Same ol' same ol', I see
wjbell
Some new names (or should I say, *nyms*) and some old ones. What
happened to the ever-so-vocal Terri
Porter and Rappy? Don't see them around...
Figures.
And man, has this turned into a [News] feed? What's with all the
freakin news?! If I want Linux news I'll go to dopeylinuxgeek.com and
read all I want. I don't need to read it in an advocacy group, kapish?
Anywho.. been busy getting my business off the ground and haven't had
much time to read this group. Still seems the same, however;
"advocates" still can't own up when something is wrong with linux.
BTW, I'm currently trying out the latest release of Ubuntu. Not bad.
Particularly Freevo with the shoutcast plugin. It's looking pretty
sweet. More review on it later.
ed
wjbell <wjb...@none.net> wrote:
> Well well well, I see a lot of the same shit going on here in cola.
> Some new names (or should I say, *nyms*) and some old ones. What
> happened to the ever-so-vocal Terri
> Porter and Rappy? Don't see them around...
>
> Figures.
>
> And man, has this turned into a [News] feed? What's with all the
> freakin news?! If I want Linux news I'll go to dopeylinuxgeek.com and
> read all I want. I don't need to read it in an advocacy group,
> kapish?
uh it's a newsgroup. if you dont like news, you shouldn't be here.
> Anywho.. been busy getting my business off the ground and haven't had
> much time to read this group. Still seems the same, however;
> "advocates" still can't own up when something is wrong with linux.
>
> BTW, I'm currently trying out the latest release of Ubuntu. Not bad.
> Particularly Freevo with the shoutcast plugin. It's looking pretty
> sweet. More review on it later.
linux systems have always looked and felt great.
--
Regards, Ed :: http://www.s5h.net
just another java hacker
Chuck Norris roundhouse kicked his grandmother in the mouth on
Christmas morning. Socks again.
wjbell
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:32:57 GMT
> wjbell <wjb...@none.net> wrote:
>
>> Well well well, I see a lot of the same shit going on here in cola.
>> Some new names (or should I say, *nyms*) and some old ones. What
>> happened to the ever-so-vocal Terri
>> Porter and Rappy? Don't see them around...
>>
>> Figures.
>>
>> And man, has this turned into a [News] feed? What's with all the
>> freakin news?! If I want Linux news I'll go to dopeylinuxgeek.com and
>> read all I want. I don't need to read it in an advocacy group,
>> kapish?
>
> uh it's a newsgroup. if you dont like news, you shouldn't be here.
>
Aside from their names, newsgroups are not necessarily for posting news
articles. According to the charter, "Benefits of Linux compared to
other operating systems" it's not for posting daily news.
Newsgroups were created for discussion between people, not spam.
Do you think this would fly in comp.os.linux.networking?
>> Anywho.. been busy getting my business off the ground and haven't had
>> much time to read this group. Still seems the same, however;
>> "advocates" still can't own up when something is wrong with linux.
>>
>> BTW, I'm currently trying out the latest release of Ubuntu. Not bad.
>> Particularly Freevo with the shoutcast plugin. It's looking pretty
>> sweet. More review on it later.
>
> linux systems have always looked and felt great.
Really? You haven't been using it too long, have you?
Roy Culley
<ZJSXg.13809$e66....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
wjbell <wjb...@none.net> writes:
>
> Well well well,
wjbell the plagiarist returns. Whose code have you been stealing
recently wjbell and claiming as your own?
--
Security is one of those funny things. You can talk about being "more"
secure, but there's no such thing. A vulnerability is a vulnerability, and
even one makes you just as insecure as anyone else. Security is a binary
condition, either you are or you aren't. - Funkenbusch 1 Oct 2006
flatfish+++
> Well well well, I see a lot of the same shit going on here in cola.
> Some new names (or should I say, *nyms*) and some old ones. What
> happened to the ever-so-vocal Terri
> Porter and Rappy? Don't see them around...
Terry slipped off the face of the earth.
I think he was ill for a while.
Rappy shows up now and again when he's on the bottle.
> Figures.
>
> And man, has this turned into a [News] feed? What's with all the
> freakin news?! If I want Linux news I'll go to dopeylinuxgeek.com and
> read all I want. I don't need to read it in an advocacy group, kapish?
Roy Shysterwitch has taken over COLA.
Of course the Linux freaks think he is scaring away the trolls, but that's
obviously not the case.
What he is doing is destroying their group and they know it but will never
admit it.
> Anywho.. been busy getting my business off the ground and haven't had
> much time to read this group. Still seems the same, however;
> "advocates" still can't own up when something is wrong with linux.
That's COLA in a nutshell, emphasis on NUT...
> BTW, I'm currently trying out the latest release of Ubuntu. Not bad.
> Particularly Freevo with the shoutcast plugin. It's looking pretty
> sweet. More review on it later.
Try PCLinuxOS.
flatfish+++
> begin risky.vbs
> <ZJSXg.13809$e66....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
> wjbell <wjb...@none.net> writes:
>>
>> Well well well,
>
> wjbell the plagiarist returns. Whose code have you been stealing
> recently wjbell and claiming as your own?
You're thinking of Roy Schestowitz, the person who uses copyrighted
graphics without permission and then even after being informed keeps them
on his website for weeks.
ed
wjbell <wjb...@none.net> wrote:
> ed wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:32:57 GMT
> > wjbell <wjb...@none.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Well well well, I see a lot of the same shit going on here in cola.
> >
> >> Some new names (or should I say, *nyms*) and some old ones. What
> >> happened to the ever-so-vocal Terri
> >> Porter and Rappy? Don't see them around...
> >>
> >> Figures.
> >>
> >> And man, has this turned into a [News] feed? What's with all the
> >> freakin news?! If I want Linux news I'll go to dopeylinuxgeek.com
> >and > read all I want. I don't need to read it in an advocacy group,
> >> kapish?
> >
> > uh it's a newsgroup. if you dont like news, you shouldn't be here.
> >
>
> Aside from their names, newsgroups are not necessarily for posting
> news articles. According to the charter, "Benefits of Linux compared
> to other operating systems" it's not for posting daily news.
>
> Newsgroups were created for discussion between people, not spam.
>
> Do you think this would fly in comp.os.linux.networking?
In comp.os.linux.networking.advocacy, yes.
> >> Anywho.. been busy getting my business off the ground and haven't
> >had > much time to read this group. Still seems the same, however;
> >> "advocates" still can't own up when something is wrong with linux.
> >>
> >> BTW, I'm currently trying out the latest release of Ubuntu. Not
> >bad. > Particularly Freevo with the shoutcast plugin. It's looking
> >pretty > sweet. More review on it later.
> >
> > linux systems have always looked and felt great.
>
> Really? You haven't been using it too long, have you?
Only the last 10 years. It's always been good.
--
Regards, Ed :: http://www.usenix.org.uk
just another java person
Vin Diesel created the Sun as a vacation spot. He goes there every
summer with friends to relax. Strangely, he always returns alone.
wjbell
> begin risky.vbs
> <ZJSXg.13809$e66....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
> wjbell <wjb...@none.net> writes:
>>
>> Well well well,
>
> wjbell the plagiarist returns. Whose code have you been stealing
> recently wjbell and claiming as your own?
>
I've never stolen any code and it's been proven. Why steal code when I
can write it myself? Do you have a copy of this alleged, "stolen code"?
Thought so.
Still busy keeping cola in order with your invaluable "cola stats"? *cackle*
Roy Culley
<AxTXg.631$Tc5...@newsfe08.lga>,
Please learn what plagiarize means.
wjbell
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:03:02 GMT
> wjbell <wjb...@none.net> wrote:
>
>> ed wrote:
>> > On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:32:57 GMT
>> > wjbell <wjb...@none.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Well well well, I see a lot of the same shit going on here in cola.
>> >
>> >> Some new names (or should I say, *nyms*) and some old ones. What
>> >> happened to the ever-so-vocal Terri
>> >> Porter and Rappy? Don't see them around...
>> >>
>> >> Figures.
>> >>
>> >> And man, has this turned into a [News] feed? What's with all the
>> >> freakin news?! If I want Linux news I'll go to dopeylinuxgeek.com
>> >and > read all I want. I don't need to read it in an advocacy group,
>> >> kapish?
>> >
>> > uh it's a newsgroup. if you dont like news, you shouldn't be here.
>> >
>>
>> Aside from their names, newsgroups are not necessarily for posting
>> news articles. According to the charter, "Benefits of Linux compared
>> to other operating systems" it's not for posting daily news.
>>
>> Newsgroups were created for discussion between people, not spam.
>>
>> Do you think this would fly in comp.os.linux.networking?
>
> In comp.os.linux.networking.advocacy, yes.
That group doesn't exist. Besides, I didn't ask about
comp.os.linux.networking.advocacy.
>
>> >> Anywho.. been busy getting my business off the ground and haven't
>> >had > much time to read this group. Still seems the same, however;
>> >> "advocates" still can't own up when something is wrong with linux.
>> >>
>> >> BTW, I'm currently trying out the latest release of Ubuntu. Not
>> >bad. > Particularly Freevo with the shoutcast plugin. It's looking
>> >pretty > sweet. More review on it later.
>> >
>> > linux systems have always looked and felt great.
>>
>> Really? You haven't been using it too long, have you?
>
> Only the last 10 years. It's always been good.
That's almost as long as me, minus a few years. And naturally, it
hasn't always "looked and felt great".
wjbell
I see the ol' LinoNut double standard still holds true. Culley has
always been good for that. He selectively forgets what his fellow
cohorts are up to.
ed
wjbell <wjb...@none.net> wrote:
You can't cast an apple as an orange and treat them as strawberries.
> >> >> Anywho.. been busy getting my business off the ground and
> >haven't > >had > much time to read this group. Still seems the
> >same, however; > >> "advocates" still can't own up when something is
> >wrong with linux. > >>
> >> >> BTW, I'm currently trying out the latest release of Ubuntu. Not
> >> >bad. > Particularly Freevo with the shoutcast plugin. It's
> >looking > >pretty > sweet. More review on it later.
> >> >
> >> > linux systems have always looked and felt great.
> >>
> >> Really? You haven't been using it too long, have you?
> >
> > Only the last 10 years. It's always been good.
>
> That's almost as long as me, minus a few years. And naturally, it
> hasn't always "looked and felt great".
'great' is a moving goal post, and it's not quantifiable. To me however,
linux is great. YMMV.
--
Regards, Ed :: http://www.s5h.net
just another bash hacker
If Chuck Norris was president, terrorists would not exist.
flatfish+++
Oh it's worse than ever.
Seeing as Vista is soon to be released, the Linux propaganda and discredit
machine has been running 24x7 full steam ahead.
They just make things up, run with it and back each other up in this
charade of a game in an attempt to make falsehoods into truth.
It's quite a show to watch!!!!!!
wjbell
[cut drivel]
> To me however, linux is great. YMMV.
Yeah, me and the rest of the world. *rolls eyes*
wjbell
The funny thing is (or sad really) that they really think it matters
what's said in this group. Like someone's hanging on the information
they provide in order to make an OS choice.
No one gives a rats ass what's said in this group. It's hilarious that
they think otherwise.
Erik Funkenbusch
>> And man, has this turned into a [News] feed? What's with all the
>> freakin news?! If I want Linux news I'll go to dopeylinuxgeek.com and
>> read all I want. I don't need to read it in an advocacy group,
>> kapish?
>
> uh it's a newsgroup. if you dont like news, you shouldn't be here.
The term "newsgroup" is anacronistic. It doesn't literally mean "news" in
the traditional sense, although it grew out of that.
By your definition, then all this should be cross posted to every Linux
related group.
Now there's an idea... I'm sure they'd love Roy over in
comp.os.linux.misc.
William Poaster
<snip>
I'd forgotten to add this idiot to the filters in this kubuntu setup.
Soon corrected.
^Organization:.*SBC*
--
Trolls & replies to trolls
are filtered out, as are
googlegroup users.
wjbell
> Well well well, I see a lot of the same shit going on here in cola.
> Some new names (or should I say, *nyms*) and some old ones. What
> happened to the ever-so-vocal Terri
> Porter and Rappy? Don't see them around...
Oh yeah, where's Donn Miller? What a boob he was...
Roy Culley
<d7rqwc38k2ol$.d...@funkenbusch.com>,
I'd reckon a lot more than when you cross posted to comp.os.linux.misc
in a feeble attempt to get support for your trolling Erik.
Roy Schestowitz
Clever guy actually...
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | "I regularly SSH to God's brain and reboot"
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer Ś PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Cpu(s): 24.6% user, 3.2% system, 1.0% nice, 71.3% idle
http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information
wjbell
> __/ [ wjbell ] on Friday 13 October 2006 23:31 \__
>
>> wjbell wrote:
>>> Well well well, I see a lot of the same shit going on here in cola.
>>> Some new names (or should I say, *nyms*) and some old ones. What
>>> happened to the ever-so-vocal Terri
>>> Porter and Rappy? Don't see them around...
>>
>> Oh yeah, where's Donn Miller? What a boob he was...
>
> Clever guy actually...
>
You mean when he openly claimed to pirate XP all the while preaching the
integrity and honesty of OSS.
Yes, that's clever.
wjbell
Oh, and of course, something "advocates" rarely provide: Proof. From
the horses mouth, if you will..
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/ce5c8cddf0763eaf?hl=en&
William Poaster
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:32:57 +0000, wjbell wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> I'd forgotten to add this idiot to the filters in this kubuntu setup. Soon
> corrected.
> ^Organization:.*SBC*
Well, well...digging a bit deeper, I find SBC is listed at Spamhaus.
Found 49 SBL listings for IPs under the responsibility of sbc.com, 21 of
which are listed in ROKSO.
Tim Smith
wrote:
>
> uh it's a newsgroup. if you dont like news, you shouldn't be here.
Stop pretending that you are a total newbie who just discovered usenet
yesterday.
--
--Tim Smith
Roy Schestowitz
I haven't been around long enough to know this... I know that Gary Stewart
'stole' Mandrake though (installed, spread among friends, then returned for
a refund).
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Play Othello: http://othellomaster.com
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects Ś PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 132 total, 1 running, 128 sleeping, 0 stopped, 3 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
Tim Smith
> > I'd forgotten to add this idiot to the filters in this kubuntu setup. Soon
> > corrected.
> > ^Organization:.*SBC*
>
> Well, well...digging a bit deeper, I find SBC is listed at Spamhaus.
> Found 49 SBL listings for IPs under the responsibility of sbc.com, 21 of
> which are listed in ROKSO.
Wow...a major ISP has some addresses listed in SBL? What an amazing
discovery!
--
--Tim Smith
wjbell
> __/ [ wjbell ] on Saturday 14 October 2006 00:42 \__
>
>> wjbell wrote:
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> __/ [ wjbell ] on Friday 13 October 2006 23:31 \__
>>>>
>>>>> wjbell wrote:
>>>>>> Well well well, I see a lot of the same shit going on here in cola.
>>>>>> Some new names (or should I say, *nyms*) and some old ones. What
>>>>>> happened to the ever-so-vocal Terri
>>>>>> Porter and Rappy? Don't see them around...
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh yeah, where's Donn Miller? What a boob he was...
>>>>
>>>> Clever guy actually...
>>>>
>>>
>>> You mean when he openly claimed to pirate XP all the while preaching the
>>> integrity and honesty of OSS.
>>>
>>> Yes, that's clever.
>>
>> Oh, and of course, something "advocates" rarely provide: Proof. From
>> the horses mouth, if you will..
>>
>>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/ce5c8cddf0763eaf?hl=en&
>
> I haven't been around long enough to know this...
Apparently.
Perhaps researching /before/ posting is a good idea.
> I know that Gary Stewart
> 'stole' Mandrake though (installed, spread among friends, then returned for
> a refund).
OK. Is this tit for tat now?
wjbell
Yeah... Gee Willickers, he sure cracked that one...
Hadron Quark
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:32:57 +0000, wjbell wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> I'd forgotten to add this idiot to the filters in this kubuntu setup.
> Soon corrected.
> ^Organization:.*SBC*
Well, well : lookee here. Willy Boaster boasting about his killfile
prowess again.
It is almost embarrassing.
--
You are a vile asshole, flatfish. : Peter Köhlmann, COLA.
Hadron Quark
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 23:11:21 +0100, William Poaster wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:32:57 +0000, wjbell wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> I'd forgotten to add this idiot to the filters in this kubuntu setup. Soon
>> corrected.
>> ^Organization:.*SBC*
>
> Well, well...digging a bit deeper, I find SBC is listed at Spamhaus.
> Found 49 SBL listings for IPs under the responsibility of sbc.com, 21 of
> which are listed in ROKSO.
Sigh.
--
KDE == (see GayDE) Kool Desktop Environment - Make X Window look like winbloze...
What a fucking great idea! The developers of this have a mental sickness,
please avoid this product -> see GNOME.
-- Jakes on #Debian
Hadron Quark
Whats really sad is that if they were kicked out, the people that they
call "wintrolls" would sign up more Linux users than they could muster
in, 10 years. Why? Because we would be honest and give real advice.
hac...@yahoo.com
> You mean when he openly claimed to pirate XP all the while preaching the
> integrity and honesty of OSS.
>
> Yes, that's clever.
Did you read the link which you posted in your reply below? I said I
removed it. I now have FreeBSD by itself on that laptop. I'm looking
to try Vista RC?) as well. I think you'll find that I provided a
fairly well-balanced view, not really being a Microsoft or proprietary
software hater, but leaning towards OSS.
Roy Culley
<mATXg.12587$GR....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
wjbell <wjb...@none.net> writes:
> Roy Culley wrote:
>> begin risky.vbs
>> <ZJSXg.13809$e66....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
>> wjbell <wjb...@none.net> writes:
>>>
>>> Well well well,
>>
>> wjbell the plagiarist returns. Whose code have you been stealing
>> recently wjbell and claiming as your own?
>
> I've never stolen any code and it's been proven. Why steal code
> when I can write it myself? Do you have a copy of this alleged,
> "stolen code"?
You are also a liar. It was proven long ago on COLA. Mud sticks
wjbell.
cc
flatfish+++ wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:32:57 +0000, wjbell wrote:
>
> > Some new names (or should I say, *nyms*) and some old ones. What
> > happened to the ever-so-vocal Terri
> > Porter and Rappy? Don't see them around...
>
> I think he was ill for a while.
>
> Rappy shows up now and again when he's on the bottle.
>
>
> > Figures.
> >
> > And man, has this turned into a [News] feed? What's with all the
> > freakin news?! If I want Linux news I'll go to dopeylinuxgeek.com and
> > read all I want. I don't need to read it in an advocacy group, kapish?
>
> Of course the Linux freaks think he is scaring away the trolls, but that's
> obviously not the case.
> What he is doing is destroying their group and they know it but will never
> admit it.
>
>
> > Anywho.. been busy getting my business off the ground and haven't had
> > much time to read this group. Still seems the same, however;
> > "advocates" still can't own up when something is wrong with linux.
>
>
Yeah, who was that kook that was claiming the Chinese were using linux
simply to spy on their citizens? Oh right, you.
wjbell
> begin risky.vbs
> <mATXg.12587$GR....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
> wjbell <wjb...@none.net> writes:
>> Roy Culley wrote:
>>> begin risky.vbs
>>> <ZJSXg.13809$e66....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
>>> wjbell <wjb...@none.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>> Well well well,
>>>
>>> wjbell the plagiarist returns. Whose code have you been stealing
>>> recently wjbell and claiming as your own?
>>
>> I've never stolen any code and it's been proven. Why steal code
>> when I can write it myself? Do you have a copy of this alleged,
>> "stolen code"?
>
> You are also a liar. It was proven long ago on COLA. Mud sticks
> wjbell.
>
Nothing was ever proven. Just more of the same you're doing now; when
asked to prove it nothing is presented but empty claims that it's been
proven before. Naturally, I expect another "advocate" to chime in to
try and make your claim seem more concrete, yet neither provide any real
evidence. Just a hope that if enough people say it, it will be true.
It's that way by design, I suppose.
wjbell
>>> I've never stolen any code and it's been proven. Why steal code
>>> when I can write it myself? Do you have a copy of this alleged,
>>> "stolen code"?
>>
>> You are also a liar. It was proven long ago on COLA. Mud sticks
>> wjbell.
>>
>
> Nothing was ever proven. Just more of the same you're doing now; when
> asked to prove it nothing is presented but empty claims that it's been
> proven before. Naturally, I expect another "advocate" to chime in to
> try and make your claim seem more concrete, yet neither provide any real
> evidence. Just a hope that if enough people say it, it will be true.
> It's that way by design, I suppose.
Oh BTW, let me know when you'd like another spanking. I see you're overdue.
Peter Köhlmann
> Roy Culley wrote:
>> begin risky.vbs
>> <mATXg.12587$GR....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
>> wjbell <wjb...@none.net> writes:
>>> Roy Culley wrote:
>>>> begin risky.vbs
>>>> <ZJSXg.13809$e66....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>> wjbell <wjb...@none.net> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> Well well well,
>>>>
>>>> wjbell the plagiarist returns. Whose code have you been stealing
>>>> recently wjbell and claiming as your own?
>>>
>>> I've never stolen any code and it's been proven. Why steal code
>>> when I can write it myself? Do you have a copy of this alleged,
>>> "stolen code"?
>>
>> You are also a liar. It was proven long ago on COLA. Mud sticks
>> wjbell.
>>
>
> Nothing was ever proven.
Oh, it wasn't?
Read this thread again, will you? It starts here
Message-ID: <3D5C9AC8...@cvzoom.net>
It was proven beyonf any doubt that you claimed to have written a firewall
script.
Well, in a way you did. You removed *all* copyright notices andf claimed it
was you who did write it.
Way to go, software thief. You certainly are standing proudly at the side of
flatfish, another, selfconfessed software thief
> Just more of the same you're doing now; when
> asked to prove it nothing is presented but empty claims that it's been
> proven before. Naturally, I expect another "advocate" to chime in to
> try and make your claim seem more concrete, yet neither provide any real
> evidence. Just a hope that if enough people say it, it will be true.
> It's that way by design, I suppose.
And more babbling from the proven liar and thief wjbell
Don't you windows astroturfers feel no shame?
--
Clippy: "It looks like you're trying to sue us,
would you like me to delete all of your files?"
Peter Köhlmann
Oh, poor wjbell
You just got one.
God, are you windows using cretins dumb. How are you able to breathe without
machinery with that rotten single braincell?
--
Warning: 10 days have passed since your last Windows reinstall.
wjbell
Your usual 12-year-old response, I see. I'm just waiting for you to
reply with "neener, neener - ppptthhhbbb" or some such comment to
complete my mental picture of who you are.
wjbell
> wjbell wrote:
>
>> Roy Culley wrote:
>>> begin risky.vbs
>>> <mATXg.12587$GR....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
>>> wjbell <wjb...@none.net> writes:
>>>> Roy Culley wrote:
>>>>> begin risky.vbs
>>>>> <ZJSXg.13809$e66....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>> wjbell <wjb...@none.net> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well well well,
>>>>>
>>>>> wjbell the plagiarist returns. Whose code have you been stealing
>>>>> recently wjbell and claiming as your own?
>>>>
>>>> I've never stolen any code and it's been proven. Why steal code
>>>> when I can write it myself? Do you have a copy of this alleged,
>>>> "stolen code"?
>>>
>>> You are also a liar. It was proven long ago on COLA. Mud sticks
>>> wjbell.
>>>
>>
>> Nothing was ever proven.
>
>
> Oh, it wasn't?
> Read this thread again, will you? It starts here
>
> Message-ID: <3D5C9AC8...@cvzoom.net>
/You/ need to read that thread. If you did you would see that I
re-wrote the entire script, leaving only comments generated by the
script generator for section reference. Comments don't require a
copyright notice. But this was all explained years ago.
Please prove that I did not re-write the entire script or kindly stop
with the whining.
Peter Köhlmann
Except that one could actually read "your" script and the original one side
by side, and the main difference was the *missing* *copyright* notices
You should not assume that everyone else is as stupid as you and your fellow
widiots. You can squirm all you want, and use Erik F. like weaselwords, it
does not change the fact that you took a firewall script and removed the
copyright notices *and* claimed you had written it
You have not written it, you stole it
That makes you a software thief, just like flatfish. You are certainly proud
of that
--
Avoid reality at all costs.
wjbell
That's a whole lot of smoke you're blowing there, but no proof. I
really wish I could take your word for it, being the honest, logical,
and rational person you are. *eye roll* Unfortunately, without any
proof your claims are baseless. (what a surprise)
Peter Köhlmann
You mean I should link again to that thread in 2002, should I, wjbell?
Just ask nicely, and your wish will be granted. And you will look every bit
the liar and thief you really are
--
Warning: You have moved the mouse.
Windows will reboot now to make the change permanent
wjbell
Thought so.
All anyone needs to do is read this thread to see your silly / evasive
way of avoiding the truth and how you can't prove what you're saying
when put on the spot.
If you've seen one Köhlmann post you've seen them all.
Tim Smith
"cc" <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, who was that kook that was claiming the Chinese were using linux
> simply to spy on their citizens? Oh right, you.
I stopped following that thread, but at the start it was about whether
or not open source could prevent the Chinese from spying, and around the
time I stopped reading, a lot of people were getting confused, failing
to distinguish between "the Chinese could do X" and "the Chinese ARE
doing X".
Are you sure he said they ARE using Linux to spy, or just said that they
COULD use Linux to spy?
--
--Tim Smith
flatfish+++
I didn't say they WERE, I said they CAN.
Big difference.
I'll bet you think Tienemen Square was just another social gathering in
the park.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989
Get a clue, even if you have to buy one from Rick.
flatfish+++
> Roy Culley wrote:
>
> Nothing was ever proven. Just more of the same you're doing now; when
> asked to prove it nothing is presented but empty claims that it's been
> proven before. Naturally, I expect another "advocate" to chime in to
> try and make your claim seem more concrete, yet neither provide any real
> evidence. Just a hope that if enough people say it, it will be true.
> It's that way by design, I suppose.
That's the COLA way.
They never prove any of their claims against me either.
It's a total farce.
flatfish+++
But you still haven't proven a thing.
Peter Köhlmann
Here, wjbell, lets have a look from Roy Culleys post in 2002:
------------------
In article <3D618E67.5020...@pacbell.net>,
wjbell <w...@pacbell.net> writes:
> There's a free-for-anyone-to-use online firewall script generator.
> That's what I used. That's what I've always said I used. What part
> don't you understand, Einstein?
I understand it clearly and it is why you are a liar and a plagiarist.
The original thread about wjbell's firewall writing abilities is at:
<http://groups.google.ch/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&th=1b37b67...>
After a lot of effort wjbell finally gave a link to a couple of
firewall scripts (not firewalls which he originally claimed) he had
written.
<http://www.belletc.net/test/>
He also admits to using a web script generator to produce the scripts.
Here's
what he said:
> For the last time you freaks:
> 1. I created a firewall with the firewall creation tool at
> http://www.linux-firewall-tools.com/linux/firewall/index.html to get a
> base firewall.
> 2. The iptables part of the firewall crating tool was beta.
> 3. The base firewall I created came up with a bunch of errors when I
> tried to use it.
> 4. I spent hours on end searching google for the same type of problems
> and fixes (iptables where new then and there wasn't a lot on it)
> 5. I spent more time reading docs and manpages to fix the problems.
> 6. When I was don't I had basically rewritten the firewall script.
> Now I'm going to bookmark this post on google for the next time you
> worthless freaks try to bring it up again as if it has never been
> answered.
Not exactly writing firewalls as I understand it but I'll not pick on
that point as there is so much better to come.
Point 2 is interesting. The web site was last updated Jan 10th
2001. The iptables tool being beta is quite simply a lie. The firewall
script generation tool only supports ipchains, ipfwadm and ipfw. So just
how did you get it to generate an iptables script wjbell?
Anyway, look at the ipchains firewall script at wjbell's link. Then go
to http://www.linux-firewall-tools.com/linux/firewall/index.html and
generate a simple script. Just add a single service and click the
button to get a listing. Now just look at wjbell's firewall script and
the one just generated. Only an idiot, or a liar, would say that one
hasn't been derived from the other.
Now as wjbell provided the link to the script generating tool and said
he used it it is clear that his ipchains script was generated using the
tool. wjbell's script starts like this:
#!/bin/sh
# Some definitions for easy maintenance:
# --------------------------------------------------------------------
# EDIT THESE TO SUIT YOUR SYSTEM AND ISP.
The script I generated using the tool starts like this:
#!/bin/sh
# Script generated Tue Aug 20 19:23:34 2002
# --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
# Copyright (C) 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 Robert L. Ziegler
#
# Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
# documentation for educational, research, private and non-profit
purposes,
# without fee, and without a written agreement is hereby granted.
# This software is provided as an example and basis for individual
firewall
# development. This software is provided without warranty.
#
# Any material furnished by Robert L. Ziegler is furnished on an
# "as is" basis. He makes no warranties of any kind, either expressed
# or implied as to any matter including, but not limited to, warranty
# of fitness for a particular purpose, exclusivity or results obtained
# from use of the material.
# --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
# /etc/rc.d/rc.firewall
# Invoked from /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/pump-done, or
# from /etc/dhcpc/dhcpcd-eth0.exe, or
# from /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifdhcpc-done.
echo "Starting firewalling... "
# --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
# Some definitions for easy maintenance.
# EDIT THESE TO SUIT YOUR SYSTEM AND ISP.
Now what is missing from wjbell's script here? Is that a Copyright?
--------------------------
Now, wjbell, are you still claiming to having completely "rewritten" the
script? Why did you *remove* the original copyright instead of *adding*
your own to the parts you claim to have "rewritten"?
Because those parts you did *not* rewrite (and it was the vast majority) did
not in any way, shape or from belong to you. They still were under the
original copyright. The one you completely *removed*
Isn't it just the case that you wanted to show off your great abilities in
firewalls and thus the copyrights just were too annoyingly giving you away?
Well, they did. In your zeal to show off you showed off exactly what kind of
scum you are, thief
--
I just found out that the brain is like a computer.
If that's true, then there really aren't any stupid people.
Just people running Windows.
Peter Köhlmann
I just did. And it is, BTW, just a repeat run from 2002
How Tinkerbell could have come to the conclusion that his stealing firewall
scripts to show them off as his own and getting away with it is beyond me.
It will forever cling to him. Software thieves like you and wjbell are
simply at the bottom of the barrel in every group having to do with
software. You only manage to sink even below wjbell because you are
additionally a vile racist
--
Windows was created to keep stupid people away from UNIX."
-- Tom Christiansen
Roy Culley
<RscYg.173$lZ2...@newsfe11.lga>,
wjbell is a plagiarizer. I proved it years ago. Peter has gone to the
effort of digging up the thread that proved it. wjbell is also a liar
but all wintrolls lie don't they flatty?
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
*Now* I remember wjbell, he was the one who "wrote" a firewall. (Turned
out to be an iptables script...) which he cribbed from someone else, as
a casual google on the code showed quite clearly.
(good sigmonster)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFMVtgd90bcYOAWPYRAoVpAJ4uzmFDYdpfgDu8Hi0gjbaKOGgmgwCgsGn+
hDhNrZ+Dr7AURdO1qrim4tI=
=1gRQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Ahhh... I see the fuck-up fairy has visited us again.
wjbell
OK.
At the time I used it the iptables portion of the script generator was
in beta. If whoever looked at the time looked a little closer they
would have seen the iptables option.
But let's hypothetically assume for a second that I lied about creating
the iptables script with that generator. There goes your whole
argument. You just rebutted your own case and proved mine at the same
time! Yur a smart one ain't ya? If the generator was incapable of
creating an iptables script, then I obviously didn't couldn't generate
it and it never would exist unless I created it myself. Which is
actually the case. Thanks.
>
> Anyway, look at the ipchains firewall script at wjbell's link. Then go
> to http://www.linux-firewall-tools.com/linux/firewall/index.html and
> generate a simple script. Just add a single service and click the
> button to get a listing. Now just look at wjbell's firewall script and
> the one just generated. Only an idiot, or a liar, would say that one
> hasn't been derived from the other.
I never said it hadn't been derived from the script generation tool.
AAMOF, I said it had. So again, you're just repeating what I've already
said.
>
> Now as wjbell provided the link to the script generating tool and said
> he used it it is clear that his ipchains script was generated using the
> tool. wjbell's script starts like this:
>
> #!/bin/sh
>
> # Some definitions for easy maintenance:
>
> # --------------------------------------------------------------------
> # EDIT THESE TO SUIT YOUR SYSTEM AND ISP.
>
That's correct. Again, I did say I used the tool to generate the
initial script.
That's correct, Columbo. Like I said before, Once I rewrote the entire
script and hashed out all the screw ups the generator spit out
effectively changing 99% of the code, I felt no need to keep the
copyright in there and wouldn't expect anyone to do the same if it was
my web-based script generator.
>
>
> --------------------------
> Now, wjbell, are you still claiming to having completely "rewritten" the
> script?
Yes, you haven't proven differently.
> Why did you *remove* the original copyright instead of *adding*
> your own to the parts you claim to have "rewritten"?
See above.
> Because those parts you did *not* rewrite (and it was the vast majority) did
> not in any way, shape or from belong to you. They still were under the
> original copyright. The one you completely *removed*
Can you show me the code you speak of? I'd like to see what your
talking about. Wouldn't that be the correct thing to do when accusing
someone of somthing, offer up the proof?
>
> Isn't it just the case that you wanted to show off your great abilities in
> firewalls and thus the copyrights just were too annoyingly giving you away?
Yes, I wanted to impress you with some bash code. *eye roll*
> Well, they did. In your zeal to show off you showed off exactly what kind of
> scum you are, thief
You have shown that your argument is transparent, irrational and
baseless. You have done nothing but regurgitate the same inaccurate
babble you did years ago. Now is this where you get all flustered and
call me a liar and thief again?
HTH
wjbell
Just because people jump on the advocates "me too" bandwagon doesn't
mean it's the truth. Can someone offer up any proof to support their
claims?
Of course not.
Peter Köhlmann
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
< snip >
>> Well, they did. In your zeal to show off you showed off exactly what kind
>> of scum you are, thief
>
> You have shown that your argument is transparent, irrational and
> baseless. You have done nothing but regurgitate the same inaccurate
> babble you did years ago. Now is this where you get all flustered and
> call me a liar and thief again?
>
> HTH
Yes, You are a thief.
Now, to prove you are not, you can just simply set your "own-written" script
back again on your site, *complete* and without any alterations. Then one
could compare it *again* (the umpteenth time) to the original script
You know, the script you claimed as your own.
You have removed it. Was too embarrassing, wasn't it?
Oh, and BTW: just because it was years ago it does not mean that you are not
called a liar in every post, liar
wjbell
Wow. I was correct; you are a child. Bothered that all that searching
got you nowhere? Bet your gonna hit Google hard tonight and try and
find that old script. Simply pathetic.
Peter Köhlmann
Well, *you* removed it. Simply pathetic to claim it never existed
Come on, wjbell, lying wintroll: explain why in that old thread you don't
claim that the script does not exist
I'll tell you: Because then you still had it on your site, pround of
your "achievement"
You removed it because it was so terribly embarrassing
And just spare us this postering: It is simple to dig out the old posts you
made which prove that the script existed
--
Only two things are infinite,
the Universe and Stupidity.
And I'm not quite sure about the former.
- Albert Einstein
wjbell
Yes, when I stopped using it I also removed the example I posted up for
others to see.
> Simply pathetic to claim it never existed
I nevery claimed it didn't exist.
> Come on, wjbell, lying wintroll: explain why in that old thread you don't
> claim that the script does not exist
Probably because it did exist.
> I'll tell you: Because then you still had it on your site, pround of
> your "achievement"
No, I had it on my site because people in here were pestering me to post
a script of some kindergarten-level bash code so that they could
prove/disprove/whatever that I may or may not have altered the copyright
in a script generated by a publicly-available, beta level script
generator that may or may not have had iptables support. *shudder* Next
you guys'll attack global warming and world peace. I always knew you
guys had your priorities right.
>
> You removed it because it was so terribly embarrassing
I removed it because I no longer needed it.
> And just spare us this postering: It is simple to dig out the old posts you
> made which prove that the script existed
I already told you it existed. I never said it didn't, Columbo.
flatfish+++
> wjbell is a plagiarizer. I proved it years ago. Peter has gone to the
> effort of digging up the thread that proved it. wjbell is also a liar
> but all wintrolls lie don't they flatty?
COLA tactic of building one lie on top of another.
Two falsehoods do not make a truth Culley.
Peter's thread proves nothing.
And nobody has ever proven that I am Gary Stewert either BTW.
Nor have they proven that I am all these nyms I get accused of being, even
at the single nym level.
All this group, and the COLA gang do is make up lies, have their buddies
back them up and pretend that they have spoken the truth when in fact it's
just one lie on top of another.
flatfish+++
Interesting how none of the COLA gang went out of their way to make up
lies when Roy Schestowitz was using a copyrighted graphics on his $$$
generating website for weeks even after being told by the author to stop.
Oh, that's right.
You didn't have to make up lies about that one.
It was the truth.
But the COLA gang just made like it didn't exist.
BTW you have not proven anything against wjbell.
Why do you fear him?
Maybe because he speaks the truth about Linux and you don't like that?
Yea that's it.
flatfish+++
Yea,,,
You always have an answer to everything don't you Peter.
Problem is, your answers are wrong 100 percent of the time.
wjbell
Exactly.
The tactic is to get as many people they can to repeat the lie. If
enough people are saying it, it has to be true, right?
flatfish+++
> *Now* I remember wjbell, he was the one who "wrote" a firewall. (Turned
> out to be an iptables script...) which he cribbed from someone else, as
> a casual google on the code showed quite clearly.
>
(Here come the COLA Gang Me Too posts)
Two lies don't make a truth Jim.
wjbell
Yeah, it all comes down to the people who are being truthful about the
bad points of linux. We're automatically trolls. I guess because we
look at things rationally and tell it like it is.
Hey, I've said it before, I love linux. I love so many things about it.
I've got Ubuntu running with Freevo right now listening to shoutcast
radio streams and it's great. But I'm also not going to be one of the
sheeple that claim Linux is flawless. That's just absurd. And there
are some things wrong with it. It's just unfortunate that people in
this group are unwilling to discuss them.
flatfish+++
>
> Just because people jump on the advocates "me too" bandwagon doesn't
> mean it's the truth. Can someone offer up any proof to support their
> claims?
>
> Of course not.
And they never can.
They keep spouting the Gary Stewert is flatfish thing for years, yet not a
single shred of evidence has ever been offered except the *words* of a
mental case. mjcr, who left COLA because he was convinced that Microsoft
and it's trolls were putting his family in danger.
This group is full of liars.
You should have been here a couple of weeks ago when Erik discovered
copyrighted images on Roy Schestowitz's $$$ website.
The COLA gang went into damage control actually dissecting the words,
steal, stolen, copyrighted etc.
Anything to protect their leader.
Yet not one of them, not a single one (that I recall anyhow) called for
Roy to take the images down.
In fact, your one post has generated more vile lies and attacks from the
COLA gang than the Roy incident, which was totally factual and easily
proven.
All it took was an email to the author.
And Roy Schestowitz in his arrogance kept that image on his site for
weeks even after he was informed, both by the author and people in the
group.
Yea, that's what this group is about.
wjbell
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 23:52:34 +0000, wjbell wrote:
>
>>
>> Just because people jump on the advocates "me too" bandwagon doesn't
>> mean it's the truth. Can someone offer up any proof to support their
>> claims?
>>
>> Of course not.
>
>
> And they never can.
>
> They keep spouting the Gary Stewert is flatfish thing for years, yet not a
> single shred of evidence has ever been offered except the *words* of a
> mental case. mjcr, who left COLA because he was convinced that Microsoft
> and it's trolls were putting his family in danger.
>
> This group is full of liars.
>
>
> You should have been here a couple of weeks ago when Erik discovered
> copyrighted images on Roy Schestowitz's $$$ website.
>
> The COLA gang went into damage control actually dissecting the words,
> steal, stolen, copyrighted etc.
Oh yeah, the old 'confuse the issue' tactic. Bog the thread down with
so much nit picking that it's impossible to sort through.
>
> Anything to protect their leader.
Leader? He seems more like a news bot. From the quick peek I took of
his web site he looks like he was still pickin boogers at moms house
when I first got into linux. Pardon the expression. ;)
>
> Yet not one of them, not a single one (that I recall anyhow) called for
> Roy to take the images down.
Naturally. :)
> In fact, your one post has generated more vile lies and attacks from the
> COLA gang than the Roy incident, which was totally factual and easily
> proven.
> All it took was an email to the author.
>
> And Roy Schestowitz in his arrogance kept that image on his site for
> weeks even after he was informed, both by the author and people in the
> group.
>
> Yea, that's what this group is about.
The 'advocates' here do more damage to themselves than they think others
are doing.
Peter Köhlmann
Nope, Tinkerbell.
Here, your words: "Bothered that all that searching got you nowhere? Bet
your gonna hit Google hard tonight and try and find that old script.
Simply pathetic."
So you want to tell us that just because your script is no longer online,
you are suddenly no longer the software thief you really are?
That the "proof" that you are a thief has been destroyed by you means you
are no longer a revolting piece of rotten scum?
Good reasoning on your side
You are even worse than flatfish. He just tries to hide his garbage behind
X-no-archive
--
You're not my type. For that matter, you're not even my species
wjbell
Correct, that's what I said. Can you point out to me the part in those
sentences where I say the script never existed?
>
> So you want to tell us that just because your script is no longer online,
> you are suddenly no longer the software thief you really are?
> That the "proof" that you are a thief has been destroyed by you means you
> are no longer a revolting piece of rotten scum?
>
> Good reasoning on your side
> You are even worse than flatfish. He just tries to hide his garbage behind
> X-no-archive
I still see no proof. I've publicly asked for the proof you claim to
have. You have yet to provide it. Until you do, /you/ are the liar...
not that you carry any credibility in here anyway.
Peter Köhlmann
< snip >
> I still see no proof. I've publicly asked for the proof you claim to
> have. You have yet to provide it. Until you do, /you/ are the liar...
> not that you carry any credibility in here anyway.
Poor wjbell. You are still trying to tell us that just because you destroyed
the "proof" you are no longer a thief.
The "proof" you tried to hide from public viewing was this script, BTW:
#!/bin/sh
# /etc/rc.d/rc.firewall
#
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------
# SET VARIABLES FOR EASY MAINTAINANCE
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------
EXTERNAL_INTERFACE="ppp0" # Internet connected
interface
LOOPBACK_INTERFACE="lo" # or your local naming
convention
LOCAL_INTERFACE_1="eth0" # internal LAN interface
LOCALNET_1="192.168.0.0/24" # whatever private range you
use
IPADDR="0/0" # your IP address
ANYWHERE="0/0" # match any IP address
LOOPBACK="127.0.0.0/8" # reserved loopback address
range
CLASS_A="10.0.0.0/8" # class A private networks
CLASS_B="172.16.0.0/12" # class B private networks
CLASS_C="192.168.0.0/16" # class C private networks
CLASS_D_MULTICAST="224.0.0.0/4" # class D multicast addresses
CLASS_E_RESERVED_NET="240.0.0.0/5" # class E reserved addresses
BROADCAST_SRC="0.0.0.0" # broadcast source address
BROADCAST_DEST="255.255.255.255" # broadcast destination
address
PRIVPORTS="0:1023" # well known, privileged port
range
UNPRIVPORTS="1024:65535" # unprivileged port range
# Get current IP
#IPADDR=`ifconfig ppp0 | grep 'inet addr' | sed 's/.*inet
addr:\([0-9\.]*\).*/\1/'`
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------
# INITIALIZE RULES AND SET USER-DEFINED CHAINS
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------
# Flush and remove rules
# -----------------------------------
iptables -F
iptables -F -t nat
iptables -X
# Set the default policies
# -----------------------------------
iptables -P INPUT DROP
iptables -P OUTPUT ACCEPT
iptables -P FORWARD DROP
# Set up user-defined chains
# -----------------------------------
iptables -N log_drop
iptables -A log_drop -j LOG --log-level info
iptables -A log_drop -m limit --limit 2/s
iptables -A log_drop -j DROP
iptables -N limit_drop
iptables -A limit_drop -m limit --limit 5/m
iptables -A limit_drop -j LOG --log-level info --log-prefix "LIMIT: "
iptables -A limit_drop -j DROP
iptables -N log_accept
iptables -A log_accept -j LOG --log-level info --log-prefix "ACCEPT:
"
iptables -A log_accept -j ACCEPT
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------
# LOAD MODULES
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------
/sbin/depmod -a
# Enable IP Forwarding, if it isn't already
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
# Enable TCP SYN Cookie Protection
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_syncookies
# Enable always defragging Protection
#echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_always_defrag
# Enable broadcast echo Protection
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/icmp_echo_ignore_broadcasts
# Enable bad error message Protection
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/icmp_ignore_bogus_error_responses
# Enable IP spoofing protection
# turn on Source Address Verification
for f in /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/*/rp_filter; do
echo 1 > $f
done
# Disable ICMP Redirect Acceptance
for f in /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/*/accept_redirects; do
echo 0 > $f
done
for f in /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/*/send_redirects; do
echo 0 > $f
done
# Disable Source Routed Packets
for f in /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/*/accept_source_route; do
echo 0 > $f
done
# Log Spoofed Packets, Source Routed Packets, Redirect Packets
for f in /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/*/log_martians; do
echo 1 > $f
done
# These modules are necessary to masquerade
# their respective services.
# ----------------------------------
/sbin/insmod ip_nat_ftp
/sbin/insmod ip_conntrack_ftp
# Load the NAT module (this pulls in all the others).
# modprobe iptable_nat
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------
# LOCAL NETWORK STUFF
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------
# Unlimited traffic on loopback interface.
# -----------------------------------
iptables -A INPUT -i $LOOPBACK_INTERFACE -j ACCEPT
iptables -A OUTPUT -o $LOOPBACK_INTERFACE -j ACCEPT
# Unlimited traffic within the local network.
# All internal machines have access to the fireall machine.
# -----------------------------------
iptables -A INPUT -i $LOCAL_INTERFACE_1 -s $LOCALNET_1 -j ACCEPT
iptables -A OUTPUT -o $LOCAL_INTERFACE_1 -d $LOCALNET_1 -j ACCEPT
# Masquerade internal traffic.
# All internal traffic is masqueraded externally.
# -----------------------------------
iptables -A POSTROUTING -t nat -o $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s $LOCALNET_1
-j MASQUERADE
iptables -A FORWARD -i $LOCAL_INTERFACE_1 -s $LOCALNET_1 -j ACCEPT
# Rules to allow the reply packets to your
# machines back in.
# -----------------------------------
#iptables -A INPUT -d $ANYWHERE -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED
-j ACCEPT
iptables -A FORWARD -i $LOCAL_INTERFACE_1 -o $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -m
state --state NEW -j ACCEPT
iptables -A FORWARD -d $LOCALNET_1 -m state --state
RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------
# SPECIAL DROP RULES
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------
# Network Ghouls
# Deny access to problem addresses
# -----------------------------------
if [ -f /etc/rc.d/rc.firewall.blocked ]; then
. /etc/rc.d/rc.firewall.blocked
fi
# Refuse incoming packets claiming to be
# from a Class A, B or C private network
# Class A handled in RESERVED_NET below.
# -----------------------------------
iptables -A INPUT -s $CLASS_A -j log_drop
iptables -A INPUT -s $CLASS_B -j log_drop
iptables -A INPUT -s $CLASS_C -j log_drop
# Refuse broadcast address SOURCE packets
# -----------------------------------
iptables -A INPUT -s $BROADCAST_DEST -j log_drop
iptables -A INPUT -d $BROADCAST_SRC -j log_drop
# Refuse Class D multicast addresses
# Multicast is illegal as a source address.
# Multicast uses UDP.
# -----------------------------------
iptables -A INPUT -s $CLASS_D_MULTICAST -j log_drop
# Refuse Class E reserved IP addresses
# -----------------------------------
iptables -A INPUT -s $CLASS_E_RESERVED_NET -j log_drop
# Refuse special addresses defined as reserved by the IANA.
# Note: The remaining reserved addresses are not included.
# Filtering them causes problems as reserved blocks are
# being allocated more often now.
# Note: this list includes the loopback, multicast,
# & reserved addresses.
# 0.*.*.* - Can't be blocked for DHCP users.
# 127.*.*.* - LoopBack
# 169.254.*.* - Link Local Networks
# 192.0.2.* - TEST-NET
# 224-255.*.*.* - Classes D & E, plus unallocated.
# -----------------------------------
iptables -A INPUT -s 127.0.0.0/8 -j log_drop
iptables -A INPUT -s 169.254.0.0/16 -j log_drop
iptables -A INPUT -s 192.0.2.0/24 -j log_drop
iptables -A INPUT -s 224.0.0.0/3 -j log_drop
#
---------------------------------------------------------------------
# NOTE:
# The symbolic names used in /etc/services for the port numbers
vary by
# supplier. Using them is less error prone and more meaningful,
though.
#
# Avoid ports subject to protocol & system administration problems.
#
---------------------------------------------------------------------
# NFS: establishing a TCP connection
# -----------------------------------
iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p tcp --syn --dport 2049 -j
log_drop
# Xwindows: establishing a connection
# -----------------------------------
iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p tcp --syn --dport
6000:6063 -j log_drop
# SOCKS: establishing a connection
# -----------------------------------
iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p tcp --syn --dport 1080 -j
log_drop
iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p udp --dport 2049 -j
log_drop
# Limit NMAP FIN/URG/PSH scans
# -----------------------------------
iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --tcp-flags ALL FIN,URG,PSH -j limit_drop
# Limit SYN/RST scans
# -----------------------------------
iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --tcp-flags SYN,RST SYN,RST -j limit_drop
# Limit SYN/FIN (probably) scans
# -----------------------------------
iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --tcp-flags SYN,FIN SYN,FIN -j limit_drop
# ----------------------------------------------------------------------
# ALLOW REQUESTS FOR CERTAIN SERVICES
# ----------------------------------------------------------------------
# FTP (21)
# -----------------------------------
iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p tcp ! --syn --sport 20
--dport $UNPRIVPORTS -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p tcp ! --syn --sport 21
--dport $UNPRIVPORTS -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT
# TELNET (23)
# -----------------------------------
#iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p tcp ! --syn --sport 23
--dport $UNPRIVPORTS -j ACCEPT
# SSH (22)
# -----------------------------------
#iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p tcp ! --syn --sport 22
--dport 1022:65535 -j ACCEPT
#iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p tcp --sport 513:65535
--dport 22 -j ACCEPT
# POP (110)
# -----------------------------------
iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p tcp --sport $UNPRIVPORTS
--dport 110 -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p tcp ! --syn --sport 110
--dport $UNPRIVPORTS -j ACCEPT
# SMTP (25)
# -----------------------------------
iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p tcp --sport $UNPRIVPORTS
--dport 25 -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p tcp ! --syn --sport 25
--dport $UNPRIVPORTS -j ACCEPT
# DNS (53)
# -----------------------------------
#iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p tcp ! --syn --sport 53
-j ACCEPT
#iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p udp --sport 53 -j ACCEPT
# HTTP (80)
# -----------------------------------
iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p tcp --sport $UNPRIVPORTS
--dport 80 -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p tcp --sport 80 -j ACCEPT
# HTTPS (443)
# -----------------------------------
#iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p tcp ! --syn --sport 443
--dport $UNPRIVPORTS -j ACCEPT
# AUTH (113)
# -----------------------------------
iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p tcp ! --syn --sport 113
--dport $UNPRIVPORTS -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT
#iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p tcp ! --syn --sport 113
--dport $UNPRIVPORTS -j ACCEPT
# WHOIS (43)
# -----------------------------------
iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p tcp ! --syn --sport 43
--dport $UNPRIVPORTS -j ACCEPT
#iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p tcp ! --syn -s
216.168.224.0/24 --sport 43 --dport $UNPRIVPORTS -j ACCEPT
# NEWS (119)
# -----------------------------------
iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p tcp ! --syn --sport 119
--dport $UNPRIVPORTS -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT
#iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p tcp --sport $UNPRIVPORTS
--dport 119 -j ACCEPT
# SECURE NEWS (563)
# -----------------------------------
iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p tcp --sport 563 -m state
--state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p icmp --icmp-type
echo-reply -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT
# PACBELL REQUESTS
# -----------------------------------
iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p tcp -s 63.200.0.0/16
--sport 137 -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p udp -s 63.200.0.0/16
--sport 137 -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p tcp -s 63.200.0.0/16
--sport 138 -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p udp -s 63.200.0.0/16
--sport 138 -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p icmp -s 206.13.0.0/16 -d
$ANYWHERE -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p udp -s 206.13.0.0/16
--sport 53 -j ACCEPT
# TRACEROUTE
# traceroute usually uses -S 32769:65535 -D 33434:33523
# -----------------------------------
iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p udp --sport 32769:65535
--dport 33434:33523 -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT
# ICMP
# -----------------------------------
# To prevent denial of service attacks based on ICMP bombs, filter
# incoming Redirect (5) and outgoing Destination Unreachable (3).
# Note, however, disabling Destination Unreachable (3) is not
# advisable, as it is used to negotiate packet fragment size.
# For bi-directional ping.
# Message Types: Echo_Reply (0), Echo_Request (8)
# To prevent attacks, limit the src addresses to your ISP range.
# For outgoing traceroute.
# Message Types: INCOMING Dest_Unreachable (3), Time_Exceeded (11)
# default UDP base: 33434 to base+nhops-1
# For incoming traceroute.
# Message Types: OUTGOING Dest_Unreachable (3), Time_Exceeded (11)
# To block this, deny OUTGOING 3 and 11
# 0: echo-reply (pong)
# 3: destination-unreachable, port-unreachable,
fragmentation-needed, etc.
# 4: source-quench
# 5: redirect
# 8: echo-request (ping)
# 11: time-exceeded
# 12: parameter-problem
iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p icmp -m state --state
RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p icmp --icmp-type
echo-reply -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p icmp --icmp-type
destination-unreachable -j ACCEPT
#iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p icmp --icmp-type
source-quench -j ACCEPT
#iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p icmp --icmp-type
time-exceeded -j ACCEPT
#iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p icmp --icmp-type
parameter-problem -j ACCEPT
# REAL VIDEO
# -----------------------------------
iptables -A INPUT -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p udp --sport $UNPRIVPORTS
--dport 6970 -j ACCEPT
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------
# LOGGING
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------
# Log everything that's been denied
# -----------------------------------
iptables -A INPUT -j LOG --log-level info -m limit --limit 2/s
#--limit 30/second --limit-burst 5
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------
# END
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------
exit 0
IPCHAINS
--------
#!/bin/sh
# Some definitions for easy maintenance:
# --------------------------------------------------------------------
# EDIT THESE TO SUIT YOUR SYSTEM AND ISP.
IPCHAINS="/sbin/ipchains" # Path to ipchains executable
EXTERNAL_INTERFACE="ppp0" # Internet connected interface
LOOPBACK_INTERFACE="lo" # or your local naming convention
LAN_INTERFACE_1="eth0" # internal LAN interface
LAN_1="192.168.0.0/24" # whatever (private) range you use
LOOPBACK="127.0.0.0/8" # reserved loopback address range
CLASS_A="10.0.0.0/8" # class A private networks
CLASS_B="172.16.0.0/12" # class B private networks
CLASS_C="192.168.0.0/16" # class C private networks
CLASS_D_MULTICAST="224.0.0.0/4" # class D multicast addresses
CLASS_E_RESERVED_NET="240.0.0.0/5" # class E reserved addresses
BROADCAST_SRC="0.0.0.0" # broadcast source address
BROADCAST_DEST="255.255.255.255" # broadcast destination address
# --------------------------------------------------------------------
# Needed to initially load modules
#
/sbin/depmod -a
# Enable IP fpwarding
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
# Enable dynamic IP
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_dynaddr
# Enable TCP SYN Cookie Protection
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_syncookies
# Enable always defragging Protection
#echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_always_defrag
# Enable broadcast echo Protection
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/icmp_echo_ignore_broadcasts
# Enable bad error message Protection
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/icmp_ignore_bogus_error_responses
#echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/all/rp_filter
# Enable IP spoofing protection
# turn on Source Address Verification
for f in /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/*/rp_filter; do
echo 1 > $f
done
# Disable ICMP Redirect Acceptance
for f in /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/*/accept_redirects; do
echo 0 > $f
done
for f in /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/*/send_redirects; do
echo 0 > $f
done
# Disable Source Routed Packets
for f in /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/*/accept_source_route; do
echo 0 > $f
done
# Log Spoofed Packets, Source Routed Packets, Redirect Packets
for f in /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/*/log_martians; do
echo 1 > $f
done
# This is now necessary to load ipchains in the newer kernel
#/sbin/modprobe ipchains
# --------------------------------------------------------------------
# set default rule to DENY everything and then let only certain
# packets through
$IPCHAINS -P input DENY
# allow all output
$IPCHAINS -A output -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -j ACCEPT
# Disallow Fragmented Packets
$IPCHAINS -A input -f -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -j DENY -l
# --------------------------------------------------------------------
# LOOPBACK
# Unlimited traffic on the loopback interface
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $LOOPBACK_INTERFACE -j ACCEPT
$IPCHAINS -A output -i $LOOPBACK_INTERFACE -j ACCEPT
# --------------------------------------------------------------------
# Unlimited traffic within the local network.
# All internal machines have access to the fireall machine.
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $LAN_INTERFACE_1 -s $LAN_1 -j ACCEPT
$IPCHAINS -A output -i $LAN_INTERFACE_1 -d $LAN_1 -j ACCEPT
# --------------------------------------------------------------------
# Deny access to local network from anything other than local machines
$IPCHAINS -A input -s ! $LAN_1 -d $LAN_1 -i $LAN_INTERFACE_1 -j DENY
# --------------------------------------------------------------------
# Masquerade internal traffic.
# All internal traffic is masqueraded externally.
# (allows all networked machines to share the connection)
$IPCHAINS -P forward DENY
$IPCHAINS -A forward -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s $LAN_1 -j MASQ
# Set masquerade timeout (no need to set with newer kernels)
$IPCHAINS -M -S 7200 10 160
# --------------------------------------------------------------------
# Refuse any connections from problem sites
# /etc/rc.d/rc.firewall.blocked contains a list of
# ipchains -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s <address/mask> -j DENY
# rules to block all access.
# Refuse packets claiming to be from the banned list
if [ -f /etc/rc.d/rc.firewall.blocked ]; then
. /etc/rc.d/rc.firewall.blocked
fi
# --------------------------------------------------------------------
# accept requests for certain services
# ftp
# $IPCHAINS -A input -s 0/0 21 -p tcp -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -j ACCEPT
# $IPCHAINS -A input -s 0/0 20 -p tcp -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -j ACCEPT
# need this to be able to connect to ftp sites
$IPCHAINS -A input -s 0/0 -p tcp ! -y -d 0/0 1024:65535 -j ACCEPT
# telnet
# $IPCHAINS -A input -s 0/0 23 -p tcp -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -j ACCEPT
# SSH
#$IPCHAINS -A input -d 0/0 22 -p tcp -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -j ACCEPT
# smtp
$IPCHAINS -A input -s 0/0 25 -p tcp -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -j ACCEPT
$IPCHAINS -A input -d 0/0 25 -p tcp -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -j ACCEPT
$IPCHAINS -A input -s 0/0 43 -p tcp -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -j ACCEPT
# dns
#$IPCHAINS -A input -s 0/0 53 -p tcp -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -j ACCEPT
#$IPCHAINS -A input -s 0/0 53 -p udp -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -j ACCEPT
# http
$IPCHAINS -A input -s 0/0 80 -p tcp -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -j ACCEPT
$IPCHAINS -A input -d 0/0 80 -p tcp -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -j ACCEPT
# http port 8080
#$IPCHAINS -A input -s 0/0 8080 -p tcp -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -j ACCEPT
# secure http
$IPCHAINS -A input -s 0/0 443 -p tcp -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -j ACCEPT
# pop3
#$IPCHAINS -A input -s 0/0 110 -p tcp -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -j ACCEPT
#$IPCHAINS -A input -d 0/0 110 -p tcp -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -j ACCEPT
#$IPCHAINS -A input -d 0/0 pop-3 -p tcp -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -j ACCEPT
# auth
$IPCHAINS -A input -s 0/0 113 -p tcp -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -j ACCEPT
# news
$IPCHAINS -A input -s 0/0 119 -p tcp -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -j ACCEPT
# secure news
$IPCHAINS -A input -s 0/0 563 -p tcp -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -j ACCEPT
$IPCHAINS -A input -s 0/0 echo-reply -p icmp -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -j
ACCEPT
$IPCHAINS -A input -s 0/0 11 -p icmp -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -j ACCEPT
# pacbell request
#$IPCHAINS -A input -s 63.200.0.0/16 137 -p tcp -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE
-j ACCEPT
#$IPCHAINS -A input -s 63.200.0.0/16 137 -p udp -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE
-j ACCEPT
# pacbell request
#$IPCHAINS -A input -s 63.200.0.0/16 138 -p tcp -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE
-j ACCEPT
#$IPCHAINS -A input -s 63.200.0.0/16 138 -p udp -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE
-j ACCEPT
# pacbell request
#$IPCHAINS -A input -s 206.13.0.0/16 3 -d 0/0 3 -p icmp -i
$EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -j ACCEPT
#$IPCHAINS -A input -s 206.13.0.0/16 -d 0/0 53 -p udp -i
$EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -j ACCEPT
# dyndns request
#$IPCHAINS -A input -s 0/0 7070 -p tcp -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -j ACCEPT
#$IPCHAINS -A input -s 0/0 7070 -p udp -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -j ACCEPT
# log all denied traffic
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p tcp -j DENY -l
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p udp -j DENY -l
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -p icmp -j DENY -l
# --------------------------------------------------------------------
# Refuse packets claiming to be to or from a Class A private network
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s $CLASS_A -j DENY
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -d $CLASS_A -j DENY
$IPCHAINS -A output -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s $CLASS_A -j DENY -l
$IPCHAINS -A output -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -d $CLASS_A -j DENY -l
# Refuse packets claiming to be to or from a Class B private network
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s $CLASS_B -j DENY
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -d $CLASS_B -j DENY
$IPCHAINS -A output -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s $CLASS_B -j DENY -l
$IPCHAINS -A output -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -d $CLASS_B -j DENY -l
# Refuse packets claiming to be to or from a Class C private network
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s $CLASS_C -j DENY
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -d $CLASS_C -j DENY
$IPCHAINS -A output -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s $CLASS_C -j DENY -l
$IPCHAINS -A output -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -d $CLASS_C -j DENY -l
# Refuse packets claiming to be to the loopback interface
# These are blocked below
# ipchains -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s $LOOPBACK -l -j DENY
$IPCHAINS -A output -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s $LOOPBACK -j DENY -l
# refuse addresses defined as reserved by the IANA
# 1.*.*.*, 2.*.*.*, 5.*.*.*, 7.*.*.*, 23.*.*.*, 27.*.*.*
# 31.*.*.*, 36.*.*.*, 37.*.*.*, 39.*.*.*, 41.*.*.*, 42.*.*.*
# 49-50.*.*.*, 58-60.*.*.*
# 67-127.*.*.*
# 169.254.0.0/16 - Link Local Networks
# 192.0.2.0/24 - TEST-NET
# 197.*.*.*, 217-255.*.*.*
# 0.*.*.* - Can't be blocked for DHCP users.
# ipchains -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s 0.0.0.0/8 -j DENY -l
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s 1.0.0.0/8 -j DENY -l
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s 2.0.0.0/8 -j DENY -l
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s 5.0.0.0/8 -j DENY -l
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s 7.0.0.0/8 -j DENY -l
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s 23.0.0.0/8 -j DENY -l
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s 27.0.0.0/8 -j DENY -l
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s 31.0.0.0/8 -j DENY -l
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s 36.0.0.0/8 -j DENY -l
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s 37.0.0.0/8 -j DENY -l
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s 39.0.0.0/8 -j DENY -l
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s 41.0.0.0/8 -j DENY -l
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s 42.0.0.0/8 -j DENY -l
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s 49.0.0.0/8 -j DENY -l
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s 50.0.0.0/8 -j DENY -l
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s 58.0.0.0/7 -j DENY -l
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s 60.0.0.0/8 -j DENY -l
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s 67.0.0.0/8 -j DENY -l
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s 68.0.0.0/6 -j DENY -l
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s 72.0.0.0/5 -j DENY -l
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s 80.0.0.0/4 -j DENY -l
# 96-127 (includes loopback)
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s 96.0.0.0/3 -j DENY -l
# Link local networks
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s 169.254.0.0/16 -j DENY -l
# Test NET
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s 192.0.2.0/24 -j DENY -l
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s 197.0.0.0/8 -j DENY -l
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s 218.0.0.0/7 -j DENY -l
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s 220.0.0.0/6 -j DENY -l
# includes multicast, reserved and unallocated addresses
$IPCHAINS -A input -i $EXTERNAL_INTERFACE -s 224.0.0.0/3 -j DENY -l
So now, if someone has time enough, one can get on with dissecting what tiny
part of it was written by you.
I mean the "below-1%" part which was enough to get rid of all copyright
notices and claim it as your own
--
What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth? Judging from realistic
simulations involving a sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog,
we can assume it will be pretty bad. --- Dave Barry
William Poaster
<snip>
> You are even worse than flatfish. He just tries to hide his garbage behind
> X-no-archive
Ah, flatfish has started using that again has he.
Obviously he doesn't want his garbage retained for posterity....well not
on google anyhow. Some other sites don't respect the XNS header & archive
them anyway. Besides, anyone responding to him will have flatfish's inane
posts archived as quoted.
--
Trolls & replies to trolls
are filtered out, as are
googlegroup users.
cc
"You're an idiot if you believe China is not playing with the Linux
source
code for their own gain."
Direct quote. Or are you going to refute this evidence just like you
back your boy bell to the end of time even though it's apparent he
lied? Nice job bringing up Tiananmen Square like I'm an idiot.
Apparently you can't even comprehend your own writing.
cc
Tim Smith wrote:
> In article <1160849543.3...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "cc" <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Yeah, who was that kook that was claiming the Chinese were using linux
> > simply to spy on their citizens? Oh right, you.
>
> or not open source could prevent the Chinese from spying, and around the
> time I stopped reading, a lot of people were getting confused, failing
> to distinguish between "the Chinese could do X" and "the Chinese ARE
> doing X".
>
> Are you sure he said they ARE using Linux to spy, or just said that they
> COULD use Linux to spy?
>
> --
> --Tim Smith
I have some quotes if it pleases the court.
"Why do you think the China govt is embracing Linux?
It's all about source code and what they are going to do to it in order
to
spy on their people. "
Ambiguous quote, could go either way
"In a closed country like China, it would take a very long time for
word to
spread that the govt's version of Linux is rigged and even if it did
how
many people would risk standing up to the govt?"
The govt's version IS rigged, which is a little less ambiguous, but
we'll still float the idea around that I'm an idiot, and flatfish was
only still only saying that they COULD use it to spy
"You're an idiot if you believe China is not playing with the Linux
source
code for their own gain.
Whether it is to spy on people, report dissenters or whatever you can
bet
it is being done right now."
You're an idiot if you believe they AREN'T doing it right now.
Obviously he's saying that China changed the source to spy, not that
they could change it.
"I seriously think the Linux supporters (not to be confused with
athletic
supporters) in COLA are going off the deep end. "
He then accuses others of going off the deep end, classic kook
comeback.
You were still posting in the thread after all these pot induced
conspiracy theories, but maybe you missed them. Now which one of his
kook friends is going to step up and defend his honor? Between Roy and
his weirdos, and flatfish and his weirdos we have quite the lovefest
going on here.
wjbell
That's two seperate scripts, one IPTABLES and one IPCHAINS. Who did you
steal those from and which one are you claiming to be mine?
BTW, I thought you said the script generator was unable to create an
IPTABLES script. If that's the case then it couldn't have been mine
created pre 2000. Nice try manufacturing evidence.
Peter Köhlmann
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> The liar and software thief wjbell wrote:
>>
>> < snip >
>>
>>> I still see no proof. I've publicly asked for the proof you claim to
>>> have. You have yet to provide it. Until you do, /you/ are the liar...
>>> not that you carry any credibility in here anyway.
>>
>> Poor wjbell. You are still trying to tell us that just because you
>> destroyed the "proof" you are no longer a thief.
>> The "proof" you tried to hide from public viewing was this script, BTW:
>>
< snip script >
> That's two seperate scripts, one IPTABLES and one IPCHAINS.
Do you actually think I have taken the time to look at them?
If they are machine generated (as they are. You did little to them, I think)
They aren't interesting to look at.
*If* they are completely rewritten by you (which i highly doubt) they are
even more worthless to look at.
In that case they would serve at best to humour me
> Who did you
> steal those from and which one are you claiming to be mine?
>
*You* posted those lines. I don't claim that any of these are yours.
In fact, I strongly suspect that no single line in those has any IP of yours
> BTW, I thought you said the script generator was unable to create an
> IPTABLES script.
I have said nothing of that sort. You have always been a complete failure at
reading comprehension, and you prove it time and again
> If that's the case then it couldn't have been mine
> created pre 2000. Nice try manufacturing evidence.
Nice try trying to claim that *you* don't posted them. You did
Now tell us which few of those lines you did not alter. You know, that 99%
thingy which you thought would be OK to remove the copyright (which is BTW
bullshit. If you alter scripts and don't alter *all* of them, you are in
legal hot waters if you remove the copyright notice. Which makes you the
software thief you are)
--
Warning: 10 days have passed since your last Windows reinstall.
Hadron Quark
> flatfish+++ wrote:
>> Anything to protect their leader.
>
> Leader? He seems more like a news bot. From the quick peek I took of
> his web site he looks like he was still pickin boogers at moms house
> when I first got into linux. Pardon the expression. ;)
if you want a really good a laugh and some more information to help you
get a good picture of his abilities and his high opinion of himself, go
and check his prototype for a "free semantic search engine" at
http://www.iuron.com - it's a scream. And all because Roy has turned on
google for them making money on advertising. Event though google is
"free" it isnt free enough - and Roy intends to bring them down.... by
making them laugh themselves to death probably.
Wait! He has brought the project down now .... Shame. All the hordes of
OSS programmers were queueing up to help .....
But! Roy's nemesis, google itself, has helped out:
http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2005/11/01/google-iuron/
And what do we find? That Roy thinks google have caught up with his
ideas ....
,----
| There is a certain hint in that Web site as to long-term intentions and
| goals at Google. Overall, I don’t know if Google have beat me
| to it, but I suspect it was not something too crypic or
| far-fetched. Anyone in the field of machine learning must have thought
| about it at one stage or another. I hope that my speculation is mistaken
| and that Google will stick with naive indexing of unreliable Web
| content.
`----
Hadron Quark
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 09:08:18 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> You are even worse than flatfish. He just tries to hide his garbage behind
>> X-no-archive
>
> Ah, flatfish has started using that again has he.
> Obviously he doesn't want his garbage retained for posterity....well not
> on google anyhow. Some other sites don't respect the XNS header & archive
> them anyway. Besides, anyone responding to him will have flatfish's inane
> posts archived as quoted.
Well, well - lookee here. Willy Boaster preaching about filters
again. What a guy!
Tim Smith
Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> wrote:
> and check his prototype for a "free semantic search engine" at
> http://www.iuron.com - it's a scream. And all because Roy has turned on
Looks more like a "here's a generic portal while we wait for someone to
buy this expired domain name" page to me.
--
--Tim Smith
wjbell
> wjbell wrote:
>
>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>> The liar and software thief wjbell wrote:
>>>
>>> < snip >
>>>
>>>> I still see no proof. I've publicly asked for the proof you claim to
>>>> have. You have yet to provide it. Until you do, /you/ are the liar...
>>>> not that you carry any credibility in here anyway.
>>>
>>> Poor wjbell. You are still trying to tell us that just because you
>>> destroyed the "proof" you are no longer a thief.
>>> The "proof" you tried to hide from public viewing was this script, BTW:
>>>
>
> < snip script >
>
>> That's two seperate scripts, one IPTABLES and one IPCHAINS.
>
> Do you actually think I have taken the time to look at them?
So you admit you have no idea to what you are posting. Interesting.
> If they are machine generated (as they are. You did little to them, I think)
> They aren't interesting to look at.
> *If* they are completely rewritten by you (which i highly doubt) they are
> even more worthless to look at.
> In that case they would serve at best to humour me
Your whole argument here is that you are claiming that I claimed someone
elses code as mine, yet almost in the same breath you say you haven't
look at the code. Which is it? You can prove I stole code or you've
never seen it?
I think you're confused.
>
>> Who did you
>> steal those from and which one are you claiming to be mine?
>>
>
> *You* posted those lines.
Really? Can you show me where I posted them? Because I think you made
that code up and posted it as mine.
> I don't claim that any of these are yours.
> In fact, I strongly suspect that no single line in those has any IP of yours
Me too, since it's most likely someone elses script all together.
>> BTW, I thought you said the script generator was unable to create an
>> IPTABLES script.
>
> I have said nothing of that sort. You have always been a complete failure at
> reading comprehension, and you prove it time and again
Either you said it, or a post you quoted as being true said it. Either
way, you put it fourth in /YOUR/ post as evidence that /you supported/.
So according to your sources, that script generator had no iptables
support. Therefor, one has to conclude that I could not have created an
iptables script from that generator. Thus removing your whole argument
that I stripped the copyright from said generated script. If the script
never existed, then I could never have removed a copyright notice from it.
Glad you cleared that up for us, Einstein.
>
>> If that's the case then it couldn't have been mine
>> created pre 2000. Nice try manufacturing evidence.
>
> Nice try trying to claim that *you* don't posted them. You did
Where?
>
> Now tell us which few of those lines you did not alter. You know, that 99%
> thingy which you thought would be OK to remove the copyright (which is BTW
> bullshit. If you alter scripts and don't alter *all* of them, you are in
> legal hot waters if you remove the copyright notice. Which makes you the
> software thief you are)
Still no proof?
Exactly what I suspected.
cc
flatfish+++ wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:53:45 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
>
> > In article <1160849543.3...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "cc" <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Yeah, who was that kook that was claiming the Chinese were using linux
> >> simply to spy on their citizens? Oh right, you.
> >
> > I stopped following that thread, but at the start it was about whether
> > or not open source could prevent the Chinese from spying, and around the
> > time I stopped reading, a lot of people were getting confused, failing
> > to distinguish between "the Chinese could do X" and "the Chinese ARE
> > doing X".
> >
> > Are you sure he said they ARE using Linux to spy, or just said that they
> > COULD use Linux to spy?
>
> anything is game for that government.
No you didn't.
wjbell
Not much detail from that link, but from the jist[sp] of it it sounds
hilarious. I would love to read the mission statement and plans of that
project. :)
Peter Köhlmann
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> wjbell wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>> The liar and software thief wjbell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> < snip >
>>>>
>>>>> I still see no proof. I've publicly asked for the proof you claim to
>>>>> have. You have yet to provide it. Until you do, /you/ are the
>>>>> liar... not that you carry any credibility in here anyway.
>>>>
>>>> Poor wjbell. You are still trying to tell us that just because you
>>>> destroyed the "proof" you are no longer a thief.
>>>> The "proof" you tried to hide from public viewing was this script, BTW:
>>>>
>>
>> < snip script >
>>
>>> That's two seperate scripts, one IPTABLES and one IPCHAINS.
>>
>> Do you actually think I have taken the time to look at them?
>
> So you admit you have no idea to what you are posting. Interesting.
>
I don't need any idea about it. I wanted to show you *your* posted script
You can't any longer yell "there's no proof, I have it destroyed"
>> If they are machine generated (as they are. You did little to them, I
>> think) They aren't interesting to look at.
>> *If* they are completely rewritten by you (which i highly doubt) they are
>> even more worthless to look at.
>> In that case they would serve at best to humour me
>
> Your whole argument here is that you are claiming that I claimed someone
> elses code as mine, yet almost in the same breath you say you haven't
> look at the code. Which is it? You can prove I stole code or you've
> never seen it?
>
> I think you're confused.
I simply think that you have not altered it in anyway except removing the
copyright. Do you actually think I will go to the lenght of examining it
line for line? I may when I've got the time. In the meantime it is there
for anyone interested. Why should I hide it? It was *you* who clamoured to
view that script, thinking you had it destroyed
You did not, you posted it, and it is still on google
>
>>
>>> Who did you
>>> steal those from and which one are you claiming to be mine?
>>>
>>
>> *You* posted those lines.
>
> Really? Can you show me where I posted them? Because I think you made
> that code up and posted it as mine.
>
Message-ID: <3C80640F...@pacbell.net>
>> I don't claim that any of these are yours.
>> In fact, I strongly suspect that no single line in those has any IP of
>> yours
>
> Me too, since it's most likely someone elses script all together.
>
Message-ID: <3C80640F...@pacbell.net>
>>> BTW, I thought you said the script generator was unable to create an
>>> IPTABLES script.
>>
>> I have said nothing of that sort. You have always been a complete failure
>> at reading comprehension, and you prove it time and again
>
> Either you said it, or a post you quoted as being true said it. Either
> way, you put it fourth in /YOUR/ post as evidence that /you supported/.
>
This is just great. Now I support something because I /quoted/ it?
Do you actually think I support your lies because I quoted them?
> So according to your sources,
Not "according to my sources", asshole. I have never written anything at all
about that script generator. So it can't be "my sources"
> that script generator had no iptables
> support. Therefor, one has to conclude that I could not have created an
> iptables script from that generator. Thus removing your whole argument
> that I stripped the copyright from said generated script. If the script
> never existed, then I could never have removed a copyright notice from it.
>
> Glad you cleared that up for us, Einstein.
>
>>
>>> If that's the case then it couldn't have been mine
>>> created pre 2000. Nice try manufacturing evidence.
>>
>> Nice try trying to claim that *you* don't posted them. You did
>
> Where?
>
Message-ID: <3C80640F...@pacbell.net>
>> Now tell us which few of those lines you did not alter. You know, that
>> 99% thingy which you thought would be OK to remove the copyright (which
>> is BTW bullshit. If you alter scripts and don't alter *all* of them, you
>> are in legal hot waters if you remove the copyright notice. Which makes
>> you the software thief you are)
>
> Still no proof?
>
> Exactly what I suspected.
Well, if only *one* line in that script was not made by you, you had no
business removing the copyright notice.
Was that simple enough for you to understand?
wjbell
That's where you're mistaken. That's not my post. As I said before,
that post was forged by an advocate. And you're still trying to use it
as "evidence" One tip off is the word "fuckwit". I would never use
that word. Not my style.
So has this what you advocates have become; making up posts to create a
positive argument for yourselves?
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Who did you
>>>> steal those from and which one are you claiming to be mine?
>>>>
>>>
>>> *You* posted those lines.
>>
>> Really? Can you show me where I posted them? Because I think you made
>> that code up and posted it as mine.
>>
>
> Message-ID: <3C80640F...@pacbell.net>
See above.
>>> I don't claim that any of these are yours.
>>> In fact, I strongly suspect that no single line in those has any IP of
>>> yours
>>
>> Me too, since it's most likely someone elses script all together.
>>
>
> Message-ID: <3C80640F...@pacbell.net>
>
>>>> BTW, I thought you said the script generator was unable to create an
>>>> IPTABLES script.
>>>
>>> I have said nothing of that sort. You have always been a complete failure
>>> at reading comprehension, and you prove it time and again
>>
>> Either you said it, or a post you quoted as being true said it. Either
>> way, you put it fourth in /YOUR/ post as evidence that /you supported/.
>>
>
> This is just great. Now I support something because I /quoted/ it?
Yes, when you post something that's designed to strengthen or support
your case, then you support that statement.
> Do you actually think I support your lies because I quoted them?
>
>> So according to your sources,
>
> Not "according to my sources", asshole. I have never written anything at all
> about that script generator. So it can't be "my sources"
You quoted them. I never asked you to quote Cullys post. You did it
all on your own, and now you're responsible for it.
>> that script generator had no iptables
>> support. Therefor, one has to conclude that I could not have created an
>> iptables script from that generator. Thus removing your whole argument
>> that I stripped the copyright from said generated script. If the script
>> never existed, then I could never have removed a copyright notice from it.
>>
>> Glad you cleared that up for us, Einstein.
>>
>>>
>>>> If that's the case then it couldn't have been mine
>>>> created pre 2000. Nice try manufacturing evidence.
>>>
>>> Nice try trying to claim that *you* don't posted them. You did
>>
>> Where?
>>
>
> Message-ID: <3C80640F...@pacbell.net>
>
>
>>> Now tell us which few of those lines you did not alter. You know, that
>>> 99% thingy which you thought would be OK to remove the copyright (which
>>> is BTW bullshit. If you alter scripts and don't alter *all* of them, you
>>> are in legal hot waters if you remove the copyright notice. Which makes
>>> you the software thief you are)
>>
>> Still no proof?
>>
>> Exactly what I suspected.
>
> Well, if only *one* line in that script was not made by you, you had no
> business removing the copyright notice.
> Was that simple enough for you to understand?
Maybe in Peters bazaar reality, but for the rest of us it doesn't add up.
Peter Köhlmann
You are getting dumber by the minute. It was your post, the headers matched.
*And* you did not complain then about being forged, but continued to defend
your removing the copyright notice. You would hardly have done that when
being forged
Just keep on lying, wjbell, you look every little bit as stupid as you
really are.
And, BTW, you are a software thief
> And you're still trying to use it
> as "evidence" One tip off is the word "fuckwit". I would never use
> that word. Not my style.
Your "style" is to steal software and claim to have written it yourself.
I see. You really have class, wjbell. So typical windows user class
> So has this what you advocates have become; making up posts to create a
> positive argument for yourselves?
>
So now you claim that I (or another advocate) have made up this post *you*
made? Really, wjbell?
so look into the thread of this here
Message-ID: <3C80640F...@pacbell.net>
It is *your* post, with the script
The script where you just removed the copyright notice and claimed that you
did write it, "firewall writer wjbell"
You are even worse than Hadron Quark, flatfish, DFS and Erik F
Those are just simple, outright liars (and in flatfishs case, also a racist
and a thief)
< snip more lunatic wjbell droppings >
--
Howe's Law: Everyone has a scheme that will not work.
wjbell
Forged headers.
> *And* you did not complain then about being forged, but continued to defend
> your removing the copyright notice. You would hardly have done that when
> being forged
If someone went to the trouble of forging one post to make me look bad,
wouldn't they forge others to support it?
>
> Just keep on lying, wjbell, you look every little bit as stupid as you
> really are.
>
> And, BTW, you are a software thief
>
>> And you're still trying to use it
>> as "evidence" One tip off is the word "fuckwit". I would never use
>> that word. Not my style.
>
> Your "style" is to steal software and claim to have written it yourself.
> I see. You really have class, wjbell. So typical windows user class
>
>> So has this what you advocates have become; making up posts to create a
>> positive argument for yourselves?
>>
>
> So now you claim that I (or another advocate) have made up this post *you*
> made? Really, wjbell?
>
> so look into the thread of this here
>
> Message-ID: <3C80640F...@pacbell.net>
>
> It is *your* post, with the script
> The script where you just removed the copyright notice and claimed that you
> did write it, "firewall writer wjbell"
>
> You are even worse than Hadron Quark, flatfish, DFS and Erik F
> Those are just simple, outright liars (and in flatfishs case, also a racist
> and a thief)
>
>
> < snip more lunatic wjbell droppings >
I'm not saying I didn't write a firewall script and post it up. I'm
just saying I didn't write *that* firewall script. That was
manufactured by the advocates to try and bolster their argument. So
again, nice try on the "proof".
Peter Köhlmann
Certainly. Whole threads of "forged headers" to make you look like the thief
you are
>> *And* you did not complain then about being forged, but continued to
>> defend your removing the copyright notice. You would hardly have done
>> that when being forged
>
> If someone went to the trouble of forging one post to make me look bad,
> wouldn't they forge others to support it?
>
You *do* have an idea how utterly ridiculous you sound, do you?
Now suddenly "advocates" forge a *whole* *thread* with posts "from you" and
you, who was busily posting at that time as well have never, not even once
told us that "someone is forging you"?
So I just have to conclude that not only you are a thief, a liar and an
asshole, but also that you are even dumber than tab. And tab stood no
chance against slightly retarded mushrooms. They outsmarted him hands down
Any more ridiculous claims like that, software thief?
--
Don't abandon hope: your Tom Mix decoder ring arrives tomorrow
wjbell
How /I/ sound? Your spending countless hours scouring google dredging
up old posts to try and prove that I removed a copyright from a script
created from some bumwad script generator in some obscure corner of the
net and *I* sound ridiculous?
Classic.
> Now suddenly "advocates" forge a *whole* *thread* with posts "from you" and
> you, who was busily posting at that time as well have never, not even once
> told us that "someone is forging you"?
Yes I had mentioned it. And the fact that I supplied a link to the
script on my server supports that. I posted a link to the firewall
file, I never posted the code itself in a post.
Think about this for a second. Isn't it true that some of the
"advocates" in here have been known to go as far as call a so-called
"wintrolls" employer to try to get him fired when in a disagreement with
them? Haven't they also called peoples homes harassing them? Called
their boss and their house! Can you imagine your 10-year-old daughter
picking up the phone with a rabid "advocate" on the other end?
Forging a couple headers to post up a fake script doesn't seem so far
fetched now, does it?
It's true, and not so ridiculous. See above.
BTW, can you post the link to the REAL script I provided? If not your
claims are empty.
TFP.
William Poaster
> The liar and software thief wjbell wrote:
>
>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>> wjbell wrote:
>>>
>>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>> The liar and software thief wjbell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>>>> wjbell wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The liar and software thief wjbell wrote:
>>> You are getting dumber by the minute. It was your post, the headers
>>> matched.
>>
>> Forged headers.
>>
> Certainly. Whole threads of "forged headers" to make you look like the thief
> you are
>
>>> *And* you did not complain then about being forged, but continued to
>>> defend your removing the copyright notice. You would hardly have done
>>> that when being forged
>>
>> If someone went to the trouble of forging one post to make me look bad,
>> wouldn't they forge others to support it?
>>
>
> You *do* have an idea how utterly ridiculous you sound, do you?
> Now suddenly "advocates" forge a *whole* *thread* with posts "from you" and
> you, who was busily posting at that time as well have never, not even once
> told us that "someone is forging you"?
So, he was posting at that time & never *once* complained that someone was
forging him??
Does he know how *lame* he sounds?
Ding-dong bell at his finest. Maybe you should add k00k to the list of
liar, thief etc.
--
Never argue with a wintroll, they drag
you *down* to their level of stupidity,
then beat you with their experience.
-- Paraphrased, with acknowledgement to Dilbert --
flatfish+++
> Think about this for a second. Isn't it true that some of the
> "advocates" in here have been known to go as far as call a so-called
> "wintrolls" employer to try to get him fired when in a disagreement with
> them? Haven't they also called peoples homes harassing them? Called
> their boss and their house! Can you imagine your 10-year-old daughter
> picking up the phone with a rabid "advocate" on the other end?
There are some seriously mentally ill people in comp.os.linux.advocacy who
will stop at nothing to discredit and stop people from posting anything
negative to Linux.
Remember when they were calling all the Gary Stewerts in NY trying to find
flatfish?
Is this nuts or what?
No it's normal behavior for COLA.
That all stemmed from a mentally ill person (mjcr) who made completely
bogus claims, with no proof that flatfish is Gary Stewert.
BTW mjcr left COLA and the COLA Faq project because he felt his family was
in danger from Microsoft and it's supporters.
Talk about a screwball.
And relying on this person's word is their proof.
Oh BTW here is my proof that mjcr is a nutsack one nut short of the loony
bin.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/bc64c6e578019d77
"The FAQ and Primer for COLA will no longer be published. I do not want
my family endangered, so the document is being withdrawn the project is
being canceled and my other pro-Linux projects and efforts are also being
canceled."
They (comp.os.linux.advocacy) are liars as well who rarely, if ever, offer
up proof of their ridiculous claims.
wjbell
That's very sad, and scary at the same time. People who would take this
group, and an OS for that matter, so seriously that they actually start
calling all the Gary Stewerts in the phone book. Wow. LOL
And mjcr... I read that when catching up on cola posts. Reminds me of
that movie with Mel Gibson and Julia Roberts where Gibson is a crazy
conspiracy theory nut, but it's actually true. In mjcr's case, he's
just a nut.
Hadron Quark
wjbell <wjb...@none.net> writes:
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
> Forged headers.
>
>> *And* you did not complain then about being forged, but continued to defend
>> your removing the copyright notice. You would hardly have done that when
>> being forged
>
> If someone went to the trouble of forging one post to make me look
> bad, wouldn't they forge others to support it?
Peter seems to know a lot about forged headers. He accuses people of it
all the time. Hmmm ... coincidence? I doubt it.
Hadron Quark
> And mjcr... I read that when catching up on cola posts. Reminds me of
> that movie with Mel Gibson and Julia Roberts where Gibson is a crazy
> conspiracy theory nut, but it's actually true.
Yes it is .... And an anti-semitic ...
(yes, I know I misconstrued your words).
One day Mel will play the role of Roytoy : skewering all windiots and
finally walking his overweight, acne ridden curly headed children into a smelly
pizza box house which is wall to wall with old HW running Linux just as
the credits role.
antioch
Foxtrot Oscar and discuss your problems in a different forum/group or
whatever
Antioch
"flatfish+++" <flat...@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
news:V3RYg.29$Xg6...@newsfe11.lga...
flatfish+++
People have been forging flatfish for years.
Usually it's daeron (Doug Mentohl) who is another mental case but there
have been others who know enough about my style to forge me.
Hey, imitation is the best form of flattery, so they say!
cc
And yet you never own up to your own mental instabilities. Proof has
been posted, you're a nutcase.
Linonut
> People have been forging flatfish for years.
> Usually it's daeron (Doug Mentohl) who is another mental case but there
> have been others who know enough about my style to forge me.
>
> Hey, imitation is the best form of flattery, so they say!
We've had enough of your "flat"-tery <grin>.
--
I love the smell of source code compiling in the morning.
It smells like... freedom.
wjbell
We've seen the advocates form of "proof". Hint: It doesn't exist.
chrisv
>Well well well, I see a lot of the same shit going on here in cola.
Well well well. I see the lying troll wjbell is back (to using his
old name).
*plonk*
wjbell
*yawn*