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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #58346 > unrolled thread

People posting in my name

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  People posting in my name jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-17 21:28 +0100
    Re: People posting in my name jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-17 21:38 +0100
      Re: People posting in my name jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-03-17 23:14 +0100
    Re: People posting in my name gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-03-17 21:12 +0000
      Re: People posting in my name jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-03-17 22:16 +0100
    Re: People posting in my name Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-17 21:27 +0000
      Re: People posting in my name BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-17 17:22 -0600
    Re: People posting in my name Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-17 15:27 -0700
      Re: People posting in my name Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-17 16:14 -0700
        Re: People posting in my name jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-03-18 00:36 +0100
          Re: People posting in my name glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-18 00:48 +0000
      Re: People posting in my name glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-17 23:35 +0000
      Re: People posting in my name jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-03-18 00:40 +0100
        Re: People posting in my name Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-17 17:19 -0700
          Re: People posting in my name raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-03-21 22:38 +0000
            Re: People posting in my name James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-03-22 18:57 -0400
              Re: People posting in my name Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-22 23:42 +0000
                Re: People posting in my name James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-03-22 20:14 -0400
                  Re: People posting in my name Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-23 12:45 -0700
        Re: People posting in my name James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-03-18 11:26 -0400
      Re: People posting in my name fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-17 18:24 -0700
        Re: People posting in my name Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-18 07:25 +0000
      Re: People posting in my name David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-18 10:20 +0100
        Re: People posting in my name "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-04-01 21:06 +0100
          Re: People posting in my name jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-04-01 23:30 +0200
            Re: People posting in my name James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-01 18:10 -0400
              Re: People posting in my name jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-04-02 21:13 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#58346 — People posting in my name

Two recent posts have been posted with  "jacob navia" in their "Subject" 
line.

I am NOT the one who posted that rubbish.

It is a new level of harassement done by the regulars. Then, they will 
say that I exaggerate, that posting rubbish in my name is just a joke, 
that I should keep my calm, etc.

This has been done by these people since at least 10 years.

jacob

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#58351

Le 17/03/2015 21:28, jacob navia a écrit :
>Two recent posts have been posted with  "jacob navia" in their 
>"Subject" line.
>
>I am NOT the one who posted that rubbish.
>
>It is a new level of harassement done by the regulars. Then, they 
>will say that I exaggerate, that posting rubbish in my name is just a 
>joke, that I should keep my calm, etc.
>
>This has been done by these people since at least 10 years.

It is typical of the regulars in this group that they would try to 
call my ideas rubbish. I have been harassed for 10 years in this group 
and now it is not only me but even my ideas which are harassed.

Please do not confuse the rubbish of this imitator with me, the real 
jacob navia. MY IDEAS ARE NOT A JOKE TO BE MADE FUN OF.

jacob

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58362

Le 17/03/2015 21:38, jacob navia a écrit :
> Le 17/03/2015 21:28, jacob navia a écrit :
>> Two recent posts have been posted with  "jacob navia" in their
>> "Subject" line.
>>
>> I am NOT the one who posted that rubbish.
>>
>> It is a new level of harassement done by the regulars. Then, they will
>> say that I exaggerate, that posting rubbish in my name is just a joke,
>> that I should keep my calm, etc.
>>
>> This has been done by these people since at least 10 years.
>
> It is typical of the regulars in this group that they would try to call
> my ideas rubbish. I have been harassed for 10 years in this group and
> now it is not only me but even my ideas which are harassed.
>
> Please do not confuse the rubbish of this imitator with me, the real
> jacob navia. MY IDEAS ARE NOT A JOKE TO BE MADE FUN OF.
>
> jacob
>
>

This message is also forged.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58354

In article <mea2og$etn$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
jacob navia  <jacob@jspamsink.org> wrote:
>Two recent posts have been posted with  "jacob navia" in their "Subject" 
>line.

I don't see any posts here with "jacob navia" in the "Subject" line.
Are you sure you aren't imagining things?

>I am NOT the one who posted that rubbish.

Even if there were any such article, the fact that your name appears in the
"Subject" line doesn't imply, to anyone with an IQ above room temperature,
that you had *written* them.  The "Subject:" line is not the "From:" line.

-- 
The scent of awk programmers is a lot more attractive to women than
the scent of perl programmers.

      (Mike Brennan, quoted in the "GAWK" manual)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58355

Le 17/03/2015 22:12, Kenny McCormack a écrit :
> In article <mea2og$etn$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
> jacob navia  <jacob@jspamsink.org> wrote:
>> Two recent posts have been posted with  "jacob navia" in their "Subject"
>> line.
>
> I don't see any posts here with "jacob navia" in the "Subject" line.
> Are you sure you aren't imagining things?
>
>> I am NOT the one who posted that rubbish.
>
> Even if there were any such article, the fact that your name appears in the
> "Subject" line doesn't imply, to anyone with an IQ above room temperature,
> that you had *written* them.  The "Subject:" line is not the "From:" line.
>

Yes you are right. It should be From of course. The forged messages are:

New directions in C: Automatic initializers and deinitializers
New directions in C: Standard library input and output

and the message in this thread above yours

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58357

On 17/03/15 20:28, jacob navia wrote:
> Two recent posts have been posted with  "jacob navia" in their "Subject"
> line.
>
> I am NOT the one who posted that rubbish.


My sympathies. It's a stupid, stupid prank, and it's not even remotely 
funny. And yes, it's happened to me, so I know roughly how you're 
feeling right now.

Whoever's doing this - please stop being such a bone-headed moron.

> It is a new level of harassement done by the regulars.

I doubt very much whether it's anyone intelligent, which lets out a good 
few of the regular contributors to this group... but by no means all of 
them, alas.


> Then, they will
> say that I exaggerate, that posting rubbish in my name is just a joke,
> that I should keep my calm, etc.

It's not just a joke. It can actually be quite distressing. But yes, you 
should keep calm and let it go. You've done the important thing already, 
which is to notify us that someone is spoofing you. Those of us who 
actually care about this sort of thing will take note, and be on the 
lookout for future spoofing.

> This has been done by these people since at least 10 years.

Are you sure? I certainly don't recall you ever being spoofed between 
1999 and 2010, and I think I would have remembered something like that.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58366

On 03/17/2015 03:27 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 17/03/15 20:28, jacob navia wrote:
>> Two recent posts have been posted with  "jacob navia" in their "Subject"
>> line.
>>
>> I am NOT the one who posted that rubbish.
>
>
> My sympathies. It's a stupid, stupid prank, and it's not even remotely
> funny. And yes, it's happened to me, so I know roughly how you're
> feeling right now.
>
> Whoever's doing this - please stop being such a bone-headed moron.
>
>> It is a new level of harassement done by the regulars.
>
> I doubt very much whether it's anyone intelligent, which lets out a good
> few of the regular contributors to this group... but by no means all of
> them, alas.
>
>
>> Then, they will
>> say that I exaggerate, that posting rubbish in my name is just a joke,
>> that I should keep my calm, etc.
>
> It's not just a joke. It can actually be quite distressing. But yes, you
> should keep calm and let it go. You've done the important thing already,
> which is to notify us that someone is spoofing you. Those of us who
> actually care about this sort of thing will take note, and be on the
> lookout for future spoofing.
>
>> This has been done by these people since at least 10 years.
>
> Are you sure? I certainly don't recall you ever being spoofed between
> 1999 and 2010, and I think I would have remembered something like that.

What Richard said.  Jacob, I'm only a "regular" in the sense of 
regularly reading this forum, not posting, but I have a hard time 
believing any of the regular contributors is behind this childish attack 
on you.  I'm afraid that your reaction to it may just encourage the 
troll.  Is there any authority to whom you can report the spoofing of 
your name and email?  Surely this is actionable behavior, and the 
culprit should lose their account at the least.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58364

jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> writes:
> Two recent posts have been posted with  "jacob navia" in their
> "Subject" line.
>
> I am NOT the one who posted that rubbish.
>
> It is a new level of harassement

jacob, you have my sympathy, and I condemn the person who posted
these forgeries.  I've had forged articles posted in my name in the
past.  It is quite simply unacceptable behavior, not at all amusing.

I've taken a quick look at the headers from one of the forgeries
and your response (I presume the latter is genuine).  I see
no discrepancies, implying that the forger has made no obvious
mistakes.  The forgery did have "Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit",
vs. "... 7bit" for your response; I don't know whether that's
significant.  It appears that aioe.org doesn't require any kind
of authentication.  You might try contacting them, though I doubt
there's much they can do.

>                                  done by the regulars. Then, they will
> say that I exaggerate, that posting rubbish in my name is just a joke,
> that I should keep my calm, etc.

By the regulars?  Did you have anyone in mind?  You are making a very
serious accusation.  I hope that you have some evidence to back it up.

Since I'm a regular myself, I'll ask you this: Are you accusing me
personally of posting these forgeries?

> This has been done by these people since at least 10 years.

Oh, has someone forged posts in your name before?  I don't remember any
such occurrence before today.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58365

Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
> Someone posting as "jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net>" writes:
[...]
>>                                  done by the regulars. Then, they will
>> say that I exaggerate, that posting rubbish in my name is just a joke,
>> that I should keep my calm, etc.
>
> By the regulars?  Did you have anyone in mind?  You are making a very
> serious accusation.  I hope that you have some evidence to back it up.
[...]

On further thought, it's not at all clear that the message I
responded to was genuine.  I would not be surprised if a forger tried
to make it appear as if jacob were making baseless accusations, and
I can't be sure whether any future responses to this are genuine.
*Somebody* certainly appears to be causing deliberate confusion.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58368

Le 18/03/2015 00:14, Keith Thompson a écrit :
> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
>> Someone posting as "jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net>" writes:
> [...]
>>>                                   done by the regulars. Then, they will
>>> say that I exaggerate, that posting rubbish in my name is just a joke,
>>> that I should keep my calm, etc.
>>
>> By the regulars?  Did you have anyone in mind?  You are making a very
>> serious accusation.  I hope that you have some evidence to back it up.
> [...]
>
> On further thought, it's not at all clear that the message I
> responded to was genuine.  I would not be surprised if a forger tried
> to make it appear as if jacob were making baseless accusations, and
> I can't be sure whether any future responses to this are genuine.
> *Somebody* certainly appears to be causing deliberate confusion.
>

Yes, and we are NOT discussing  C but this confusion. Well done sigh!

They have taken all the headers of some message from me and forged a 
complete header.

The content of the forged messages makes it obvious what they want.

They want me to appear that I am reimplementing C++. The "Automatic 
initializers deinitializers" is just a bad parody of the 
constructors/destructors of C++.

The same with the << operator (the next forged message).

I can prove that since I have NEVER  introduced that into lcc-win, nor 
the other "input/output" nonsense.

There is never any mention of something like that in the documentation 
of lcc-win

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58372

jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote:
> Le 18/03/2015 00:14, Keith Thompson a écrit :
(snip)
>> On further thought, it's not at all clear that the message I
>> responded to was genuine.  I would not be surprised if a forger tried
>> to make it appear as if jacob were making baseless accusations, and
>> I can't be sure whether any future responses to this are genuine.
>> *Somebody* certainly appears to be causing deliberate confusion.
 
> Yes, and we are NOT discussing  C but this confusion. Well done sigh!
 
> They have taken all the headers of some message from me and forged a 
> complete header.
 
> The content of the forged messages makes it obvious what they want.

Most of the time people forge headers, they don't get the time right.

Well, most don't try all that hard, but it is easy to look at the
time on the headers and compare to the time (and date) of the post.

-- glen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58367

Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:

(snip regarding forged posts)

> I've taken a quick look at the headers from one of the forgeries
> and your response (I presume the latter is genuine).  I see
> no discrepancies, implying that the forger has made no obvious
> mistakes.  The forgery did have "Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit",
> vs. "... 7bit" for your response; I don't know whether that's
> significant.  It appears that aioe.org doesn't require any kind
> of authentication.  You might try contacting them, though I doubt
> there's much they can do.

I also looked at the headers, and didn't see much interesting.
It would be nice to have the IP address of the originating host,
but they don't seem to have that. 

Not all, but most mail servers record the IP address of the
source of a message, making it harder to forge mail.

>>                                  done by the regulars. Then, they will
>> say that I exaggerate, that posting rubbish in my name is just a joke,
>> that I should keep my calm, etc.
 
> By the regulars?  Did you have anyone in mind?  You are making a very
> serious accusation.  I hope that you have some evidence to back it up.

I suppose statistically it is more likely. Someone who reads once
a year isn't likely to read at the exact time. Either way, it 
does seem strange.
 
> Since I'm a regular myself, I'll ask you this: Are you accusing me
> personally of posting these forgeries?

-- glen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58369

Le 17/03/2015 23:27, Keith Thompson a écrit :
> Since I'm a regular myself, I'll ask you this: Are you accusing me
> personally of posting these forgeries?

I think the culprit is the same guy who sends the "teapot" messages.

As far as your internet postings is concernd you do not look like 
someone who could do that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58371

jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
> Le 17/03/2015 23:27, Keith Thompson a écrit :
>> Since I'm a regular myself, I'll ask you this: Are you accusing me
>> personally of posting these forgeries?
>
> I think the culprit is the same guy who sends the "teapot" messages.

Plausible, but I see no evidence one way or the other.
Unfortunately, there's no shortage of <insert derogatory term here>
who would do such a thing.  In any case, I would not describe the
"teapot" troll as a regular.

Do you see how referring to this as "harassement done by the
regulars" might be interpreted as an unsubstantiated accusation?

> As far as your internet postings is concernd you do not look like
> someone who could do that.

I hope you meant "would".  8-)}

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58610

Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:

> jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
> > Le 17/03/2015 23:27, Keith Thompson a écrit :
> >> Since I'm a regular myself, I'll ask you this: Are you accusing me
> >> personally of posting these forgeries?
> >
> > I think the culprit is the same guy who sends the "teapot" messages.
> 
> Plausible, but I see no evidence one way or the other.
> Unfortunately, there's no shortage of <insert derogatory term here>
> who would do such a thing.  In any case, I would not describe the
> "teapot" troll as a regular.

I'd describe it as an ex-pseudo-regular; but I'd also describe it as not
clever enough to have pulled this stunt.

> Do you see how referring to this as "harassement done by the
> regulars" might be interpreted as an unsubstantiated accusation?
> 
> > As far as your internet postings is concernd you do not look like
> > someone who could do that.
> 
> I hope you meant "would".  8-)}

I think he means "could, psychologically"; and I hope, and to be clear
trust, that he is right.

Richard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58696

On 03/21/2015 06:38 PM, Richard Bos wrote:
> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
...
>> Plausible, but I see no evidence one way or the other.
>> Unfortunately, there's no shortage of <insert derogatory term here>
>> who would do such a thing.  In any case, I would not describe the
>> "teapot" troll as a regular.
> 
> I'd describe it as an ex-pseudo-regular; but I'd also describe it as not
> clever enough to have pulled this stunt.

On what grounds do you reach that conclusion? It's entirely possible
that he's someone who has previously posted under a different name - but
unless you can prove which name that is, how can you justify identifying
him as having previously been a "pseudo-regular" (whatever that means)?
By the way (and this might be tied into the answer to my first question)
- what does "pseudo-regular" mean? Does it have anything to do with the
regularity with which he posts to the group? It's been made quite clear
that, whatever it is that "regular" means as conventionally used in this
newsgroup, posting regularity has nothing to do with it.
-- 
James Kuyper

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58699

On 22/03/15 22:57, James Kuyper wrote:

<snip>

> It's been made quite clear
> that, whatever it is that "regular" means as conventionally used in this
> newsgroup, posting regularity has nothing to do with it.

In comp.lang.c, the term regular is used in (at least) a couple of 
different ways.

People who understand the word use it to mean "person who post regularly 
in this newsgroup", so posting regularity has /everything/ to do with it.

The other meaning is something along the lines of "person who posts 
stuff that other people unaccountably seem to agree with, heaven knows 
why. I must educate them!". This secondary meaning is used (quite often) 
by those with thinking difficulties.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58703

On 03/22/2015 07:42 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 22/03/15 22:57, James Kuyper wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> It's been made quite clear
>> that, whatever it is that "regular" means as conventionally used in this
>> newsgroup, posting regularity has nothing to do with it.
> 
> In comp.lang.c, the term regular is used in (at least) a couple of 
> different ways.
> 
> People who understand the word use it to mean "person who post regularly 
> in this newsgroup", so posting regularity has /everything/ to do with it.

I would use that term with that meaning, if I had anything to say about
such people as a group. However, I can't think of anything useful to say
about that group - they're too diverse a group to say anything useful
about. As far as I can tell, almost everyone else posting here who would
ordinarily interpret that term with that meaning feels roughly the same
way about it.

As a result, the term is used almost exclusively by people who don't
interpret it that way - they interpret it as referring to a group of
people who do share a fairly large and important set of common
characteristics, which does make it meaningful to talk about the members
of that group. Those people have not, as far as I know, ever provided an
explanation of the defining characteristics of that group.
-- 
James Kuyper

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58781

On Monday, March 23, 2015 at 12:14:59 AM UTC, James Kuyper wrote:
>
> I would use that term with that meaning, if I had anything to say about
> such people as a group. However, I can't think of anything useful to say
> about that group - they're too diverse a group to say anything useful
> about. 
>
It's not meaningful to measure the diversity of a set. Only its
diversity in relation to some other set.
50% of the population is female, for example. Not single reg, with
maybe one marginal case (marginal reg, not marginal female). 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58414

On 03/17/2015 07:40 PM, jacob navia wrote:
> Le 17/03/2015 23:27, Keith Thompson a écrit :
>> Since I'm a regular myself, I'll ask you this: Are you accusing me
>> personally of posting these forgeries?
> 
> I think the culprit is the same guy who sends the "teapot" messages.

The accusation has been made that "teapot" is "obviously" a sock puppet
for one of the "regulars", but to the best of my knowledge, no evidence
has ever been posted in support of that accusation; just slurs against
the honest, sanity, or intelligence of those who don't find it "obvious".
As far as I can tell, the only reason that anyone has ever had for
making that accusation is that they don't like what the "regulars" are
saying, and they don't like what "teapot" is saying, so "obviously"
teapot is one of the "regulars".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web