Path: news2.digex.net!in1.nntp.cais.net!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!nntp.portal.ca!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc-e!newsfeed.gte.net!usenet From: firstname.lastname@example.org (The First One) Newsgroups: alt.usenet.kooks Subject: Re: More amazing legal theories from the Giwer Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 22:03:16 GMT Organization: 1st Inc. Lines: 236 Message-ID: <email@example.com> References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> Reply-To: email@example.com NNTP-Posting-Host: tpm230038.gte.net X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/16.230 Xref: news2.digex.net alt.usenet.kooks:54391 On 29 Dec 1996 13:25:56 -0500, firstname.lastname@example.org (Michael P. Stein) wrote: >In article <email@example.com>, The First One
wrote: >>On 29 Dec 1996 00:19:13 -0500, firstname.lastname@example.org (Michael P. >>Stein) wrote: >> >>>In article <email@example.com>, >>>Matt Giwer (firstname.lastname@example.org) under the name >>>Doc Tor wrote: >>>>On 28 Dec 1996 21:25:46 -0500, email@example.com (Michael P. >>>>Stein) wrote: >>>>> Mr. Blackmore, you asked me for evidence to support my claim that you >>>>>have a poor grasp of the English language. >>>> >>>> Of course he did not. >>> >>> Praytell, how would you know? >> >> Perhaps I was reading? > > You have been breaking into my account and reading my mail? Would you >like to confess to any other crimes while you are at it? I am sure Yale >Edeiken would love to hear about them. > > >>> Would you finally like to tell us about what Ken McVay asked you that >>>justified the five megabyte mailbomb you sent him? What is your problem? >>>Still cannot make up a lie that even you are deluded enough to think you >>>can get someone with the brains of tree fungus to swallow? >> >> It was some 20 questions that I did not archive > > Oh, that. Would you like a copy? Would you then like to explain in >loving detail how even half the stuff you sent was relevant to any of the >questions? I found it to be relevant, you may feel otherwise, he may feel otherwise. In any event, at that time, the Nizkook central website was solicting any and all material regarding the holocaust without restriction or request for notification prior to submission. The only restriction at the time, due to a very foolish picture I identified, was that he requested university level citations of sources for pictures. As that unbounded solicitation was the case, and might still be the case, and as it was holocaust related, it is unclear just what the objection might be. Rather more clearly it is unclear what might be the basis for labeling holocaust related material which was clearly being solicited a mailbomb if the person has any sense of honesty or integrity. To repeat for the record it has already been noted that McVay has not to my knowledge actually made the claim that it was a mailbomb. That claim has only been made on his flunkies leaving him with plausible deniability on the subject. >>but, it I had >>intended a mail bomb, why was it PKZIPped with -ex compression? > > The thought that it would make it faster for you to upload crossed my >mind. The last I heard the issue of a mailbomb was its size, not the transmission time. If size had been the objection then the information would have been sent with the -x0 option which would have resulted in no compression instead of the maximum compression. >>And >>if it was an intended mail bomb why was its size less than half my >>mail reader is set to accept? And since Nizkor at the time was >>advertising that it had 900Megs free, how could anyone possibly >>consider that a mail bomb? > > Oh, I see. Your excuse is that a small bomb is not really a bomb. >Even if you send one twice. Rather I point out that my mail setting is twice the size that is claimed to be a bomb. You must not use email for much of anything to be unfamiliar with such size transmissions. We all know they were and still are amateurs to the internet but their unfamiliarity does not excuse jumping to labeling something that it is not solely because of their unfamiliarity. >> It would have clearly taken over 900Megs to bomb nizkook central >>unless they knew what they were doing in configuring the site which >>they clearly did not. > > How do you know how the disk partitions are set up? Is this a >confession that you have broken into Nizkor in order to look at the >partitions? You really are interested in confessions here. Do you really think that would matter without physical evidence? >>But if they did know enough to make less than >>900Megs a mailbomb then they would have known enough to make mailbombs >>impossible. > > Let's see - a mailbomb which is successfully prevented from causing >disruption is not a mailbomb? Is that the terminally stupid claim you are >making? Rather you are doing the "playing stupid" routine. I really do not have the inclination to explain it all to you in this message. However, it could not disrupt operations in either case. And as noted by the advertised size at the time, that could not possibly have been the intention as five megs could not bother 900Megs of free disk space. The only way this could have been a disruption is if the mail had been held by an ISP that did not offer such a large mail storage space. As it was clearly its own domain and was described as being in someone's home that could not have been a problem. And the bottom line is that the worst case problem would be corrected by DEL FILENAME.ZIP. That is really the only thing all these amateurs are moaning and groaning about. But if you want evidence that I was correct, you need only note that it did not disrupt service and in fact there was more than enough space to carry it unzipped. >> You see, the nizkooks are still relying upon your ignorance to get >>you to repeat their lies. You do not know enough about configuring a >>domain server to know they are lying to you. > > The people who have been paying me to administer Unix systems (among >other things) for the past fifteen years will no doubt value your expert >opinion on my job performance. Then you are deliberately playing stupid as you know what I am saying is true. > Please, please, shove your foot into your mouth some more. > > Here's an easy one: what is the Unix command that shows you the >mounted disk partitions? Are you trying to say you know nothing about configuring an internet domain? Very good. Now why don't you get to some people who do and verify what I have told you. Or is this going to be a variation of the implying knowing the command for mounting means knowing something about configuring a domain server? BTW: How does "mount" grab you? ("or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes, which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters,") >>Either that or they do >>not know enough about it to know they are speaking nonsense. >> >> (For the curious, one as a matter of basic practice, sets up a >>logical partition for mail on any server so that no harm can be done. >>Of course one is expected know what one is doing before one cries foul >>from its own ignorance.) > > Again, you appear to be saying that if Nizkor was adequately defended >against a bomb (which it was, but how could you know that in advance?) >then your bomb becomes not a bomb. I suppose you would similarly claim >that if I build a building with walls strong enough to withstand a stick >of dynamite, then someone setting off something with the explosive force >of a stick of dynamite outside the building has not really set off a bomb. > What a wonderfully stupid idea. Only a 163 IQ could come up with that >one. But it might work in court at that. Get enough members of the jury >to die laughing and it's a mistrial. You are working so hard to make your case and yet you are merely doing a variation upon "and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid." As you clearly read, I gave both possibilities, either no partition and plenty of space or an adequate protection against a 900+Meg email that was clearly the only size that could have caused a problem. >[snip] I will have check and see what it was you found yourself unable to address. >> So as to the brains of a tree fungus, those appear to be resident >>only in those who complained and in those who have chosen to believe >>those claims. What is claimed to have been a mailbomb can not have >>been even to a dial up customer such as myself. No one knowing what >>they are doing could possibly claim it was a mail bomb. > > So by your standards a criminal who shoots into the chest area of a >cop protected by a Kevlar vest cannot be guilty of attempted murder. >After all, any cop who knows what he is doing should be wearing such a >vest, so a handgun shot into the protected area cannot possibly be a >murder attempt. Yes, the jury will be rolling in the aisles when they >hear that one. > > You are very amusing when you lie through your teeth. My standard is understanding the subject. To make the correct analogy, it is like shooting someone with a rubber band knowing that it is harmless. No matter how foolishly you attempt to focus upon one aspect of your lack of understanding, I have clearly demonstrated that in NEITHER case could there have been any harm. You do need to learn more about domain servers before you chime in with an opinion. >> And please keep in mind that at the time these people were so dumb >>they did not realize that operating their site on a modem phone >>connection would cause slow information transfer. They even thanked >>me for pointing it out. That is how incompetant they were and in >>fact still are. > > No, the problem is that you are too dumb to recognize sarcasm when you >see it, or (more likely) too dishonest to admit it. The modem connection >is all there was money for at the time. Nice try at a recovery there. Too bad they didn't think to claim it was sarcasm at the time. Why don't you go learn something about configuring domain servers and about nizkook central as it was before you chime in again? Regardless, it can't hurt you to learn. -- The First One ===== If history has taught us anything it is that history will be revised. --- Revisionists are sneaky bastards, always relying on facts and figures.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor