Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #21406

Blast from the Past! Murphy Comes Out as an Enemy of the First Amendment

Cross-posted to 5 groups.

Followups directed to: alt.usenet.kooks

Show all headers | View raw

Since Murphy's ko0king out bigtime again in all of these newsgroups, I 
thought it might be worth the bother of reposting my response to one of 
his more outrageous past rants, the one in which he comes out as a 
Stalinist supporter of repression of political speech even as he accuses 
someone of dishonoring veterans who served and died for freedom.

Original Message-IDs: <k1frna$3bt$4@news.albasani.net> for Murphy's 
rant, <k1hdgg$bfk$1@speranza.aioe.org> for my followup. The 
howardknight.net archive has both articles.

On 27/08/2012 11:21 PM, kensi wrote:
> On 27/08/2012 9:12 AM, _kookmeister_ wrote:
>> Steve Crook <steve@mixmin.net> posted as news in
>>    <slrnk34687.f09.steve@snorky.mixmin.net>:
>>> Secondly, posters should be entitled to express opinions on Usenet
>>> without facing
>>> accountability for them in real life.
>>
>> Steve.
>> ...that statement is way too broad for myself to grant you a blanket
>> agreeance from me. i have issues with many uses of ooznet by those
>> who would see the apparent anonymity as a road to carry those
>> "opinions" that if known held, by family and community, would see
>> them either rejected from the  community or restrained. or both.
>> i am sure there is no need to point at the prime specifics.
>
> And Morphy comes out firmly *against* the First Amendment.
>
>> in respect of the current doings of d3rbyshire?
>> despite the mewings of the d3rbyshire socks - which scream whole
>> truckloads of owned guilt -  i am yet to read any "real life"
>> accountability
>> being requested, by anyone bringing d3rbyshire's ooznet activity to
>> light.
>
> Then why do you care what the real, legal, birth-certificate name is of
> the ghost you're chasing, ko0ky? If you disagree with what I say but
> don't feel the desire for me to be subjected to any "real life"
> accountability then you should be satisfied with the name "kensi" and
> not feel the need to try to prove that I'm anyone else than who I say I
> am. Same applies to Phoenix, Nadegda, and everyone else you've harassed
> over the years.
>
>> activity d3rbyshire denies quite specifically by the way...in "real life"
>> form, bLogging.
>
> Maybe you ought to take him at his word, hmm? It's not like there's any
> evidence that he's posting to usenet at all, let alone in these
> particular froups.
>
>> there is the thrust for all postings on the topic, i trust.
>
> Don't get Freudian with me, ko0ky.
>
>> a situation shared by other nsp administrators whose undertaking whilst
>> maybe noble lacked any degree of foresight.  making a connection to
>> ooznet "easy" simply attracts a greater percentage of the lame,
>
> like you? Of course, most can be killfiled by anyone not interested in
> what they write. You, of course, are different: you hold yourself to be
> above the rules, above the law, and apparently even above the
> Constitution, and so you morph constantly and may need to be dealt with
> in another way.
>
>> the very reason isp offerings to ooznet have largely vanished, as "fit
>> for use".
>
> The reasons for that are mainly financial reasons, fuckwit. You know,
> it's amazing how you pretend to be an all-knowning and wise oracle for
> NSP admins on all matters Usenet, whole continuing to display, day by
> day, your profound ignorance on that very same topic.
>
>> fine.
>> the exploit of mixmin.net lies in the poster knowing you (Steve) do not
>> know where they connect from.
>
> That's not an "exploit", you dipshit. An exploit is when an unknowing
> hole in the security of a site allows unauthorized access. Not only is
> "connecting from a Tor exit node" not an "exploit" but rather normal
> TCP/IP end-to-end principle in action, but Steve has expressly
> *permitted* it instead of either ignoring it *or* taking steps to block
> it. It's not an "exploit" anymore than the ability to retrieve a file
> that's been intentionally placed by the admin in a web server's
> public_html directory by sending "GET /path/to/file.html" to that server
> on port 80 is an "exploit".
>
>> why it is it is so important d3rbyshire not have his connection path
>> known
>> to you (alone) is something one could only speculate on.
>
> What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with OS/2,
> ko0ky?
>
>> all that can be said is that this is the single feature that makes maxmin
>
> What is "maxmin", ko0ky, and what does it have to do with OS/2?
>
>> every other aspect, connection handshakes, posting delays,
>> propagation and cross post nuances are all borne with,
>
> I've got news for you. *Every* server, just about, including the
> much-maligned Goggle Gloops, has crosspost restrictions and *every*
> server requires connection handshakes (you really don't know how TCP
> even works, do you?!) and is prone to delays and propagation issues
> occasionally.
>
>> and as i understand it, upheld under testing in Law.
>
> Then lobby to have it changed, ko0ky, instead of pestering us. Just
> don't be surprised if it doesn't go anywhere.
>
>> what i will put is that where a service (wholly) does not provide
>> itself with
>> protection from day01 in having to adjust (majorly) as ooznet finds
>> holes in
>> the operation, then it is plain the operator is not up to speed on
>> ooznet, at all.
>
> First thrusts, and now oozing holes. It's obvious what's *really* on
> your mind. Perhaps if you spent less time screeding on usenet and more
> time out in the real world, you might be able to address that particular
> itch of yours ... though for you it'd probably still cost money.
>
>> there exist a number of services buried deep within datacenters,
>> untouchable,
>> http://www.datacentermap.com/
>> managed remotely these services easily dismiss threats from the lame of
>> the ooznetz.
>
> That doesn't even make sense, ko0ky. Most of what you write is
> understandable, though wrong; whereas the above is ... how shall I put
> it? Not *even* wrong?
>
>> yet any of that is preaching to the informed, you were
>> there, Steve.  <slrnh0r6hd.cdq.steve@news.mixmin.net>
>
> Legal threats by someone else, years ago. How are those relevant in the
> here-and-now? Other than that you just tacitly admitted that phlatArse
> is another of your ex-socks, which we all knew already anyway.
>
>>> I'd like to stress that regardless of my personal interests, I would not
>>> want to suppress right to opinion.
>>
>> as said earlier, there *are* exceptions to such a blanket policy/ethic.
>
> You're not only a kitten killer but a traitor to the Enlightenment and
> to civilization itself. Nice admission, ko0ky.
>
>> shoot me for being the first to "suppress the opinion" of a
>> pathological liar who
>> stoops to the level of association with people who served and died for
>> freedom
>> _only_ to garner some point in an online debate!
>
> You do realize how incredibly ironic it is for you to make that sort of
> remark while simultaneously championing the Stalinist repression of speech?
>
>>> The right to an opinion does not imply the right to harass or attack
>>> real people or their livelihoods, even when verbally attacked
>>> themselves.
>>
>> i am reading there is a typo in that statement.
>
> Wishful thinking on your part, ko0ky. No, he quite clearly said that you
> don't have the right to harass or attack d3rbyshire in the real world
> just because you *think* someone on usenet that flamed you might be him
> in disguise. I know that sticks in your craw, because you'd rather the
> rules didn't apply to you, but that is, nonetheless, exactly what he said.
>
>>> There's also the grey area of posters who insist on degrading the
>>> overall quality of Usenet.
>>
>> by
>
> spamming with a BI over 40, screeding Stalinist rants, morphing so much
> as to acquire the nickname Morphy, attempting to outerfilth people,
> being a hypocrite, and generally acting like you think the rules
> shouldn't apply to you?
>
>> you bet.
>
> Couldn't have put it better myself.
>
>>> I'm still aware of plenty of groups where very constructive
>>> discussion takes place
>>> and long (I hope) may it continue.
>>
>> exactly, and ditto.
>
> Exactly, and bullshit. Where constructive discussion takes place and
> *you* pop up, your posts are invariably disruptive, off-topic trolling
> -- witness your recent 30-post blitzkrieg of rec.arts.tv, in which you
> posted your paranoid beliefs (utterly unrelated to television) in
> replies to 30 separate threads, some of them political blather but some
> of them on topic. And your posts were never on the topic of the thread
> portion you attacked, in any case.
>
> Actions speak louder than words, ko0ky, and yours speak volumes about
> your *real* hopes and intentions.
>
>>> I certainly reserve the right to pull the plug on users of my service
>>> whose
>>> Usenet presence is intended for nothing but disruptive purposes.
>>
>> and so we (tinw) wait...
>
> Don't hold your breath, ko0ky.

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"A clue, a clue. My kingdom for a clue!!!!"                ~Gweggles,
in an uncommon moment of self-awareness.

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Blast from the Past! Murphy Comes Out as an Enemy of the First Amendment kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2013-01-15 00:54 -0500

csiph-web