
And I feel realy very offended by her "two more persons
here in group"
I think this is more than enough to report her to Telia.

--
º°º°º°º < Peter Alaca > º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°

[Tom McDonald]

I had 'sexabuse mails.' Who knew she'd go with 'childsex mails!'

Anyone have 'childsex mails'?

BTW, what is the pool up to now? If it's enough, I'll lobby for my pick.

[Philip Deitiker]

In sci.archaeology, Tom McDonald created a message ID
news:k4x_e.3815$wg7....@fe06.lga:

> Tedd Jacobs wrote:

>> okay, who in the pool had dibs on 'sex mail'?
>
> I had 'sexabuse mails.' Who knew she'd go with 'childsex
mails!'

Obviously she doesn't like me anymore, because I had dibs on
the 'sexabuse mail' hysteria, also. However, I lay claim to any
future hysteria dealing with beastiality. Also I had dibs on any
post with a (!) but I am expanding my claim to (!!!!) and any
post with the word 'Police' or 'Stockholm' in it.

[bogar...@uwlax.edu]

MA wrote:
> Inger, [snip]

> I know Kaliff very well, so you ought to be very careful when you
> implies that he in any respect share your view about the goths. You
> have done this before, when you managed to claim that a friend of
> mine and his geophysical surveys at Gamla Uppsala had proved that
> you vere right about land elevation and god-know-what-else.
> That is BAD. Its NO-NO!

*******

> That is something you just don't do.

*******

But she does.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Dylan Sung wrote:

> As a person who has thirty odd years of computer experience, why, after all
> the advice given to you over the last few years, have you ***never taken the
> precaution to protect yourself*** from unwanted, unsolicited, spam, and such
> pornographic email is astounding. You openly use your email address on a
> public forum, which is not only shown as newgroups in Google, but mirrored
> in several hundred other internet web news listings as well. If Google
> Groups does protect itself from email address harvesting, other such news
> providers may not. As such, your problem is not going to be resolved.
>
> It may be that the name you think the sex spam came from was directed to you
> by that person, but who in their true and sane minds would email such stuff
> to you and risk having their names tarnished and investigated by the police
> when everyone knows your attitude about such things in this and other forums
> about such spam. Madam, you may have recieved what is spoof spam email, and
> police will be looking at the email (if you indeed reported it), and will
> find a trail back to a spambot somewhere. The person you hold responsible is
> left in your mind, as the perpetrator, and the real criminal is still out
> there with your email address ready to send you more via the spam bot.
>
> If with, your experience, you are stupid and idiotic enough to use a real
> email in your replies, you deserve to get all the crap in your inbox as
> there are grains of sand on the seashore. I'd say your experience of
> computers is bluff, or rather padding your credentials over much, and being
> seen for what they are.
>
> Dyl.

Very good message, Dylan. May I add a word? I use a functioning e-mail
address too, but of course I never open e-mails I can't identify with
absolute certainty, let aloner would I open an attachment and
photographs
in such an e-mail. That's trivial, should be done to everybody. But now
comes what unnerves me: there seem to be several people who abuse my
e-mail
addresses and send around krap using my name. A concrete example. I was
corresponding for years and years with a mathematician from Sacramento.
One year ago he informed me that I sent him a virus infected e-mail.
But
I did not contact him in the period in question, so there was someone
who
abused my e-mail address, and it happened that that someone sent mail
to
my mailing partner. I informed him that some criminal elements are
abusing
my e-mail addresses (all three of them, presumably because they are
short).
What can we do against such abuse?

Regards Franz Gnaedinger

[Jesper]

"Franz Gnaedinger" <fr...@bluemail.ch> wrote in:
news:1128151735.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

<cut>

> in such an e-mail. That's trivial, should be done to everybody. But now
> comes what unnerves me: there seem to be several people who abuse my
> e-mail
> addresses and send around krap using my name. A concrete example. I was
> corresponding for years and years with a mathematician from Sacramento.
> One year ago he informed me that I sent him a virus infected e-mail.

That's most likely just a virus sending itself with a fake from-adress and
throught it's own SMTP-server on an infected Windows machine. This is very
common, either that the virus (or spam) use a random mailadress as
From-address, or that it's send with the recipitents domain (or even full
mailaddress) as sender. Nothing you can do about it (except trying to track
down the moron with an infected machine, but it's usually not worth the
effort).

/ Jesper

[nos...@spammers.of.the.world.unite.com]

Apparently on date Sat, 1 Oct 2005 12:05:05 +0200, "Jesper"
<zedri...@spam.linuxmail.org> said:

>
>"Franz Gnaedinger" <fr...@bluemail.ch> wrote in:
>news:1128151735.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
><cut>
>
>> in such an e-mail. That's trivial, should be done to everybody. But now
>> comes what unnerves me: there seem to be several people who abuse my
>> e-mail
>> addresses and send around krap using my name. A concrete example. I was
>> corresponding for years and years with a mathematician from Sacramento.
>> One year ago he informed me that I sent him a virus infected e-mail.
>
>That's most likely just a virus sending itself with a fake from-adress and
>throught it's own SMTP-server on an infected Windows machine. This is very

More to the point, viruses of various types get their "from" address from the
targets address book or in box, in order to persuade the reader that it is from
a trusted source.

This is another excellent reason not to send email to Inger as, if you are in
her address book, you are likely to appear as sender when particular viral
forms are spread. Since she does not understand this matter there is no hope of
her fixing any problem and nobody else can either.

I had a similar problem with someone in Australia, they had something from me,
or so they thought. Surprisingly enough, the infected message did actually have
headers that I could trace all the way back through my ISP to my actual
machine, correct IP and keys.

So much so that I isolated the hard disk and ran it as a slave on a virgin,
non-internet connected machine to examine whether or not the files that the
particular virus usually got into were byte to byte copies with the virgin one
that could only be infected if MS sent out the CD with a virus on it, and that
hasn't happened for a while.

Drew a blank, then did some more in-depth checking of headers to find that the
headers were correct and exactly identical to a message I had sent a week or so
before, to that person, with no payload and just a text message (my reader does
do attachments, but not Mime so the message in question simply did not come
from that application, but the headers did. A puzzle in the first place).

Checking back to the Australian, he had also received that first message, the
virus came a week later. We had to agree that with identical headers, down to
identical times and dates and tracking codes on each of the machines carrying
that message, could not possibly have come about if two different messages were
involved, and in fact, the headers could only have been put onto the message in
a spoofed way if the message had never been outside of his computer, as any
other trips would have replaced or added new headers to the message. Ergo,
although my ISP would have believed, from the headers, that I had sent it, it
would have to be a virus at his end, which I assume he found, either way he
didn't complain again or update me, maybe cleaning his system was fairly
terminal and he lost my address.

What bothers me about this sort of thing is that my ISP, faced with a tirade of
complaints about sexabuse and racism and everything under the sun, if they had
asked for and got that particular message as an example, I wonder if they would
know enough to determine what was really happening, as opposed to acting
against me in some way. It's a genuine danger, I don't know ways to fix this
sort of problem as it is in the heads of other people.

[Dylan Sung]

"Jesper" <zedri...@spam.linuxmail.org> wrote in message
news:VPidnUoveuH...@giganews.com...

That's right, for some cases. I occasionally get a wholey blank email, and
then weeks later, a torrent of spam comes to my email addresses, and I set
the spam filter to get rid of them. They're a kind of phishing attempt to
see which emails are real. Often, there are loads of email addresses close
to, or similar to your own, and you know they're trying every letter
combination to gain real email addresses. Sometimes, programs scan through
websites, and newsgroups and harvest the email addresses so that they can be
sold to spammers.

I've been a victim of spoofing too. My email has been online for about 7
years now. Long enough for any spammer to have gotten hold of it. I get
unexpected email supposedly from my own email address, and I wonder how many
people are getting email alledgedly from me, and being blamed for being a
spammer. I can't do much about spoofers, as it doesn't originate from my
email address.

Franz, if your email has webbased email access, rather from email programs
like Outlook Express, then they should have some mail filters that you can
set. If you don't, then one effective method of marking legitimate post to
to ask the poster to set a code word into your subject line. When you see
it, you'll know it's bonefide. It shouldn't be an obvious word.

Otherwise, you ought to edit your email address and post instructions on how
to extract your correct address from it. For instance, if my email address
was som...@webnet.net.uk I would add stuff to it, like so

someone...@webnet.net.uk.net

and tell people to remove "twothree" and "dot net" to get the real mail
address as a comment at the bottom of your email address, or in your
signature.

Dyl.

[inger]

Jesper,
at least three persons who during the last years attacked and abused me here
in group have been definitely identified by their own suppliers for
forgering my mailaddress.
In my case always after I have written more than usual regarding
Scandinavians, Greenland and NA.

Inger E

Jesper <zedri...@spam.linuxmail.org> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:VPidnUoveuH...@giganews.com...

[Jesper]

"inger" <i_e.jo...@telia.com> wrote in
news:9Yy%e.147428$dP1.5...@newsc.telia.net...
> Jesper,

<snip>

Hi Inger.

I wasn't talking to you.

/ J

[Dylan Sung]

"inger" <i_e.jo...@telia.com> wrote in message
news:9Yy%e.147428$dP1.5...@newsc.telia.net...

> Jesper,
> at least three persons who during the last years attacked and abused me
> here
> in group have been definitely identified by their own suppliers for
> forgering my mailaddress.

Who are they? What are their names? Why don't you tell us?

Unless you do tell us, we can only assume these are wild allegations,
without substance, and thus slanderous.

Dyl.

[grapheus]

RIDICULOUS REMARK as usual of Sing-the-same-Sung !..
Not giving names would be slander, but giving names at a guess, like
your very good friend Franz, the CONVICTED and PATHOLOGICAL SLANDERER,
did several times is not !!!!

grapheus

[observer]

If a Swedish citizen is accusing someone - in- or outside Sweden - for
criminal behavior, without bringing the accusation to court, it is
regarded as a felony lible. Anyone that has been a victim of such an
accusation, has got the right to sue the accusator for aggravated
defamation (at least 1,6 years in prison). Just a tip.

[Dylan Sung]

"grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
news:1128198837.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> Dylan Sung wrote:
>> "inger" <i_e.jo...@telia.com> wrote in message
>> news:9Yy%e.147428$dP1.5...@newsc.telia.net...
>> > Jesper,
>> > at least three persons who during the last years attacked and abused me
>> > here
>> > in group have been definitely identified by their own suppliers for
>> > forgering my mailaddress.
>>
>> Who are they? What are their names? Why don't you tell us?
>>
>> Unless you do tell us, we can only assume these are wild allegations,
>> without substance, and thus slanderous.
>>
>> Dyl.
>
> RIDICULOUS REMARK as usual of Sing-the-same-Sung !..

Here he is, to the rescue, our pauvre idiot grapheus.

> Not giving names would be slander,

That's what I said. Did you not understand?

> but giving names at a guess, like
> your very good friend Franz, the CONVICTED and PATHOLOGICAL SLANDERER,
> did several times is not !!!!

Inger slanders the whole group - everyone is subject to her tarbrush, even
you are. If as she makes plain that they have been identified, then it would
not be slander if it was true, and she can reveal who they are. She did say

"have been definitely identified by their own suppliers for forgering my

mailaddress", which must be true, if she stated it thus. Why then does she
not reveal who those perpetrators are?

Dyl.

[grapheus]

Dylan Sung wrote:
> "grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
> news:1128198837.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Dylan Sung wrote:
> >> "inger" <i_e.jo...@telia.com> wrote in message
> >> news:9Yy%e.147428$dP1.5...@newsc.telia.net...
> >> > Jesper,
> >> > at least three persons who during the last years attacked and abused me
> >> > here
> >> > in group have been definitely identified by their own suppliers for
> >> > forgering my mailaddress.
> >>
> >> Who are they? What are their names? Why don't you tell us?
> >>
> >> Unless you do tell us, we can only assume these are wild allegations,
> >> without substance, and thus slanderous.
> >>
> >> Dyl.
> >
> > RIDICULOUS REMARK as usual of Sing-the-same-Sung !..
>
> Here he is, to the rescue, our pauvre idiot grapheus.
>
> > Not giving names would be slander,
>
> That's what I said. Did you not understand?

What I understand is that it is a stupidity of yours !

> > but giving names at a guess, like
> > your very good friend Franz, the CONVICTED and PATHOLOGICAL SLANDERER,
> > did several times is not !!!!
>
> Inger slanders the whole group - everyone is subject to her tarbrush, even
> you are. If as she makes plain that they have been identified, then it would
> not be slander if it was true, and she can reveal who they are. She did say
> "have been definitely identified by their own suppliers for forgering my
> mailaddress", which must be true, if she stated it thus. Why then does she
> not reveal who those perpetrators are?

There may be several motives : the reasons of being sure of something
is not always a juridical "proof" (sometimes, one must produce an
official document for that) , or going to Court is not worth the
matter, etc.
For you, only RECOGNIZED and PATHOLOGICAL LIARS like your best friend
Franz Fridolin have to be trusted, never "good people" !!!

grapheus

[Dylan Sung]

"grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message

news:1128200560.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

>
> Dylan Sung wrote:
>> "grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
>> news:1128198837.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Dylan Sung wrote:
>> >> "inger" <i_e.jo...@telia.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:9Yy%e.147428$dP1.5...@newsc.telia.net...
>> >> > Jesper,
>> >> > at least three persons who during the last years attacked and abused
>> >> > me
>> >> > here
>> >> > in group have been definitely identified by their own suppliers for
>> >> > forgering my mailaddress.
>> >>
>> >> Who are they? What are their names? Why don't you tell us?
>> >>
>> >> Unless you do tell us, we can only assume these are wild allegations,
>> >> without substance, and thus slanderous.
>> >>
>> >> Dyl.
>> >
>> > RIDICULOUS REMARK as usual of Sing-the-same-Sung !..
>>
>> Here he is, to the rescue, our pauvre idiot grapheus.
>>
>> > Not giving names would be slander,
>>
>> That's what I said. Did you not understand?
>
> What I understand is that it is a stupidity of yours !

Well, I said it once, and I'll say it again. You're an idiot, one who
doesn't comprehend what was clearly written.

>
>> > but giving names at a guess, like
>> > your very good friend Franz, the CONVICTED and PATHOLOGICAL SLANDERER,
>> > did several times is not !!!!
>>
>> Inger slanders the whole group - everyone is subject to her tarbrush,
>> even
>> you are. If as she makes plain that they have been identified, then it
>> would
>> not be slander if it was true, and she can reveal who they are. She did
>> say
>> "have been definitely identified by their own suppliers for forgering my
>> mailaddress", which must be true, if she stated it thus. Why then does
>> she
>> not reveal who those perpetrators are?
>
> There may be several motives : the reasons of being sure of something
> is not always a juridical "proof" (sometimes, one must produce an
> official document for that) , or going to Court is not worth the
> matter, etc.

Why don't you ask Inger to produce the proof of her accusations, slander,
and defamation? She said 3 people didn't she? Where are her "PROOFS !.."?

> For you, only RECOGNIZED and PATHOLOGICAL LIARS like your best friend
> Franz Fridolin have to be trusted, never "good people" !!!

Inger, for your information, you can get advice about your problems here.

http://tinylink.com/?y2I0Qh6mz7

Dyl.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Jesper wrote:

> That's most likely just a virus sending itself with a fake from-adress and
> throught it's own SMTP-server on an infected Windows machine. This is very
> common, either that the virus (or spam) use a random mailadress as
> From-address, or that it's send with the recipitents domain (or even full
> mailaddress) as sender. Nothing you can do about it (except trying to track
> down the moron with an infected machine, but it's usually not worth the
> effort).
>
> / Jesper

Thank you for the reply, Jesper. Being a computer moron I can't
possibly track down those criminals, but I can at least say in
public that I do not accept their abusing my e-mail addresses.

There may be an unsolved problem of the Web. Any suggestions,
Tim Berners-Lee? Bill Gates? Steve Jobs? Larry Page? ...?

When I contacted professor Christopher Henshilwood, leader of
the very fine Blombos Cave Project in South Africa in past July
or August, I was asked to confirm my e-mail address. I did, and
only then did he open and read my e-mail, and reply to me
(wishing me luck with my project). May this be a solution?
a robot asking every e-mail to be confirmed? But suppose
someone abusing an e-mail address of mine for sending around
a virus (what actually happened many times) and reaching, say,
a million people. Now if their mail robots ask me to confirm
"my" mail, my account would be flooded by a million mails,
and nothing would go anymore. So I guess there is a real
problem, not yet solved.

Dr. Rochaix, Dr. M. Rochaix, Dr. Marcel Rochaix of Eberle
Känpfen Bösiger Theiler www.ekbt-law.ch: how does it look to
potential clients of yours when I call your client Marie Jean
Faucounau grapheus for what he is, namely an insane asshole?
I called him that before, I do it again. By insane I mean
a clinical case verging on a schizophrenic paranoia with
obsessive and megalomanic traits. If not a fully developed
schizophrenia. His repeating of ever the same stereotyped
phrases clearly hints at a schizophrenic residuum. And his
wild projections and freely invented lies belong to the same
severe mental illness. And by asshole I mean a deeply rotten
character.

For the reasonable people around here: I have _not_ been
convicted of slander, libel, or anything else. Marie Jean
Faucounau grapheus is not only what I call him above, he
is a coward to boot - neither can he stand by his name,
nor did he had the courage go to court against me.

As for Inger E. Johansson, friend, ally and mobbing parter
of Marie Jean Faucounau grapheus: Inger is apparently mad.
Archaeology is a reconstruction of the past on the basis
of undoubtedly and uncontestedly genuine artefacts. Trying
to base archaeology on dubious artefacts (to put it mildly)
is like building a skyscraper on sand: sheer madness. And
shedding a general suspicion on the "naysayers of the KRS"
to send her krap mail is criminal too. She should be very
careful what she says. Anybody menaced by her may contact
me: I shall give you my support for free.

Inger: you owe this well deserved comment on you to your
supporting of Marie Jean Fraucounau grapheus's behaving
toward me. You complain about people who are allegedely
stalking you, while he is a confessing stalker, though
a bad one, he has not even been to Zurich, he is inventing
all that in order to frighten me.

Franz Gnaedinger www.seshat.ch

[grapheus]

The PATHOLOGICAL LIAR Franz Fridolin Gnaedinger wrote ONE MORE TIME :

> For the reasonable people around here: I have _not_ been
> convicted of slander, libel, or anything else.

I maintain that Franz Fridolin has been CONVICTED of SLANDER, because a
"Weisung" has been issued BY A JUDGE recognizing SLANDERING by him
against the plaintiff.
Franz Fridolin tries to MINIMIZE the JUDICIARY VALUE of a "Weisung".
But anyone - even not knowing German- may verify in a dictionary the
meaning of this word. The verb "weisen" means : "to demonstrate", "to
establish the facts". When a COMPLAINT for SLANDER is deposited, a
JUDGE organizes a CONTRADICTORY HEARING. From there, there are two
possibilities : a)- if during such a hearing, there is an agreement
between parties to settle the matter (for instance, the accused party
presenting his excuses and/or promising compensation to the plaintiff),
the judge formally registers the agreement b)- if such an agreement
cannot be reached, the judge ISSUES or REFUSES a "Weisung", according
to his JUDGEMENT : If he judges that the COMPLAINT is FOUNDED, he
ISSUES a "Weisung, and then the plaintiff HAS THE RIGHT to ask to a
second court to FIX THE AMOUNT of the COMPENSATION. If he JUDGES the
COMPLAINT NOT FOUNDED, the "Weisung" is refused, and the ACCUSED has
the right to ask to a second court to FIX THE AMOUNT of a COMPENSATION
FOR FALSE ACCUSATION.
Franz Fridolin tries to PLAY with the word "CONVICTED", arguing that
the issue of a "Weisung" doesn't imply an INSCRIPTION to the JUDICIAL
FILE of the guy CONVICTED of SLANDER. (Such an inscription is only made
by the second court, with mention of the compensation).
BUT AS FOR HIS OTHER LIES, HE WILL DECEIVE NOBODY !.. Because anybody
knows which PATHOLOGICAL SLANDERER he is. (Shall I give a list of ALL
the DECENT PEOPLE he has slandered ?...)

grapheus

[grapheus]

The PATHOLOGICAL LIAR Franz Fridolin Gnaedinger wrote:

< he (grapheus) has not even been to Zurich, he is inventing

> all that in order to frighten me.

HA!HA!HA!... This guy is SO STUPID that he didn't notice when I was
observing him, like an entomologist observes an ant, so much he was
convinced that I was an old man in his 80ies !...
To get informations about him is really easy : NOBODY, I say NOBODY,
can bear him. Here are a few opinions about him, from people who know
him pretty well (English translation from German is mine): "a rascal",
"a very mean person", "may be violent", "lazy", dishonest",
"mischievous", "can be dangerous when he is drunk", "very
vindictive"... In fact, most people are afraid of him and of his sudden
losses of temper, so they let him to "play the professor", laughing out
only in his back about his arrogance... It's easy to verify what I'm
saying : just go to Zürich, in the "Bahnhof quartier", and ask people
around...

grapheus

PS : one of my informers told me that Franz was recently asking people
around, in order to knoxw if "somebody" had asked questions about him..
All of course have said no... HA!HA!HA!...

[Doug Weller]

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 12:50:55 GMT, in sci.archaeology,
nos...@spammers.of.the.world.unite.com wrote:
[SNIP]

>
>What bothers me about this sort of thing is that my ISP, faced with a tirade of
>complaints about sexabuse and racism and everything under the sun, if they had
>asked for and got that particular message as an example, I wonder if they would
>know enough to determine what was really happening, as opposed to acting
>against me in some way. It's a genuine danger, I don't know ways to fix this
>sort of problem as it is in the heads of other people.

I know for sure some ISPs couldn't. That is what should worry people,
will their ISP be good enough to know who is forging what?

Doug
--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk

[Doug Weller]

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 16:38:29 GMT, in sci.archaeology, inger wrote:

>Jesper,
>at least three persons who during the last years attacked and abused me here
>in group have been definitely identified by their own suppliers for
>forgering my mailaddress.
>In my case always after I have written more than usual regarding
>Scandinavians, Greenland and NA.

That doesn't mean the identification was correct. The technical staff of
far too many ISPs aren't really up to the job in the more sophisticated
world of today's hackers.

[inger]

Doug,
do you trust that the Police can identify? That my supplier Telia can
identify?
I do and I know that their identifications are correct.

Inger E

Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:hgg0k1163bfii3q4r...@4ax.com...

[inger]

Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> skrev i

diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:v9g0k1ls6ogv9mjek...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 12:50:55 GMT, in sci.archaeology,
> nos...@spammers.of.the.world.unite.com wrote:
> [SNIP]
> >
> >What bothers me about this sort of thing is that my ISP, faced with a
tirade of
> >complaints about sexabuse and racism and everything under the sun, if
they had
> >asked for and got that particular message as an example, I wonder if they
would
> >know enough to determine what was really happening, as opposed to acting
> >against me in some way. It's a genuine danger, I don't know ways to fix
this
> >sort of problem as it is in the heads of other people.
>
> I know for sure some ISPs couldn't. That is what should worry people,
> will their ISP be good enough to know who is forging what?

Doug,
it's always possible, and easy btw, to track the origin ISP. That doesn't at
all look the same when someone tried to forge. For the record, I am not
aware of who nospam is and I am very well aware of the persons who forged my
mailaddress no matter if they also sent me sexabuse or not. The later
persons have been among the worst abusers of mine writing personal-attacks
and such for more than one year every one of them.

Inger E

[Tom McDonald]

inger wrote:
> Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> skrev i
> diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:v9g0k1ls6ogv9mjek...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 12:50:55 GMT, in sci.archaeology,
>>nos...@spammers.of.the.world.unite.com wrote:
>>[SNIP]
>>
>>>What bothers me about this sort of thing is that my ISP, faced with a
>
> tirade of
>
>>>complaints about sexabuse and racism and everything under the sun, if
>
> they had
>
>>>asked for and got that particular message as an example, I wonder if they
>
> would
>
>>>know enough to determine what was really happening, as opposed to acting
>>>against me in some way. It's a genuine danger, I don't know ways to fix
>
> this
>
>>>sort of problem as it is in the heads of other people.
>>
>>I know for sure some ISPs couldn't. That is what should worry people,
>>will their ISP be good enough to know who is forging what?
>
>
> Doug,
> it's always possible, and easy btw, to track the origin ISP. That doesn't at
> all look the same when someone tried to forge.

This is not true in every case. A sophisticated hacker could make
it seem that the post came from whoever one chooses.

It *is* true when one only changes the headers to appear to be
coming from another person. This is simple, and Inger does it all
the time; albeit the other person is generally herself.

> For the record, I am not
> aware of who nospam is and I am very well aware of the persons who forged my
> mailaddress no matter if they also sent me sexabuse or not. The later
> persons have been among the worst abusers of mine writing personal-attacks
> and such for more than one year every one of them.

One has to wonder whether this has any basis in fact (or at least
in facts that the rest of the world would accept as such), or
whether she is making wild accusations without foundation. It will
never be possible to depend on Inger to tell us the truth about this.

[Philip Deitiker]

Tom McDonald <tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> says in
news:Jw%%e.14711$uD2....@fe05.lga:

> It *is* true when one only changes the headers to appear to
> be
> coming from another person. This is simple, and Inger does it
> all the time; albeit the other person is generally herself.

You can chain messages through anonymous remailers.

>> For the record, I am not
>> aware of who nospam is and I am very well aware of the persons
>> who forged my mailaddress no matter if they also sent me
>> sexabuse or not. The later persons have been among the worst
>> abusers of mine writing personal-attacks and such for more than
>> one year every one of them.
>
> One has to wonder

You might, I don't, I assume everything she says is a lie. Very
occasionally its wrong.

> whether this has any basis in fact (or at least
> in facts that the rest of the world would accept as such), or
> whether she is making wild accusations without foundation. It
> will never be possible to depend on Inger to tell us the truth
> about this.

She made these claims of forgery starting with George, they turned
out to be completely bogus. Remember the series of events.

1. George lied
2. George was unworthy
3 'I was forged'

All three are probable lies, at least 2 of the 3 are lies, since they
contradict each other.

[Dylan Sung]

"inger" <i_e.jo...@telia.com> wrote in message

news:OHY%e.147594$dP1.5...@newsc.telia.net...

> Doug,
> do you trust that the Police can identify? That my supplier Telia can
> identify?
> I do and I know that their identifications are correct.
>
> Inger E

Just because Telia tells you, it doesn't mean they're altogether correct.
You would expect them to have expertise in managing their network routing
and connections, but when it comes to specialised spamming, that's an
altogether different matter. They may not have the expertise in detecting
such things, except to look at the whole message that you may send to them
in your complaint.

Why don't you run an anti-virus on your machine? If you don't have any
installed, Trend Microsystems have an on-line version which can scan for
viruses, trojans, worms, spyware and other harmful hidden stuff in your
infected system registry or boot sector. I do this once a month at least.

http://housecall.antivirus.com

If and when you try, it will download their software to scan your machine,
and this takes a while. It will take time to complete the whole process, and
may take up to 2 or more hours depending on the number of files on your
computer and the speed of connection you have. But the next time you use it,
it will take less time. Otherwise buy new anti-virus software and get their
new updates.

Dyl.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Standing by my name, and by every word I say below:

[grapheus]

Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
> Standing by my name, and by every word I say below:
>

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!...

grapheus

[Dylan Sung]

"grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message

news:1128323663....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

How ironic.

Dyl.

[Doug Weller]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 07:26:24 +0100, in sci.archaeology, Dylan Sung wrote:

>
>"inger" <i_e.jo...@telia.com> wrote in message
>news:OHY%e.147594$dP1.5...@newsc.telia.net...
>> Doug,
>> do you trust that the Police can identify? That my supplier Telia can
>> identify?
>> I do and I know that their identifications are correct.
>>
>> Inger E
>
>Just because Telia tells you, it doesn't mean they're altogether correct.
>You would expect them to have expertise in managing their network routing
>and connections, but when it comes to specialised spamming, that's an
>altogether different matter. They may not have the expertise in detecting
>such things, except to look at the whole message that you may send to them
>in your complaint.

And even if they do trace it correctly, it might have been sent by a worm
on an innocent person's machine -- that is *exactly* how a lot of spam is
sent.

>Why don't you run an anti-virus on your machine? If you don't have any
>installed, Trend Microsystems have an on-line version which can scan for
>viruses, trojans, worms, spyware and other harmful hidden stuff in your
>infected system registry or boot sector. I do this once a month at least.
>
> http://housecall.antivirus.com
>
>If and when you try, it will download their software to scan your machine,
>and this takes a while. It will take time to complete the whole process, and
>may take up to 2 or more hours depending on the number of files on your
>computer and the speed of connection you have. But the next time you use it,
>it will take less time. Otherwise buy new anti-virus software and get their
>new updates.
>
>Dyl.
>

[Doug Weller]

It isn't always possible and easy. But in any case, as I've posted
elsewhere, spammers rely on other people's PCs to send their mail.

An example:
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2005/03/14/spammerhijack.html

[inger]

Doug,
that's easy to see for specialists if it's a worm or if it isn't.
What's even more specific - it only happens each time I start a new thread
about Greenlanders and North America or about the Goths. Never ever in
between no matter what thread I start or discuss..... same persons.....

Inger E

Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> skrev i

diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:9no2k1lbrjbqgfdsj...@4ax.com...

[Alaca]

inger wrote: LDd0f.35240$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net,

> Doug,
> that's easy to see for specialists if it's a worm or if it isn't.
> What's even more specific - it only happens each time I start a new
> thread about Greenlanders and North America or about the Goths.
> Never ever in between no matter what thread I start or discuss.....
> same
> persons.....
>
> Inger E

Funny!

Only after posting about

Greenlanders and North America
or about
the Goths

(and we know from other posts)
or about
Paul Knutson
or about
the KRS
and never in between.

Do you ever write about something else?

The best solution for everyone here is that you stop
posting about Paul Knutson, the KRS, Greenlanders
and North America, or the Goths.
Why not try some archaeology for a change?

BTW. Who are the culprits?

--
º°º°º°º < Peter Alaca > º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°

[Doug Weller]

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 17:12:11 GMT, in sci.archaeology, inger wrote:

>Doug,
>that's easy to see for specialists if it's a worm or if it isn't.

No, specialists can't tell if it's a worm without looking at the actual
PC.

[inger]

Doug,
please go and talk to a forensic technician working with tracking where and
how such mails are sent. You will be surprised.
Good night in this question.

Inger E

Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> skrev i

diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:kp13k1pmu4elod7ju...@4ax.com...

[Doug Weller]

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 20:01:30 GMT, in sci.archaeology, inger wrote:

>Doug,

>please go and talk to a forensic technician working with tracking where and
>how such mails are sent. You will be surprised.
>Good night in this question.

So would most of the anti-spamming community. A hijacked computer sending
email is sending email from that person's computer, using that person's
ISP. Tell me how your forensic technician can tell remotely that it's not
a hijacked computer.

Doug

[Tom McDonald]

I use AVG Free. I have had very good luck with it, and it can be
set to scan out-going and in-coming emails:

http://free.grisoft.com/doc/2/lng/us/tpl/v5

[Dylan Sung]

"Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9073k11a0od3pido6...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 20:01:30 GMT, in sci.archaeology, inger wrote:
>
>>Doug,
>>please go and talk to a forensic technician working with tracking where
>>and
>>how such mails are sent. You will be surprised.
>>Good night in this question.
>
> So would most of the anti-spamming community. A hijacked computer sending
> email is sending email from that person's computer, using that person's
> ISP. Tell me how your forensic technician can tell remotely that it's not
> a hijacked computer.
>
> Doug

Is it usual for ISP's (other than Telia) to employ forensic technicians,
just on the offchance that people will be complaining of spam?

Dyl.

[nos...@spammers.of.the.world.unite.com]

Apparently on date Sun, 02 Oct 2005 21:21:57 +0100, Doug Weller
<dwe...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> said:

>On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 12:50:55 GMT, in sci.archaeology,
>nos...@spammers.of.the.world.unite.com wrote:
>[SNIP]
>>
>>What bothers me about this sort of thing is that my ISP, faced with a tirade of
>>complaints about sexabuse and racism and everything under the sun, if they had
>>asked for and got that particular message as an example, I wonder if they would
>>know enough to determine what was really happening, as opposed to acting
>>against me in some way. It's a genuine danger, I don't know ways to fix this
>>sort of problem as it is in the heads of other people.
>
>I know for sure some ISPs couldn't. That is what should worry people,
>will their ISP be good enough to know who is forging what?

Or their government, or their legal system.

Who probably accept the ISP opinion.

No, I'll stay anonymous and will not invite email, on the whole. I recommend
the same (rather paranoid) attitude for the general case.

I hope this prevents undeserved heat for someone, somewhere.

[Philip Deitiker]

nos...@spammers.of.the.world.unite.com says in
news:d626k1hf66ndljide...@4ax.com:

You don't have to give your damn email address, that is a cop-out.