latest from shannon
i'll teach you to turn away.
follows:
[-----]
I've heard a lot of ridiculous stories recently about who owns BME, who
runs BME, and who created various parts of it, with the general synopsis
being that I'm just a "figurehead" or employee, and am not responsible for
running or developing the site. I haven't commented much because
ultimately this theft is a matter for the courts, but let me reiterate a
little history, all of which can be confirmed independently.
BME was started by me in 1994 and ran for most of its life as a project
that had me as the sole "employee" (with help and inspiration from many
people; Jon Cobb, Shawn Porter, Steve Haworth, Tom Brazda, Anne
Greenblatt, Fakir Musafar, and others). When it got larger, I brought on
people and corporations to help me with hosting (server management and
sysadmin type work) and business management (credit card processing and so
on), and later content processing (helping to get images and videos to the
sites). The business and hosting has been done by a series of companies
including Internex Online, Quintessential Communications, IT.ca,
SoundConcept, and most recently Rachel's company. None of these companies
are owners of the site or its content, although they have at times been
licensed to manage, sell memberships on its behalf, and protect it.
Every single line of code that makes up the IAM system was written by me
personally, as was every single line of the BME management software, and
almost all of this was done prior to Rachel or Jon even knowing me (keep
in mind they hadn't even turned ten yet when I became involved in body
modification). Writing on BME and ModBlog and editorial direction and site
policy has been done exclusively by me or under my direction. The billing
system and commerce tie-in was developed by me with the assistance of
programmers at SoundConcept.
**General content production has of course always been a massive community
effort.**
I continue to be locked out of all but the most basic access to my sites.
* * *
I should also mention that I have now been approached by several people
offering me Rachel and Jon's passwords on IAM, as well as offering to hack
or damage the site. While I appreciate the sentiment, I do not want to
gain access in that manner and would prefer that people do not do this as
damaging the site does no one any good and only hurts people who don't
deserve it! That said, I have now seen attacks that are capable of
accessing people's accounts without leaving a trace in the log files, a
worm attack that can damage nearly anyone who logs in, as well as attacks
that can execute arbitrary commands.
In the last week I have been given copies of these three attack vectors on
the site and have confirmed (by a code audit, not by trying them) that
they are all functional. Two days ago I passed their details on to Jon and
gave him instructions on how to patch the problems but I do not believe
that this will happen. Patches already exist in my codebase locally. Until
they confirm that these attack vectors have been patched, the site should
be considered potentially compromised (to say nothing of the current
instability).
I have written patches that I believe solve the majority of these problems
but have no ability to test or install them as long as I continue to be
locked out of administrative access.
[-----]
lish "i'm sorry for crushing
cr...@got.net your frilly pink eggshell of a psyche." -mc
43.9% / 30 RANA 128 / 70
Kavin...@gmail.com
<snip>
After a while, and by that I mean now, why should most of us care?
I watch The People's Court, Judge Joe Brown, Divorce Court and others
because I like to watch people who are willing to sell their souls for
a slice of a ten-thousand dollar pot.
This really is not much different.
Why does Shannon's alter-site allow access to BME shop if he is locked
out?
When we air our dirty laundry in public, we get what we deserve. And
I suspect there are no clean participants here.
When the dust settles, I hope the "winners" are going to answer ALL
questions.
Kavin
i'll teach you to turn away.
Kgc> On Oct 5, 3:04 pm, cr...@got.net (i'll teach you to turn away.) wrote:
Kgc> <snip>
Kgc> After a while, and by that I mean now, why should most of us care?
i still care. & because there have been many posts written &
quickly deleted, i'll continue to document here in hopes others will do
the same & i won't miss any of the JUICY JUICY GOSSIP.
lish "if you feel like this is what you need,
cr...@got.net you'll never understand." -ftf
Curt
wrote:
> On Oct 5, 3:04 pm, cr...@got.net (i'll teach you to turn away.) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> After a while, and by that I mean now, why should most of us care?
>
> I watch The People's Court, Judge Joe Brown, Divorce Court and others
Why am I not surprised?
> because I like to watch people who are willing to sell their souls for
> a slice of a ten-thousand dollar pot.
Again, not surprised.
> This really is not much different.
>
> Why does Shannon's alter-site allow access to BME shop if he is locked
> out?
Maybe because Shannon is more interested in making sure his patrons
are satisfied, content, and serviced much more than he is concerned
with his own drama or inflicting damage on those who are not directly
involved in that drama? A concept you apparently cannot grasp or even
begin to comprehend? Do tell.
> When we air our dirty laundry in public, we get what we deserve. And
> I suspect there are no clean participants here.
See? Your cup is half empty. That's probably being generous.
> When the dust settles, I hope the "winners" are going to answer ALL
> questions.
To you? Why? It's none of your business. It's none of my business.
What any IAM patron has, at worst, is an interruption in service to a
Web site. That interruption has been promised to cause no financial
distress as time "lost" is going to be extended, iirc.
And, please, cry me a river about your not being privvy to someone
else's "dirty laundry," you Divorce Court fan.
You're not even on IAM, are you? Rhetorical.
--
Curt
DIYer
Shannon writes:
[-----]
Any help is appreciated. I.m sorry I can not write more but I will when I
am able to (if the button doesn't work it's paypal/snow...@gmail.com).
<paypal button>
[-----]
It looks like a second lawyer-salvo has been fired, and participants are
under orders not to discuss online. It also looks like it's gonna be a
hairy, ugly divorce case.
--
DIY
Kavin...@gmail.com
> inhttp://www.bodytwo.com/blog/2007/10/16/on-things-going-from-bad-to-wo...
> Shannon writes:
>
> [-----]
> Any help is appreciated. I.m sorry I can not write more but I will when I
What, was BME a hobby? Was the great Shannon that naive not to have
money in his name?
Now the courts have ordered his silence, huh?
What is the quote? Something like "A good liar offers few details.
The best, none."
The details offered aren't adding up.
Kavin
DIYer
> On Oct 17, 9:43 am, DIYer <j...@eris.invalid> wrote:
> > Shannon writes:
> >
> > [-----]
> > Any help is appreciated. I.m sorry I can not write more but I will when I
> > am able to (if the button doesn't work it's paypal/snowr...@gmail.com).
>
> What, was BME a hobby? Was the great Shannon that naive not to have
> money in his name?
It's my impression that it was actually a hobby, about 10 years
ago. I don't think he gathered a bunch of bean counters, lawyers
and other corporate-weenie types and said "I'm going to start a
piercing porn site".
>
> Now the courts have ordered his silence, huh?
Just a guess that the lawyers have ordered the participants to STFU.
I think it's more or less standard practice. Anything they say can
just be used as ammunition by the other side.
>
> What is the quote? Something like "A good liar offers few details.
> The best, none."
>
> The details offered aren't adding up.
Shannon has told some elaborate tales as April Fool's pranks, while
the stuff yttrx has written also rings true ... it isn't inconcievable
that some of the details we've heard so far were manufactured. On
-either- side of the story.
OTOH, we all know how stable and reliable yttrx is. Not.
--
DIY
Kavin...@gmail.com
> KavinTay...@gmail.com <KavinTay...@gmail.com> wrote:
KT> > What, was BME a hobby? Was the great Shannon that naive not to
have
KT> > money in his name?
>
DI> It's my impression that it was actually a hobby, about 10 years
DI> ago.
Great. Then what's the problem? Let everyone else run BME, then.
That is, IF money isn't the root of this evil
DI> I don't think he gathered a bunch of bean counters, lawyers
DI> and other corporate-weenie types and said "I'm going to start a
DI> piercing porn site".
Why not? When you give something for nothing, that's its value. If
Shannon never saw the value, naive is not the word to use. And by the
way, too many people are trying the "poor, poor Shannon" route. I
don't buy it. He was supposed to be one of the leading authorities on
piercing? Smart enough to do all this without college? Super-good at
self-promotion?
Not buying it.
KT> > Now the courts have ordered his silence, huh?
>
DI> Just a guess that the lawyers have ordered the participants to
STFU.
DI> I think it's more or less standard practice. Anything they say can
DI> just be used as ammunition by the other side.
Funny, you CAN get a divorce in Canada for under $500. Way under. No
lawyer needed. Lawyers are only brought in when kids and money are
involved. I'm not going to make a comment on which I feel is the
driving force.
.
>
DI> Shannon has told some elaborate tales as April Fool's pranks,
while
> the stuff yttrx has written also rings true ...
As written, your sentence makes no sense. I suspect you are trying to
say Shannon has played tricks. At the same time, yttrx has told the
truth.
And in the end, it's a simple divorce between drama queens and a court
of jesters fanning the flames.
How's that?
Kavin
DIYer
> On Oct 17, 4:41 pm, DIYer <j...@eris.invalid> wrote:
>
> DI> It's my impression that it was actually a hobby, about
>
> Great. Then what's the problem? Let everyone else run BME, then.
> That is, IF money isn't the root of this evil
It grew.
> Funny, you CAN get a divorce in Canada for under $500. Way under. No
> lawyer needed. Lawyers are only brought in when kids and money are
> involved. I'm not going to make a comment on which I feel is the
> driving force.
Now that money and custody and lawyers are involved, it isn't a $500
deal any more.
> As written, your sentence makes no sense. I suspect you are trying to
> say Shannon has played tricks. At the same time, yttrx has told the
> truth.
I did not say yttrx told the truth. Just that he has truthiness.
> And in the end, it's a simple divorce between drama queens and a court
> of jesters fanning the flames.
>
> How's that?
A rude usenet oversimplification, suitable for some political blogs.
'bye now.
Kavin...@gmail.com
> KavinTay...@gmail.com <KavinTay...@gmail.com> wrote:
KT> > And in the end, it's a simple divorce between drama queens and a
court
KT> > of jesters fanning the flames.
>
KT> > How's that?
>
DIY> A rude usenet oversimplification, suitable for some political
blogs.
Sorry, but YOU have not posted anything to prove otherwise.
In fact, your posts really don't say anything. I pressed and you
folded.
Right now, you appear to be a jester.
Kavin
Kavin...@gmail.com
>
KT> > And in the end, it's a simple divorce between drama queens and a
court
KT> > of jesters fanning the flames.
>
KT> > How's that?
>
DI> A rude usenet oversimplification, suitable for some political
blogs.
Sorry, but YOU have not posted anything to prove otherwise.