On 29 Dec 1996 13:25:56 -0500, [email protected] Michael P.
Stein wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, The First One wrote:
>>On 29 Dec 1996 00:19:13 -0500, [email protected] (Michael P.
>>Stein) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>Matt Giwer ([email protected]) under the name
>>>Doc Tor wrote:
>>>>On 28 Dec 1996 21:25:46 -0500, [email protected] (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.
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: [email protected] (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 protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Host: tpm230038.gte.net
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/16.230
Xref: news2.digex.net alt.usenet.kooks:54391
