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

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

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

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

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

#21406 — Blast from the Past! Murphy Comes Out as an Enemy of the First Amendment

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.

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web