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

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #559776 > unrolled thread

Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

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

  Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-06-24 05:13 +0000
    Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-06-23 22:34 -0700
    Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-06-24 13:02 +0100
      Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-06-24 21:52 +0100
        Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-03 10:58 +0000
          Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough FromTheRafters <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-07-03 07:26 -0400
      Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-02 00:45 +0000
        Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-01 18:10 -0700
          Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-07-02 08:09 +0100
            Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-02 07:38 +0000
              Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-07-02 08:47 +0100
                Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-02 08:18 +0000
                  Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-07-02 09:33 +0100
                    Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-02 12:12 -0700
                      Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough D. Moen <dmoenfactual4@email.net> - 2020-07-02 15:51 -0400
                      Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-07-02 20:53 +0100
                        Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-02 16:00 -0700
                        Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2020-07-03 08:53 -0300
                      Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-03 10:58 +0000
                        Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-03 09:28 -0700
                          Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-04 23:27 +0000
                            Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-04 17:05 -0700
                              Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-04 17:53 -0700
                              Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-05 05:54 +0000
                                Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-04 23:50 -0700
                              Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough FromTheRafters <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-07-05 06:39 -0400
                                Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-05 03:46 -0700
                                  Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough FromTheRafters <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-07-05 07:36 -0400
                                    Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-05 11:44 +0000
                                      Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough FromTheRafters <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-07-05 07:50 -0400
                                        Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-05 11:53 +0000
            Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-03 10:58 +0000
              Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-03 09:28 -0700
        Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-07-02 14:43 +0100
          Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-02 15:59 -0700
          Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-03 10:58 +0000
            Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2020-07-04 01:08 +0000
              Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-03 18:31 -0700
                Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-04 23:27 +0000
              Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough Jose Soto <emaildumps127.0.1@noemail4me.net> - 2020-07-04 08:23 -0400
              Re: Things Have to Breakdown Before They Breakthrough Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-04 23:27 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#560121

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
news:hm94lgFop1fU2@mid.individual.net Fri, 03 Jul 2020 16:28:32 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: 

> On 7/3/20 3:58 AM, Diesel wrote:
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>> news:hm6psiF9msiU1@mid.individual.net Thu, 02 Jul 2020 19:12:18
>> GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>> 
>>> But it could just be that. Again, I want to be very clear I am
>>> NOT accusing anyone of anything -- but it went through my head
>>> if Diesel can do as he claims he likely COULD do this and it
>>> would be a test to see if the bot was posting. And if he did
>>> this he would likely also do it to Carroll... unless he was
>>> doing it just to be a jerk (AND AGAIN NOT SAYING THAT IS THE
>>> CASE!) 
>> 
>> Yes, Snit, for the record, I could DDOS you completely offline;
>> but why would I waste my shells bandwidth for that...simply
>> getting a new IP resolves it.
> 
> But that would not in any way harm the theoretical test I noted.

A pointless test, if you spent the time to consider it in more 
detail. 

Rest of your projected horseshit snipped, it's not even worth 
discussion.

>> Jesus, dude, you're in way over your fucking head. You should
>> smarten the fuck up, soon, and quit lying on me, before I teach
>> you some things about networking they didn't cover in your IS
>> classes. 
> 
> More efforts on your part to impress me. If only I give in and
> pretend to agree with you THEN, and ONLY THEN, can you show you
> know things you cannot show now.

Alas, you can lead a horse to water, but, short of drowning the 
fucking thing, you cannot make him drink it...Ah well, don't say you 
weren't warned later on.


-- 
You never finish a program, you just stop working on it.

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

#560125

On 7/4/20 4:27 PM, Diesel wrote:
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
> news:hm94lgFop1fU2@mid.individual.net Fri, 03 Jul 2020 16:28:32 GMT
> in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
> 
>> On 7/3/20 3:58 AM, Diesel wrote:
>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>> news:hm6psiF9msiU1@mid.individual.net Thu, 02 Jul 2020 19:12:18
>>> GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>>>
>>>> But it could just be that. Again, I want to be very clear I am
>>>> NOT accusing anyone of anything -- but it went through my head
>>>> if Diesel can do as he claims he likely COULD do this and it
>>>> would be a test to see if the bot was posting. And if he did
>>>> this he would likely also do it to Carroll... unless he was
>>>> doing it just to be a jerk (AND AGAIN NOT SAYING THAT IS THE
>>>> CASE!)
>>>
>>> Yes, Snit, for the record, I could DDOS you completely offline;
>>> but why would I waste my shells bandwidth for that...simply
>>> getting a new IP resolves it.
>>
>> But that would not in any way harm the theoretical test I noted.
> 
> A pointless test, if you spent the time to consider it in more
> detail.

It is not that complex:

1) Take X offline.
2) If bot stops it is evidence coming from X.

If that goes beyond what you can understand then you are not as 
technical as you present yourself.

..


-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

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

#560127

On 7/4/20 5:05 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 7/4/20 4:27 PM, Diesel wrote:
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>> news:hm94lgFop1fU2@mid.individual.net Fri, 03 Jul 2020 16:28:32 GMT
>> in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/3/20 3:58 AM, Diesel wrote:
>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>>> news:hm6psiF9msiU1@mid.individual.net Thu, 02 Jul 2020 19:12:18
>>>> GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But it could just be that. Again, I want to be very clear I am
>>>>> NOT accusing anyone of anything -- but it went through my head
>>>>> if Diesel can do as he claims he likely COULD do this and it
>>>>> would be a test to see if the bot was posting. And if he did
>>>>> this he would likely also do it to Carroll... unless he was
>>>>> doing it just to be a jerk (AND AGAIN NOT SAYING THAT IS THE
>>>>> CASE!)
>>>>
>>>> Yes, Snit, for the record, I could DDOS you completely offline;
>>>> but why would I waste my shells bandwidth for that...simply
>>>> getting a new IP resolves it.
>>>
>>> But that would not in any way harm the theoretical test I noted.
>>
>> A pointless test, if you spent the time to consider it in more
>> detail.
> 
> It is not that complex:
> 
> 1) Take X offline.
> 2) If bot stops it is evidence coming from X.
> 
> If that goes beyond what you can understand then you are not as 
> technical as you present yourself.

Before your issues with reading comprehension get the better of you, 
again, I do want to be clear I am not suggesting you do this. That would 
be an illegal attack. I do not support that, even against Carroll. I am 
noting the TECHNICAL side, not the MORAL, above. I thought there was a 
CHANCE you were doing this against me (though it was mere speculation 
and not an accusation, and given how things resolved it seems unlikely 
you or anyone else was doing anything of the sort).



-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

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

#560135

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> news:hmcjr7FgdcgU1
@mid.individual.net Sun, 05 Jul 2020 00:05:58 GMT in 
alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

[snip]

I wrote:


>> A pointless test, if you spent the time to consider it in more
>> detail.

You responded with:

> It is not that complex:
> 
> 1) Take X offline.
> 2) If bot stops it is evidence coming from X.

When I wrote consider it in more detail, I actually meant it.

I believe this covers your reply to my statement:
Message-ID: <r35t5k$q6a$1@gioia.aioe.org>

10. Lies by reversing implication, e.g., "Firetrucks are red,
this apple is red, therefore this apple is a firetruck."

 
> If that goes beyond what you can understand then you are not as 
> technical as you present yourself.

As I said, it's a pointless test. Here's one of many reasons why for 
you to consider, Snit:
When would I know whether you/carroll is actually posting to usenet 
to conduct the test? What would you have me do, Snit? Ask each of you 
when I can expect to see you posting? rofl.


-- 
When you come to a fork in the road, take it!

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

#560141

On 7/4/20 10:54 PM, Diesel wrote:
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> news:hmcjr7FgdcgU1
> @mid.individual.net Sun, 05 Jul 2020 00:05:58 GMT in
> alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> I wrote:
> 
> 
>>> A pointless test, if you spent the time to consider it in more
>>> detail.
> 
> You responded with:
> 
>> It is not that complex:
>>
>> 1) Take X offline.
>> 2) If bot stops it is evidence coming from X.
> 
> When I wrote consider it in more detail, I actually meant it.

But you still have not shown you understand how such a test, as immoral 
as it is and as much as I do not encourage you to actually do this to 
Carroll (or anyone else), would give evidence.

As I said: the fact you claim to be so amazingly clever with tech but 
cannot see it is quite telling.


> I believe this covers your reply to my statement:
> Message-ID: <r35t5k$q6a$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> 
> 10. Lies by reversing implication, e.g., "Firetrucks are red,
> this apple is red, therefore this apple is a firetruck."
> 
>   
>> If that goes beyond what you can understand then you are not as
>> technical as you present yourself.
> 
> As I said, it's a pointless test.

I accept you cannot understand the point. Sure. That was, in fact, what 
I was noting.

> Here's one of many reasons why for
> you to consider, Snit:
> When would I know whether you/carroll is actually posting to usenet
> to conduct the test? What would you have me do, Snit? Ask each of you
> when I can expect to see you posting? rofl.

Letting it be known when you were doing this would be contrary to the 
goal and invalidate the test.

Really, you just can’t understand even the basics of what is being said. 
Amazing.


-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

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

#560153

Snit wrote on 7/4/2020 :
> On 7/4/20 4:27 PM, Diesel wrote:
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>> news:hm94lgFop1fU2@mid.individual.net Fri, 03 Jul 2020 16:28:32 GMT
>> in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>> 
>>> On 7/3/20 3:58 AM, Diesel wrote:
>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>>> news:hm6psiF9msiU1@mid.individual.net Thu, 02 Jul 2020 19:12:18
>>>> GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But it could just be that. Again, I want to be very clear I am
>>>>> NOT accusing anyone of anything -- but it went through my head
>>>>> if Diesel can do as he claims he likely COULD do this and it
>>>>> would be a test to see if the bot was posting. And if he did
>>>>> this he would likely also do it to Carroll... unless he was
>>>>> doing it just to be a jerk (AND AGAIN NOT SAYING THAT IS THE
>>>>> CASE!)
>>>>
>>>> Yes, Snit, for the record, I could DDOS you completely offline;
>>>> but why would I waste my shells bandwidth for that...simply
>>>> getting a new IP resolves it.
>>>
>>> But that would not in any way harm the theoretical test I noted.
>> 
>> A pointless test, if you spent the time to consider it in more
>> detail.
>
> It is not that complex:
>
> 1) Take X offline.
> 2) If bot stops it is evidence coming from X.
>
> If that goes beyond what you can understand then you are not as technical as 
> you present yourself.
>
> ..

Actually, if I were the botmaster and you were the target of such an 
attack, I could stop the bot during that time to implicate you in the 
eyes of the attacker.

If SC went on vacation, you could stop the bot for that time and 
attempt to use the bot's stopping as 'evidence' SC was behind it.

It doesn't really take any deep technical understanding to realize this 
denial of service tactic is problematic.

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

#560154

On 7/5/20 3:39 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:
> Snit wrote on 7/4/2020 :
>> On 7/4/20 4:27 PM, Diesel wrote:
>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>> news:hm94lgFop1fU2@mid.individual.net Fri, 03 Jul 2020 16:28:32 GMT
>>> in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/3/20 3:58 AM, Diesel wrote:
>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>>>> news:hm6psiF9msiU1@mid.individual.net Thu, 02 Jul 2020 19:12:18
>>>>> GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> But it could just be that. Again, I want to be very clear I am
>>>>>> NOT accusing anyone of anything -- but it went through my head
>>>>>> if Diesel can do as he claims he likely COULD do this and it
>>>>>> would be a test to see if the bot was posting. And if he did
>>>>>> this he would likely also do it to Carroll... unless he was
>>>>>> doing it just to be a jerk (AND AGAIN NOT SAYING THAT IS THE
>>>>>> CASE!)
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, Snit, for the record, I could DDOS you completely offline;
>>>>> but why would I waste my shells bandwidth for that...simply
>>>>> getting a new IP resolves it.
>>>>
>>>> But that would not in any way harm the theoretical test I noted.
>>>
>>> A pointless test, if you spent the time to consider it in more
>>> detail.
>>
>> It is not that complex:
>>
>> 1) Take X offline.
>> 2) If bot stops it is evidence coming from X.
>>
>> If that goes beyond what you can understand then you are not as 
>> technical as you present yourself.
>>
>> ..
> 
> Actually, if I were the botmaster and you were the target of such an 
> attack, I could stop the bot during that time to implicate you in the 
> eyes of the attacker.

Sure. If you were running the bot AND the one doing the test. Presumably 
Diesel is not the one running the bot, but he is the one I spoke of 
THEORETICALLY doing the test. Same could be said of you. I think we can 
confidently exclude you from the suspect list. At the very least you can 
exclude it from your own list.

Again, not saying you SHOULD do this, or that Diesel should, or anyone 
else, but if they were to to take down someone's 'net access as the bot 
is running and the bot were to stop then that would be evidence against 
that person. That is really all I noted.

> If SC went on vacation, you could stop the bot for that time and attempt 
> to use the bot's stopping as 'evidence' SC was behind it.

If I knew he was on vacation, sure.

But who else would know when he was going to start and stop posting, 
down to the minute, as the person running the bot SEEMED to, at least at 
times?

> It doesn't really take any deep technical understanding to realize this 
> denial of service tactic is problematic.

It is pretty clear it would offer evidence. Say I thought it was you (I 
do not). I could (theoretically) wait for the bot to start one of its 
runs... then take down your access. If the bot stopped it would be more 
evidence against you.


-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

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

#560156

Snit used his or her keyboard to write :
> On 7/5/20 3:39 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>> Snit wrote on 7/4/2020 :
>>> On 7/4/20 4:27 PM, Diesel wrote:
>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>>> news:hm94lgFop1fU2@mid.individual.net Fri, 03 Jul 2020 16:28:32 GMT
>>>> in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/3/20 3:58 AM, Diesel wrote:
>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>>>>> news:hm6psiF9msiU1@mid.individual.net Thu, 02 Jul 2020 19:12:18
>>>>>> GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But it could just be that. Again, I want to be very clear I am
>>>>>>> NOT accusing anyone of anything -- but it went through my head
>>>>>>> if Diesel can do as he claims he likely COULD do this and it
>>>>>>> would be a test to see if the bot was posting. And if he did
>>>>>>> this he would likely also do it to Carroll... unless he was
>>>>>>> doing it just to be a jerk (AND AGAIN NOT SAYING THAT IS THE
>>>>>>> CASE!)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, Snit, for the record, I could DDOS you completely offline;
>>>>>> but why would I waste my shells bandwidth for that...simply
>>>>>> getting a new IP resolves it.
>>>>>
>>>>> But that would not in any way harm the theoretical test I noted.
>>>>
>>>> A pointless test, if you spent the time to consider it in more
>>>> detail.
>>>
>>> It is not that complex:
>>>
>>> 1) Take X offline.
>>> 2) If bot stops it is evidence coming from X.
>>>
>>> If that goes beyond what you can understand then you are not as technical 
>>> as you present yourself.
>>>
>>> ..
>> 
>> Actually, if I were the botmaster and you were the target of such an 
>> attack, I could stop the bot during that time to implicate you in the eyes 
>> of the attacker.
>
> Sure. If you were running the bot AND the one doing the test. Presumably 
> Diesel is not the one running the bot, but he is the one I spoke of 
> THEORETICALLY doing the test. Same could be said of you. I think we can 
> confidently exclude you from the suspect list. At the very least you can 
> exclude it from your own list.
>
> Again, not saying you SHOULD do this, or that Diesel should, or anyone else, 
> but if they were to to take down someone's 'net access as the bot is running 
> and the bot were to stop then that would be evidence against that person. 
> That is really all I noted.
>
>> If SC went on vacation, you could stop the bot for that time and attempt to 
>> use the bot's stopping as 'evidence' SC was behind it.
>
> If I knew he was on vacation, sure.
>
> But who else would know when he was going to start and stop posting, down to 
> the minute, as the person running the bot SEEMED to, at least at times?
>
>> It doesn't really take any deep technical understanding to realize this 
>> denial of service tactic is problematic.
>
> It is pretty clear it would offer evidence. Say I thought it was you (I do 
> not). I could (theoretically) wait for the bot to start one of its runs... 
> then take down your access. If the bot stopped it would be more evidence 
> against you.

Yes, I suppose if one could time it just right the bot posting 
interruption could be the output event which confirms the attack had an 
effect. I say it is problematic because all one needs is another 
internet provider for bot access to the Google account.

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

#560157

FromTheRafters <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> Snit used his or her keyboard to write :
>> On 7/5/20 3:39 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>> Snit wrote on 7/4/2020 :
>>>> On 7/4/20 4:27 PM, Diesel wrote:
>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>>>> news:hm94lgFop1fU2@mid.individual.net Fri, 03 Jul 2020 16:28:32 GMT
>>>>> in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 7/3/20 3:58 AM, Diesel wrote:
>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>>>>>> news:hm6psiF9msiU1@mid.individual.net Thu, 02 Jul 2020 19:12:18
>>>>>>> GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> But it could just be that. Again, I want to be very clear I am
>>>>>>>> NOT accusing anyone of anything -- but it went through my head
>>>>>>>> if Diesel can do as he claims he likely COULD do this and it
>>>>>>>> would be a test to see if the bot was posting. And if he did
>>>>>>>> this he would likely also do it to Carroll... unless he was
>>>>>>>> doing it just to be a jerk (AND AGAIN NOT SAYING THAT IS THE
>>>>>>>> CASE!)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Yes, Snit, for the record, I could DDOS you completely offline;
>>>>>>> but why would I waste my shells bandwidth for that...simply
>>>>>>> getting a new IP resolves it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> But that would not in any way harm the theoretical test I noted.
>>>>> 
>>>>> A pointless test, if you spent the time to consider it in more
>>>>> detail.
>>>> 
>>>> It is not that complex:
>>>> 
>>>> 1) Take X offline.
>>>> 2) If bot stops it is evidence coming from X.
>>>> 
>>>> If that goes beyond what you can understand then you are not as technical 
>>>> as you present yourself.
>>>> 
>>>> ..
>>> 
>>> Actually, if I were the botmaster and you were the target of such an 
>>> attack, I could stop the bot during that time to implicate you in the eyes 
>>> of the attacker.
>> 
>> Sure. If you were running the bot AND the one doing the test. Presumably 
>> Diesel is not the one running the bot, but he is the one I spoke of 
>> THEORETICALLY doing the test. Same could be said of you. I think we can 
>> confidently exclude you from the suspect list. At the very least you can 
>> exclude it from your own list.
>> 
>> Again, not saying you SHOULD do this, or that Diesel should, or anyone else, 
>> but if they were to to take down someone's 'net access as the bot is running 
>> and the bot were to stop then that would be evidence against that person. 
>> That is really all I noted.
>> 
>>> If SC went on vacation, you could stop the bot for that time and attempt to 
>>> use the bot's stopping as 'evidence' SC was behind it.
>> 
>> If I knew he was on vacation, sure.
>> 
>> But who else would know when he was going to start and stop posting, down to 
>> the minute, as the person running the bot SEEMED to, at least at times?
>> 
>>> It doesn't really take any deep technical understanding to realize this 
>>> denial of service tactic is problematic.
>> 
>> It is pretty clear it would offer evidence. Say I thought it was you (I do 
>> not). I could (theoretically) wait for the bot to start one of its runs... 
>> then take down your access. If the bot stopped it would be more evidence 
>> against you.
> 
> Yes, I suppose if one could time it just right the bot posting 
> interruption could be the output event which confirms the attack had an 
> effect. I say it is problematic because all one needs is another 
> internet provider for bot access to the Google account.
> 

Sure. And the bot might even be set Togo to a second connection if the
first dies. Heck, if it was not before it might now. 

Even if it did work it would be suggestive — evidence but not proof. 

And I still would not approve of doing this to anyone, even if it offered
stronger support. 

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks
and ignore the message time and time again.

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

#560159

Snit has brought this to us :
> FromTheRafters <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>> Snit used his or her keyboard to write :
>>> On 7/5/20 3:39 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>> Snit wrote on 7/4/2020 :
>>>>> On 7/4/20 4:27 PM, Diesel wrote:
>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>>>>> news:hm94lgFop1fU2@mid.individual.net Fri, 03 Jul 2020 16:28:32 GMT
>>>>>> in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 7/3/20 3:58 AM, Diesel wrote:
>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>>>>>>> news:hm6psiF9msiU1@mid.individual.net Thu, 02 Jul 2020 19:12:18
>>>>>>>> GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> But it could just be that. Again, I want to be very clear I am
>>>>>>>>> NOT accusing anyone of anything -- but it went through my head
>>>>>>>>> if Diesel can do as he claims he likely COULD do this and it
>>>>>>>>> would be a test to see if the bot was posting. And if he did
>>>>>>>>> this he would likely also do it to Carroll... unless he was
>>>>>>>>> doing it just to be a jerk (AND AGAIN NOT SAYING THAT IS THE
>>>>>>>>> CASE!)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Yes, Snit, for the record, I could DDOS you completely offline;
>>>>>>>> but why would I waste my shells bandwidth for that...simply
>>>>>>>> getting a new IP resolves it.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> But that would not in any way harm the theoretical test I noted.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A pointless test, if you spent the time to consider it in more
>>>>>> detail.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It is not that complex:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1) Take X offline.
>>>>> 2) If bot stops it is evidence coming from X.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If that goes beyond what you can understand then you are not as technical 
>>>>> as you present yourself.
>>>>> 
>>>>> ..
>>>> 
>>>> Actually, if I were the botmaster and you were the target of such an 
>>>> attack, I could stop the bot during that time to implicate you in the eyes 
>>>> of the attacker.
>>> 
>>> Sure. If you were running the bot AND the one doing the test. Presumably 
>>> Diesel is not the one running the bot, but he is the one I spoke of 
>>> THEORETICALLY doing the test. Same could be said of you. I think we can 
>>> confidently exclude you from the suspect list. At the very least you can 
>>> exclude it from your own list.
>>> 
>>> Again, not saying you SHOULD do this, or that Diesel should, or anyone 
>>> else,  but if they were to to take down someone's 'net access as the bot is 
>>> running  and the bot were to stop then that would be evidence against that 
>>> person.  That is really all I noted.
>>> 
>>>> If SC went on vacation, you could stop the bot for that time and attempt 
>>>> to  use the bot's stopping as 'evidence' SC was behind it.
>>> 
>>> If I knew he was on vacation, sure.
>>> 
>>> But who else would know when he was going to start and stop posting, down 
>>> to  the minute, as the person running the bot SEEMED to, at least at times?
>>> 
>>>> It doesn't really take any deep technical understanding to realize this 
>>>> denial of service tactic is problematic.
>>> 
>>> It is pretty clear it would offer evidence. Say I thought it was you (I do 
>>> not). I could (theoretically) wait for the bot to start one of its runs... 
>>> then take down your access. If the bot stopped it would be more evidence 
>>> against you.
>> 
>> Yes, I suppose if one could time it just right the bot posting 
>> interruption could be the output event which confirms the attack had an 
>> effect. I say it is problematic because all one needs is another 
>> internet provider for bot access to the Google account.
>> 
>
> Sure. And the bot might even be set Togo to a second connection if the
> first dies. Heck, if it was not before it might now. 
>
> Even if it did work it would be suggestive — evidence but not proof. 
>
> And I still would not approve of doing this to anyone, even if it offered
> stronger support. 

It is illegal without expressed permission.

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

#560160

FromTheRafters <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> Snit has brought this to us :
>> FromTheRafters <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>> Snit used his or her keyboard to write :
>>>> On 7/5/20 3:39 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>> Snit wrote on 7/4/2020 :
>>>>>> On 7/4/20 4:27 PM, Diesel wrote:
>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>>>>>> news:hm94lgFop1fU2@mid.individual.net Fri, 03 Jul 2020 16:28:32 GMT
>>>>>>> in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 7/3/20 3:58 AM, Diesel wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>>>>>>>> news:hm6psiF9msiU1@mid.individual.net Thu, 02 Jul 2020 19:12:18
>>>>>>>>> GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> But it could just be that. Again, I want to be very clear I am
>>>>>>>>>> NOT accusing anyone of anything -- but it went through my head
>>>>>>>>>> if Diesel can do as he claims he likely COULD do this and it
>>>>>>>>>> would be a test to see if the bot was posting. And if he did
>>>>>>>>>> this he would likely also do it to Carroll... unless he was
>>>>>>>>>> doing it just to be a jerk (AND AGAIN NOT SAYING THAT IS THE
>>>>>>>>>> CASE!)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Yes, Snit, for the record, I could DDOS you completely offline;
>>>>>>>>> but why would I waste my shells bandwidth for that...simply
>>>>>>>>> getting a new IP resolves it.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> But that would not in any way harm the theoretical test I noted.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> A pointless test, if you spent the time to consider it in more
>>>>>>> detail.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It is not that complex:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1) Take X offline.
>>>>>> 2) If bot stops it is evidence coming from X.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If that goes beyond what you can understand then you are not as technical 
>>>>>> as you present yourself.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ..
>>>>> 
>>>>> Actually, if I were the botmaster and you were the target of such an 
>>>>> attack, I could stop the bot during that time to implicate you in the eyes 
>>>>> of the attacker.
>>>> 
>>>> Sure. If you were running the bot AND the one doing the test. Presumably 
>>>> Diesel is not the one running the bot, but he is the one I spoke of 
>>>> THEORETICALLY doing the test. Same could be said of you. I think we can 
>>>> confidently exclude you from the suspect list. At the very least you can 
>>>> exclude it from your own list.
>>>> 
>>>> Again, not saying you SHOULD do this, or that Diesel should, or anyone 
>>>> else,  but if they were to to take down someone's 'net access as the bot is 
>>>> running  and the bot were to stop then that would be evidence against that 
>>>> person.  That is really all I noted.
>>>> 
>>>>> If SC went on vacation, you could stop the bot for that time and attempt 
>>>>> to  use the bot's stopping as 'evidence' SC was behind it.
>>>> 
>>>> If I knew he was on vacation, sure.
>>>> 
>>>> But who else would know when he was going to start and stop posting, down 
>>>> to  the minute, as the person running the bot SEEMED to, at least at times?
>>>> 
>>>>> It doesn't really take any deep technical understanding to realize this 
>>>>> denial of service tactic is problematic.
>>>> 
>>>> It is pretty clear it would offer evidence. Say I thought it was you (I do 
>>>> not). I could (theoretically) wait for the bot to start one of its runs... 
>>>> then take down your access. If the bot stopped it would be more evidence 
>>>> against you.
>>> 
>>> Yes, I suppose if one could time it just right the bot posting 
>>> interruption could be the output event which confirms the attack had an 
>>> effect. I say it is problematic because all one needs is another 
>>> internet provider for bot access to the Google account.
>>> 
>> 
>> Sure. And the bot might even be set Togo to a second connection if the
>> first dies. Heck, if it was not before it might now. 
>> 
>> Even if it did work it would be suggestive — evidence but not proof. 
>> 
>> And I still would not approve of doing this to anyone, even if it offered
>> stronger support. 
> 
> It is illegal without expressed permission.
> 

Illegal and immoral. 

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks
and ignore the message time and time again.

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

#560082

David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org>
news:0LfLG.202799$Og6.39693@fx01.ams1 Thu, 02 Jul 2020 07:09:47 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: 

> On 02/07/2020 02:10, Snit wrote:
>> On 7/1/20 5:45 PM, Diesel wrote:
>>> David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org>
>>> news:ThHIG.67536$iXb1.4658@fx03.ams1 Wed, 24 Jun 2020 12:02:58
>>> GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 24/06/2020 06:13, Diesel wrote:
>>>>> David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org>
>>>>> news:37pIG.67387$iXb1.29833@fx03.ams1 Tue, 23 Jun 2020
>>>>> 15:22:38 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 23/06/2020 10:34, Diesel wrote:
>>>>>>> He took something I wrote, entirely out context, didn't
>>>>>>> bother to understand nay a word of it; see where I wrote
>>>>>>> 'something' and 'program' later? I was writing in a general
>>>>>>> sense! Your friend either didn't realize that (how could you
>>>>>>> not?) or does, and still tried to use it to backup their BS
>>>>>>> story! 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Show me a post where I clarified I only had the compiled
>>>>>>> code after "being called out" for it, David. I can't seem to
>>>>>>> find any.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seriously, you want my help with the bot? Want me to work
>>>>>>> with others, instead of solo and share info, etc? I want
>>>>>>> something from you, then. A show of honesty, a good gesture
>>>>>>> on your part, for old times, then.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't cover for your friend, Snit. Call him out for lying
>>>>>>> about me. You *cannot*  claim what he wrote isn't exactly
>>>>>>> what I'm writing that it is, David.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd like to bang both of your heads together! :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> :) You have no idea how much I'd like the ability to have
>>>>> :physical
>>>>> contact with you for a few moments.  Oh the discussion we'd
>>>>> have. rofl.
>>>>
>>>> I think you mean that you'd like to beat me - like your parents
>>>> did to you as a child?
>>>
>>> David, I won't deny the thought has crossed my mind on several
>>> occasions; what I'd do if I ever met you in person. Sure. That
>>> being said, I always found myself coming back to the reasonable
>>> decision; the only reasonable decision, talk to you, try to
>>> explain things to you in person. I think alot of our initial
>>> problem stemmed from a misunderstanding, or a series of them.
>> 
>> The same is true with you and I. We had some misunderstandings.
>> 
>> I want to move forward in peace.
> 
> Me too.
> 
>> To you it is of paramount importance that I "admit", whether I
>> agree or not, to your view of things. And since I do not agree
>> this means you need to me to lie. When this is pointed out you go
>> back to you merely need me to agree to your view. Which is what I
>> keep saying. 
>> 
>> You have a story you tell yourself about how you are some amazing
>> hero... and key to your story is you need a villain. A capable
>> and worthy villain. In that way you flatter David and I by
>> selecting us as the villains in your personal story, but it is
>> not a role I want, nor one I think David wants.
>> 
>> Why not just move forward? OK, we disagreed in the past. We each
>> think the other was wrong, even dishonest. So? It is not like I
>> am asking you to marry me -- I merely want civility.
> 
>:-D
> 
>> I have asked repeatedly -- but you so far have not accepted that
>> as a possibility.
>> 
>> Do you know what it would take for you to grow to the point you
>> could? If so perhaps I can help you get there (or not -- I
>> certainly make no promises).
> 
> It really is most kind of you to offer to help Diesel.
> 
> I'm not too good at following the long discourses you two have
> 'enjoyed' but I did think that Diesel was going to determine who
> was making the flood posts. I never thought he was responsible in
> any way for /making/ such posts. I don't think YOU thought so
> either. 

David, snit did think I was at one point:

http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100

Diesel made it clear he had access not just to the output of the bot
but to the code itself. When called out on this he clarified it was
merely the compiled code he had: 

<XnsAB6E44E6AFE1AHT1@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
     -----
     Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
     provided the original source code that was
     compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
     given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
     still tells you *everything* about the program.
     -----

So how did Diesel get a copy of the program, compiled or not? My
guess: he will NEVER say. 

*** end 

I already know you're a dishonest shady fucker, so it's no real 
surprise to see you turn a blind eye to Snit.



-- 
I go fishing; I catch nothing.  I go to orgies; I catch everything.

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

#560087

On 7/3/20 3:58 AM, Diesel wrote:
> David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org>
> news:0LfLG.202799$Og6.39693@fx01.ams1 Thu, 02 Jul 2020 07:09:47 GMT
> in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
> 
>> On 02/07/2020 02:10, Snit wrote:
>>> On 7/1/20 5:45 PM, Diesel wrote:
>>>> David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org>
>>>> news:ThHIG.67536$iXb1.4658@fx03.ams1 Wed, 24 Jun 2020 12:02:58
>>>> GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 24/06/2020 06:13, Diesel wrote:
>>>>>> David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org>
>>>>>> news:37pIG.67387$iXb1.29833@fx03.ams1 Tue, 23 Jun 2020
>>>>>> 15:22:38 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 23/06/2020 10:34, Diesel wrote:
>>>>>>>> He took something I wrote, entirely out context, didn't
>>>>>>>> bother to understand nay a word of it; see where I wrote
>>>>>>>> 'something' and 'program' later? I was writing in a general
>>>>>>>> sense! Your friend either didn't realize that (how could you
>>>>>>>> not?) or does, and still tried to use it to backup their BS
>>>>>>>> story!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Show me a post where I clarified I only had the compiled
>>>>>>>> code after "being called out" for it, David. I can't seem to
>>>>>>>> find any.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Seriously, you want my help with the bot? Want me to work
>>>>>>>> with others, instead of solo and share info, etc? I want
>>>>>>>> something from you, then. A show of honesty, a good gesture
>>>>>>>> on your part, for old times, then.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don't cover for your friend, Snit. Call him out for lying
>>>>>>>> about me. You *cannot*  claim what he wrote isn't exactly
>>>>>>>> what I'm writing that it is, David.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd like to bang both of your heads together! :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> :) You have no idea how much I'd like the ability to have
>>>>>> :physical
>>>>>> contact with you for a few moments.  Oh the discussion we'd
>>>>>> have. rofl.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you mean that you'd like to beat me - like your parents
>>>>> did to you as a child?
>>>>
>>>> David, I won't deny the thought has crossed my mind on several
>>>> occasions; what I'd do if I ever met you in person. Sure. That
>>>> being said, I always found myself coming back to the reasonable
>>>> decision; the only reasonable decision, talk to you, try to
>>>> explain things to you in person. I think alot of our initial
>>>> problem stemmed from a misunderstanding, or a series of them.
>>>
>>> The same is true with you and I. We had some misunderstandings.
>>>
>>> I want to move forward in peace.
>>
>> Me too.
>>
>>> To you it is of paramount importance that I "admit", whether I
>>> agree or not, to your view of things. And since I do not agree
>>> this means you need to me to lie. When this is pointed out you go
>>> back to you merely need me to agree to your view. Which is what I
>>> keep saying.
>>>
>>> You have a story you tell yourself about how you are some amazing
>>> hero... and key to your story is you need a villain. A capable
>>> and worthy villain. In that way you flatter David and I by
>>> selecting us as the villains in your personal story, but it is
>>> not a role I want, nor one I think David wants.
>>>
>>> Why not just move forward? OK, we disagreed in the past. We each
>>> think the other was wrong, even dishonest. So? It is not like I
>>> am asking you to marry me -- I merely want civility.
>>
>> :-D
>>
>>> I have asked repeatedly -- but you so far have not accepted that
>>> as a possibility.
>>>
>>> Do you know what it would take for you to grow to the point you
>>> could? If so perhaps I can help you get there (or not -- I
>>> certainly make no promises).
>>
>> It really is most kind of you to offer to help Diesel.
>>
>> I'm not too good at following the long discourses you two have
>> 'enjoyed' but I did think that Diesel was going to determine who
>> was making the flood posts. I never thought he was responsible in
>> any way for /making/ such posts. I don't think YOU thought so
>> either.
> 
> David, snit did think I was at one point:
> 
> http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100
> 
> Diesel made it clear he had access not just to the output of the bot
> but to the code itself. When called out on this he clarified it was
> merely the compiled code he had:
> 
> <XnsAB6E44E6AFE1AHT1@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
>       -----
>       Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
>       provided the original source code that was
>       compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
>       given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
>       still tells you *everything* about the program.
>       -----
> 
> So how did Diesel get a copy of the program, compiled or not? My
> guess: he will NEVER say.
> 
> *** end
> 
> I already know you're a dishonest shady fucker, so it's no real
> surprise to see you turn a blind eye to Snit.
> 
> 
> 

You really are bent out of shape over how you responded to this:

   <hbjcp6F4eckU1@mid.individual.net>
     -----
     I will grant that it seems like an obvious "next step" to
     have the bot break apart sentences and respond to
     keywords, but that is more my thing that Carroll's (I do
     it with my chat bot). So if I were to make such a bot,
     yes, I would want it to do that... but does Carroll even
     want it to? I think the main purpose is Google seeding...
     and it does that well.

     Without knowing more of the purpose we cannot say if the
     output shows the code to be good or not. One has to see
     the code to know that.
     -----

I am CLEARLY speaking about Carroll's Usenet flood bot. And you respond 
with (in part):

   <XnsAB6E44E6AFE1AHT1@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
     -----
     Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
     provided the original source code that was
     compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
     given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
     still tells you *everything* about the program.
     -----

Amazing how obsessed you are over that.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

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

#560059

On 02/07/2020 01:45, Diesel wrote:
> David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org>
> news:ThHIG.67536$iXb1.4658@fx03.ams1 Wed, 24 Jun 2020 12:02:58 GMT
> in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
> 
>> On 24/06/2020 06:13, Diesel wrote:
>>> David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org>
>>> news:37pIG.67387$iXb1.29833@fx03.ams1 Tue, 23 Jun 2020 15:22:38
>>> GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 23/06/2020 10:34, Diesel wrote:
>>>>> He took something I wrote, entirely out context, didn't bother
>>>>> to understand nay a word of it; see where I wrote 'something'
>>>>> and 'program' later? I was writing in a general sense! Your
>>>>> friend either didn't realize that (how could you not?) or does,
>>>>> and still tried to use it to backup their BS story!
>>>>>
>>>>> Show me a post where I clarified I only had the compiled code
>>>>> after "being called out" for it, David. I can't seem to find
>>>>> any.
>>>>>
>>>>> Seriously, you want my help with the bot? Want me to work with
>>>>> others, instead of solo and share info, etc? I want something
>>>>> from you, then. A show of honesty, a good gesture on your part,
>>>>> for old times, then.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't cover for your friend, Snit. Call him out for lying about
>>>>> me. You *cannot*  claim what he wrote isn't exactly what I'm
>>>>> writing that it is, David.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to bang both of your heads together! :-)
>>>
>>> :) You have no idea how much I'd like the ability to have
>>> :physical
>>> contact with you for a few moments.  Oh the discussion we'd have.
>>> rofl.
>>
>> I think you mean that you'd like to beat me - like your parents
>> did to you as a child?
> 
> David, I won't deny the thought has crossed my mind on several
> occasions; what I'd do if I ever met you in person. Sure. That being
> said, I always found myself coming back to the reasonable decision; the
> only reasonable decision, talk to you, try to explain things to you in
> person. I think alot of our initial problem stemmed from a
> misunderstanding, or a series of them. That and well, despite having a
> love of certain shows I know are made in Britain - The humour I very
> much like, I don't understand how you think nor do I have a firm
> understanding of some of your british or, old english phrases. And this
> is coming from a DrWho fan who's favorite Dr was the one with the long
> scarf and K-9.

I always loved K-9

https://www.radiotimes.com/news/2013-11-22/doctor-who-a-guide-to-the-first-11-doctors/

>> I'd like you to clarify for the folk now reading this group that
>> it was NOT me who published your name and address in Usenet. I've
>> no doubt you kept details of the culprit.
> 
> I didn't accuse you of that with the initial post which caused a major
> issue between us. But, in case anyone has doubts, I will clarify that
> you didn't publish the original address to usenet. You took said
> published address, converted it to a gsv and posted the resulting url
> to usenet, some into newsgroups I never posted in, let alone ever
> lurked.

I've found my original post on this subject!

http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=128497669700

As may be seen, *the post was made to a SINGLE Usenet group*.

*NO HARM WAS INTENDED*!

>>>> If Snit has made a mistake, and he recognises it, he will
>>>> acknowledge same I'm sure. I know he doesn't wish to fight with
>>>> you. I'd like us all to get along together and I'm sure Snit
>>>> does too.
>>>
>>> We'll see.
>>
>> As far as I'm aware, Snit has never lied about anything to me. Why
>> do you imagine he would wantonly lie to you?
> 
> David, I don't know why he opted to lie about me, but he has done so.
> His latest one is the accusation that I'm manipulating anyone here
> against him. Prior to that one, He claimed that not only did I have the
> bot itself, in compiled form no less, I was also helping AND protecting
> the author. I take issue with lies of that kind, David.

Perhaps there was a simple misunderstanding again.

>> You appear to have spent much of your life 'looking over your
>> shoulder' - why?  Most of us don't do that.
> 
> If by that you mean, I'm aware of my surroundings, then sure. if by
> most of us, you mean the sheeple, then no, I'm not like them, and I
> wouldn't encourage anyone else to be, either. I prefer to think for
> myself and be responsible for my own decisions and their outcomes. I
> require no hand holding and no safety net. I'm genX, David.
> 
> I rode my bike without a helmet, I rode in the beds of pickup trucks. I
> played with firecrackers, and didn't blow any piece of me or a friend
> off, nor did I set fire to the yard and/or nearby neighborhood.

It appears that you are a bit like me in so many ways! ;-)

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

#560068

On 7/2/20 6:43 AM, David_B wrote:
...
>> David, I don't know why he opted to lie about me, but he has done so.
>> His latest one is the accusation that I'm manipulating anyone here
>> against him. Prior to that one, He claimed that not only did I have the
>> bot itself, in compiled form no less, I was also helping AND protecting
>> the author. I take issue with lies of that kind, David.
> 
> Perhaps there was a simple misunderstanding again.

That is exactly what it is. A simple misunderstanding.

Here is the exchange he is worked up over (I think):

   <hbjcp6F4eckU1@mid.individual.net>
     -----
     I will grant that it seems like an obvious "next step" to
     have the bot break apart sentences and respond to
     keywords, but that is more my thing that Carroll's (I do
     it with my chat bot). So if I were to make such a bot,
     yes, I would want it to do that... but does Carroll even
     want it to? I think the main purpose is Google seeding...
     and it does that well.

     Without knowing more of the purpose we cannot say if the
     output shows the code to be good or not. One has to see
     the code to know that.
     -----

I was clearly speaking of the Usenet flood bot. Diesel responded with this:

   <XnsAB6E44E6AFE1AHT1@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
     -----
     Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
     provided the original source code that was
     compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
     given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
     still tells you *everything* about the program.
     -----

I was surprised to see him speaking of disassembling code, something 
that requires having the executable, in response to my comments. He 
later said he did not mean his comments to be applied to the bot.

Um, OK. I accept the are not.

Really I cannot understand why this is at all an ongoing topic or source 
of frustration for anyone.

>>> You appear to have spent much of your life 'looking over your
>>> shoulder' - why?  Most of us don't do that.
>>
>> If by that you mean, I'm aware of my surroundings, then sure. if by
>> most of us, you mean the sheeple, then no, I'm not like them, and I
>> wouldn't encourage anyone else to be, either. I prefer to think for
>> myself and be responsible for my own decisions and their outcomes. I
>> require no hand holding and no safety net. I'm genX, David.
>>
>> I rode my bike without a helmet, I rode in the beds of pickup trucks. I
>> played with firecrackers, and didn't blow any piece of me or a friend
>> off, nor did I set fire to the yard and/or nearby neighborhood.
> 
> It appears that you are a bit like me in so many ways! ;-)

I did much the same. Does not mean I do not see the value to more of a 
focus on safety as we learn more.


-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

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

#560084

David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org>
news:hwlLG.21359$pq3.11240@fx25.ams1 Thu, 02 Jul 2020 13:43:40 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: 

> I always loved K-9
> 
> https://www.radiotimes.com/news/2013-11-22/doctor-who-a-guide-to-th
> e-first-11-doctors/ 

:)
 
>>> I'd like you to clarify for the folk now reading this group that
>>> it was NOT me who published your name and address in Usenet.
>>> I've no doubt you kept details of the culprit.
>> 
>> I didn't accuse you of that with the initial post which caused a
>> major issue between us. But, in case anyone has doubts, I will
>> clarify that you didn't publish the original address to usenet.
>> You took said published address, converted it to a gsv and posted
>> the resulting url to usenet, some into newsgroups I never posted
>> in, let alone ever lurked.
> 
> I've found my original post on this subject!
> 
> http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=128497669700
> 
> As may be seen, *the post was made to a SINGLE Usenet group*.

Yes, you wrote it once for each newsgroup you posted it in. :)

I commented when I discovered the same post, not crossposted as you 
normally do in that newsgroup as well. 

MID: <Xns9D98C861F8568HHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.247>
"~BD~" <.BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
news:hv8qac$t1i$1@news.eternal-september.org: 

[snip]

> http://tinyurl.com/377qnoq
 

Hi BD...

Didn't notice you posted this here as well. My bad. It would seem to
me, based on the posts, that your alright with internet stalking? I
just want to make sure i'm using the right brush with ya... 
*** end

See that first sentence? :) You know damn well you created a fresh 
thread in multiple newsgroups with the same message body. the one you 
shared here. The one from alt.politics.scorched-earth isn't the first 
or only one you did, David.

As I recall, didn't you initially state you were testing the 
functionality in a test newsgroup? Then you posted it there to get my 
attention. Which, interestingly enough, you created those posts after I 
turned down your offer of payment to break into servers you didn't own 
or have permission to grant me for pen testing. Any of this coming back 
to you, David?

 
> *NO HARM WAS INTENDED*!

I don't believe you. based on other things you wrote:

Message-ID: <fPqYB.171658$u91.45539@fx02.fr7>
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=156316302300
 
> You've been caught lying your ass off multiple times. As well as
> intentionally violating copyrights of others when it
> suits/pleases you to do so. You've also been caught attempting
> to hire individuals to hack (crack actually) into various sites
> you'd already been banned from. You want others to commit
> felonies for your benefit and when they don't, you resort to
> trying to blackmail them.
 
 That's not QUITE true. *YOU* are the *ONLY* one AFAICR.
 
As I've mentioned before, sometimes the end justifies the means.

Message-ID: <_KA9E.86455$Xl2.27908@fx20.fr7>
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=156436528900

> I proceeded to answer other questions you provided in the same
> email asking about it. You indicated no issue with me, no
> accusation of my being a 'bad guy' until years later, here on
> usenet. 

That's correct. I didn't let on that you were a target and I'd
scored a bullseye. 

> Other than your known dishonesty, is there a particular reason you 
> aren't sharing the entire contents of your inquiry leading up to
> that paste? 

I'm totally honest with good guys. What else would you like me to
tell any newbies about you? 

*** 

I've got shitloads more of your replies if you need to refresh your 
memory. I really don't mind letting all the new comers see you for what 
you are, and how much you and Snit actually have in common. :)

>> David, I don't know why he opted to lie about me, but he has done
>> so. His latest one is the accusation that I'm manipulating anyone
>> here against him. Prior to that one, He claimed that not only did
>> I have the bot itself, in compiled form no less, I was also
>> helping AND protecting the author. I take issue with lies of that
>> kind, David. 
> 
> Perhaps there was a simple misunderstanding again.

Heh, no, there wasn't.

http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100

Diesel made it clear he had access not just to the output of the bot
but to the code itself. When called out on this he clarified it was
merely the compiled code he had: 

<XnsAB6E44E6AFE1AHT1@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
     -----
     Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
     provided the original source code that was
     compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
     given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
     still tells you *everything* about the program.
     -----

So how did Diesel get a copy of the program, compiled or not? My
guess: he will NEVER say. 

*** end 

That's all a big whopper of a lie, told by your new bestie, Snit about 
me, David. No misunderstanding, an outright lie.
 
>> If by that you mean, I'm aware of my surroundings, then sure. if
>> by most of us, you mean the sheeple, then no, I'm not like them,
>> and I wouldn't encourage anyone else to be, either. I prefer to
>> think for myself and be responsible for my own decisions and
>> their outcomes. I require no hand holding and no safety net. I'm
>> genX, David. 
>> 
>> I rode my bike without a helmet, I rode in the beds of pickup
>> trucks. I played with firecrackers, and didn't blow any piece of
>> me or a friend off, nor did I set fire to the yard and/or nearby
>> neighborhood. 
> 
> It appears that you are a bit like me in so many ways! ;-)

And unlike you in so many others. For example, you and I strongly 
disagree on the okay factor concerning lying. I don't think things like 
what you've done for years and what snit has done are okay. You 
disagree. To the point of you're not even calling him out for the lies 
you know damn well he actually wrote about me. Dishonest, David. But, 
that's you, as I've said for years now. I hope the new comers take note 
of this reply, too. <G>





-- 
Pokemon (n), a Rastafarian proctologist.

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

#560102

On Fri, 03 Jul 2020 10:58:54 +0000, Diesel wrote:

> And unlike you in so many others. For example, you and I strongly
> disagree on the okay factor concerning lying. I don't think things like
> what you've done for years and what snit has done are okay. You
> disagree. To the point of you're not even calling him out for the lies
> you know damn well he actually wrote about me. Dishonest, David. But,
> that's you, as I've said for years now. I hope the new comers take note
> of this reply, too. <G>
>

Snit's problem, in a nutshell, is he sees text on the USENET as some kind 
of "sea lawyer" problem to solve, where he loses the forest for the trees.

In other words, Snit looks at text with spotlight consciousness, and 
doesn't seem to have floodlight consciousness.

Snit has also got it in his head that if he has the slightest bit of 
perceived (perceived!) evidence for something, he can simply make a claim, 
and to hell with the consequences.  And for Snit, conjecture is 
"evidence"(!).  He probably doesn't see what he did as an intentional lie 
-- that's how bad the brain damage is.

Regarding charity and empathy, I don't think Snit views the USENET as a 
connection to other people -- it's just this big text machine that he 
interacts with for dopamine dumps.

So of course, Snit is a USENET addict.  Just look at him.

-- 
-v  https://theproblemisextremism.org

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

#560104

On 7/3/20 6:08 PM, vallor wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2020 10:58:54 +0000, Diesel wrote:
> 
>> And unlike you in so many others. For example, you and I strongly
>> disagree on the okay factor concerning lying. I don't think things like
>> what you've done for years and what snit has done are okay. You
>> disagree. To the point of you're not even calling him out for the lies
>> you know damn well he actually wrote about me. Dishonest, David. But,
>> that's you, as I've said for years now. I hope the new comers take note
>> of this reply, too. <G>
>>
> 
> Snit's problem, in a nutshell, is he sees text on the USENET as some kind
> of "sea lawyer" problem to solve, where he loses the forest for the trees.

I am the one saying we should NOT become obsessed with a specific 
"tree". In short: you got things exactly backward.

> In other words, Snit looks at text with spotlight consciousness, and
> doesn't seem to have floodlight consciousness.

I do not try to keep track of what happened in 2004, if that is what you 
mean. Or even 2011.

> Snit has also got it in his head that if he has the slightest bit of
> perceived (perceived!) evidence for something, he can simply make a claim,
> and to hell with the consequences. 

What a bizarre claim for you to make. But what are the "consequences"? I 
disagree. OH NO!

> And for Snit, conjecture is
> "evidence"(!).

Incorrect conjecture on your part. I think EVIDENCE is evidence, not 
conjecture.

> He probably doesn't see what he did as an intentional lie
> -- that's how bad the brain damage is.

What I see is Diesel spoke of things that required the code in response 
to talking about the Usenet flood bot. He does not want to say he 
changed topics but he says it does not apply. So he is just throwing a 
tantrum over it. But whatever. I am happy to move on.

> Regarding charity and empathy, I don't think Snit views the USENET as a
> connection to other people -- it's just this big text machine that he
> interacts with for dopamine dumps.

Again, such weird conjecture.

> So of course, Snit is a USENET addict.  Just look at him.

And yet here you are following me and making bizarre conjectures.


-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

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

#560123

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
news:hma4g7Fj4bU1@mid.individual.net Sat, 04 Jul 2020 01:31:51 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: 

> On 7/3/20 6:08 PM, vallor wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2020 10:58:54 +0000, Diesel wrote:
>> 
>>> And unlike you in so many others. For example, you and I
>>> strongly disagree on the okay factor concerning lying. I don't
>>> think things like what you've done for years and what snit has
>>> done are okay. You disagree. To the point of you're not even
>>> calling him out for the lies you know damn well he actually
>>> wrote about me. Dishonest, David. But, that's you, as I've said
>>> for years now. I hope the new comers take note of this reply,
>>> too. <G> 
>>>
>> 
>> Snit's problem, in a nutshell, is he sees text on the USENET as
>> some kind of "sea lawyer" problem to solve, where he loses the
>> forest for the trees. 
> 
> I am the one saying we should NOT become obsessed with a specific 
> "tree". In short: you got things exactly backward.
> 
>> In other words, Snit looks at text with spotlight consciousness,
>> and doesn't seem to have floodlight consciousness.
> 
> I do not try to keep track of what happened in 2004, if that is
> what you mean. Or even 2011.

No reading comprehension problem here. rofl, nothing to see, moving 
on...
 
>> Snit has also got it in his head that if he has the slightest bit
>> of perceived (perceived!) evidence for something, he can simply
>> make a claim, and to hell with the consequences. 
> 
> What a bizarre claim for you to make. But what are the
> "consequences"? I disagree. OH NO!

Stupid.. stupid move snit.
 
>> And for Snit, conjecture is
>> "evidence"(!).
> 
> Incorrect conjecture on your part. I think EVIDENCE is evidence,
> not conjecture.

Yet you don't provide anything that is evidence, but you do provide 
conjecture and try to pass it off as evidence. You really don't make 
any sense, Snit.
 
>> He probably doesn't see what he did as an intentional lie
>> -- that's how bad the brain damage is.
> 
> What I see is Diesel spoke of things that required the code in
> response to talking about the Usenet flood bot. He does not want
> to say he changed topics but he says it does not apply. So he is
> just throwing a tantrum over it. But whatever. I am happy to move
> on. 

I didn't change topics, Apd also told you I didn't. We're not both 
mistaken here, stupid, YOU ARE. You lied about my involvement with 
the bot, and like the increasingly known to be rather stupid 
dishonest shit you are, tried to roll with it. Now, you're in damage 
control mode after I called you out for your lies.

>> Regarding charity and empathy, I don't think Snit views the
>> USENET as a connection to other people -- it's just this big text
>> machine that he interacts with for dopamine dumps.
> 
> Again, such weird conjecture.

Jesus, you illiterate shit, please lookup the word conjecture.
 


-- 
If you mail a letter to your mailman, will he get it before he's 
supposed to? --George Carlin

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

#560111

On 4 Jul 2020 01:08:08 GMT, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:

>On Fri, 03 Jul 2020 10:58:54 +0000, Diesel wrote:
>
>> And unlike you in so many others. For example, you and I strongly
>> disagree on the okay factor concerning lying. I don't think things like
>> what you've done for years and what snit has done are okay. You
>> disagree. To the point of you're not even calling him out for the lies
>> you know damn well he actually wrote about me. Dishonest, David. But,
>> that's you, as I've said for years now. I hope the new comers take note
>> of this reply, too. <G>
>>
>
>Snit's problem, in a nutshell, is he sees text on the USENET as some kind 
>of "sea lawyer" problem to solve, where he loses the forest for the trees.
>
>In other words, Snit looks at text with spotlight consciousness, and 
>doesn't seem to have floodlight consciousness.
>
>Snit has also got it in his head that if he has the slightest bit of 
>perceived (perceived!) evidence for something, he can simply make a claim, 
>and to hell with the consequences.  And for Snit, conjecture is 
>"evidence"(!).  He probably doesn't see what he did as an intentional lie 
>-- that's how bad the brain damage is.
>
>Regarding charity and empathy, I don't think Snit views the USENET as a 
>connection to other people -- it's just this big text machine that he 
>interacts with for dopamine dumps.
>
>So of course, Snit is a USENET addict.  Just look at him.

Snit is a walking, talking textbook for a person with Asperger
Syndrome.
And his is a particularly severe case.
He is obviously mildly retarded as well.

People with this condition may be socially awkward and have an
all-absorbing interest in specific topics.

People may experience:
Behavioral: aggression, compulsive behavior, fidgeting, impulsivity,
repetitive movements, social isolation, or persistent repetition of
words or actions

Muscular: inability to combine muscle movements, poor coordination, or
tic

Mood: anger, anxiety, or apprehension

Also common: depression, intense interest in a limited number of
things, learning disability, nightmares, or sensitivity to sound

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web