Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Security > How did they get behind my NAT?

Reply
Thread Tools

How did they get behind my NAT?

 
 
Leythos
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2007
In article <Xns99C7C94355F97abcxyzcom@204.153.245.131>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
says...
> Leythos <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>
> > In article <FpUPi.9637$GO5.4175@edtnps90>, (E-Mail Removed)
> > says...
> >> That is a completely
> >> legitimate use and the system is not used for "unethical" purposes
> >> (We have permission from the people at arixiv.org to do so). So, now
> >> you have to change your statement.

> >
> > You've not comprehended what I wrote - I never once said that "ALL
> > USES" are unethical or illegal - but I can see how someone that is
> > paranoid would think I said that if they didn't comprehend what I
> > wrote.

>
>
> It is you who hasn't comprehended.
>
> You said that you had never encountered a person who used P2P exclusively
> for ethical purposes. Unruh gave himself as an example of someone who only
> uses P2P ethically (which he described with examples).


Clearly, my statement was correct and completely accurate.

> Unless you believe
> Unruh is lying, you now DO KNOW at least one person who uses P2P ethically
> and, accordingly, you must (at least in future) change your statement about
> never having encountered such a person.


At this time I have never met or seen his computer or systems and can
not verify his statement.

His reply about my statement was wrong, as I have never met a P2P user
that was 100% ethical and didn't download at least 1 pirated media of
some type.

You/he can claim that I said no-one uses it ethically, but that would be
your failure to comprehend what I wrote. I'm sure, somewhere, there are
people that ethically use P2P apps, but in all the years they've been
available and the thousands of people and thousands of computers I've
come across with P2P software installed, all of them have pirated
something at one point or another.

--
Leythos - (E-Mail Removed) (remove 999 to email me)

Fight exposing kids to porn, complain about sites like PCBUTTS1.COM that
create filth and put it on the web for any kid to see: Just take a look
at some of the FILTH he's created and put on his website:
http://forums.speedguide.net/archive.../t-223485.html all exposed
to children (the link I've include does not directly display his filth).
You can find the same information by googling for 'PCBUTTS1' and
'exposed to kids'.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nemo_outis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2007
Leythos <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):


>> It is you who hasn't comprehended.
>>
>> You said that you had never encountered a person who used P2P
>> exclusively for ethical purposes. Unruh gave himself as an example
>> of someone who only uses P2P ethically (which he described with
>> examples).

....
>> Unless you believe
>> Unruh is lying, you now DO KNOW at least one person who uses P2P
>> ethically and, accordingly, you must (at least in future) change your
>> statement about never having encountered such a person.

....
> His reply about my statement was wrong, as I have never met a P2P user
> that was 100% ethical and didn't download at least 1 pirated media of
> some type.



Unless you believe Unruh is lying, you have now encountered at least one
person, Unruh, who has only used P2P for ethical purposes. And therefore
your statement that there are none such must be emended.

You can weasel about wanting to inspect his computer, but that is clearly
just and only that: weaselling.

Unruh thinks and writes carefully and his gentle call for you to correct
your statement was entirely correct, because there are indeed folks (such
as he) who only use P2P ethically. Up to now you have only been guilty
of sloppiness, but you are rapidly entering the realm of intellectual
dishonesty with your weaselling.

Regards,
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Leythos
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2007
In article <Xns99C7CD03FA10abcxyzcom@204.153.245.131>, (E-Mail Removed)
says...
> Leythos <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>
>
> >> It is you who hasn't comprehended.
> >>
> >> You said that you had never encountered a person who used P2P
> >> exclusively for ethical purposes. Unruh gave himself as an example
> >> of someone who only uses P2P ethically (which he described with
> >> examples).

> ...
> >> Unless you believe
> >> Unruh is lying, you now DO KNOW at least one person who uses P2P
> >> ethically and, accordingly, you must (at least in future) change your
> >> statement about never having encountered such a person.

> ...
> > His reply about my statement was wrong, as I have never met a P2P user
> > that was 100% ethical and didn't download at least 1 pirated media of
> > some type.

>
>
> Unless you believe Unruh is lying, you have now encountered at least one
> person, Unruh, who has only used P2P for ethical purposes. And therefore
> your statement that there are none such must be emended.


Unless you can't understand, I have neither met or encountered anyone -
Usenet is Anonymous and there is nothing to validate his statement. I
neither believe or disbelieve his statement - it's worthless unless his
computer and past have been examined.

> You can weasel about wanting to inspect his computer, but that is clearly
> just and only that: weaselling.


No, it's you taking the lamers path to try and make more out of what I
wrote than was there.

> Unruh thinks and writes carefully and his gentle call for you to correct
> your statement was entirely correct, because there are indeed folks (such
> as he) who only use P2P ethically. Up to now you have only been guilty
> of sloppiness, but you are rapidly entering the realm of intellectual
> dishonesty with your weaselling.


My statement was clearly about what I HAVE EXPERIENCED, it was not all
encompassing and did not claim what you have presumed it did - at this
point you're the one being sloppy, you're trying to say I said something
I did not say.


--
Leythos - (E-Mail Removed) (remove 999 to email me)

Fight exposing kids to porn, complain about sites like PCBUTTS1.COM that
create filth and put it on the web for any kid to see: Just take a look
at some of the FILTH he's created and put on his website:
http://forums.speedguide.net/archive.../t-223485.html all exposed
to children (the link I've include does not directly display his filth).
You can find the same information by googling for 'PCBUTTS1' and
'exposed to kids'.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nemo_outis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2007
>> Unruh thinks and writes carefully and his gentle call for you to
>> correct your statement was entirely correct, because there are indeed
>> folks (such as he) who only use P2P ethically. Up to now you have
>> only been guilty of sloppiness, but you are rapidly entering the
>> realm of intellectual dishonesty with your weaselling.

>
> My statement was clearly about what I HAVE EXPERIENCED, it was not all
> encompassing and did not claim what you have presumed it did - at this
> point you're the one being sloppy, you're trying to say I said
> something I did not say.



Ah, I see, you've decided to persist with your weaselling. You're not
man enough to back off from your idiotic over-broad statement even in the
face of personal testimony from an immensely credible fellow who gently
confronts you with a direct exception to your idiotic vacuous statement.

You thought Unruh was a liar and I thought you weren't a dishonest
weaselling fool.

Well, we were both wrong!

Regards,


PS Here's Unruh's entry in the Wikipedia, Leythos. Here's the man whose
credibility you've decided to malign. Goddammit, Leythos, you're a
dishonest obdurate moron!

Bill Unruh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Unruh
 
Reply With Quote
 
Leythos
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2007
In article <Xns99C7E345775C8abcxyzcom@204.153.245.131>, (E-Mail Removed)
says...
> You thought Unruh was a liar and I thought you weren't a dishonest
> weaselling fool.
>
> Well, we were both wrong!


No, nemo, you are the only one wrong here, clearly.

I don't "think" anything about Unruh, neither right/wrong, nothing. His
post is just that, A Post. It doesn't contradict my statement, it
doesn't prove me wrong, it doesn't anything. You see, the part you
missed is that I worded my statement with "I" and limited it to "my
experience" and didn't claim the entire world. You keep trying to twist
my statement to cover more than the scope it was defined as - that's
dishonest on your part.

Unruh "could" be honest and ethical, or he could be dishonest and
telling a lie, but I pass no judgment on him because I've not see his PC
and don't know him.

--
Leythos - (E-Mail Removed) (remove 999 to email me)

Fight exposing kids to porn, complain about sites like PCBUTTS1.COM that
create filth and put it on the web for any kid to see: Just take a look
at some of the FILTH he's created and put on his website:
http://forums.speedguide.net/archive.../t-223485.html all exposed
to children (the link I've include does not directly display his filth).
You can find the same information by googling for 'PCBUTTS1' and
'exposed to kids'.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nemo_outis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2007
Leythos <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> I don't "think" anything about Unruh, neither right/wrong, nothing.



Precisely! You don't think!

You originally made a silly and tendentious statement based only on bad
reasoning from your narrow experience.

When a highly credible fellow, Unruh, provided a direct counter-example
to your foolish exaggeration you did not have the wit or grace to learn
and emend your statement.

Nope, that's not your style, Leythos. You weren't going to back off.
You weren't going to learn anything. You weren't going to think.

No, instead you were going to cling all the more rigidly to your
stupidity with weaseling and dishonesty. You were going to stick your
fingers in your ears, hum loudly, and say, "If I can't inspect Unruh's
computer I get to stay stupid."

Well, of course, you can maintain your idiotic opinion even in the face
of contradictory evidence from a fellow whose credibility and
reasonableness outshines yours by many orders of magnitude. You can be
as rigid, dishonest, and stupid as you wish, for as long as you wish.

Just as you said above, you don't think. And you will continue not to
think. After all, it's your right to obdurately stay stupid.

Regards,
 
Reply With Quote
 
Leythos
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2007
In article <Xns99C858BB1ADDAabcxyzcom@204.153.245.131>, (E-Mail Removed)
says...
> Well, of course, you can maintain your idiotic opinion even in the face
> of contradictory evidence from a fellow whose credibility and
> reasonableness outshines yours by many orders of magnitude. You can be
> as rigid, dishonest, and stupid as you wish, for as long as you wish.


Lets see if you can start thinking or if you're just going to keep your
hate up. Here is what I wrote:

"The issue is that I've not see anyone that needs to run a file-sharing
program on their computer unless they were pirating files of some type.
Yea, not always true, but it's a good assumption since there are legal
means and methods without using file sharing methods."

Notice that I clearly said "I've not see anyone" and that I also said
"Yea, not always true"......

You appear to just be a troll as it's quite clear what I've stated and
that I'm not wrong in any part of my statement.

So, my statement was about what I've seen and experienced and I even
allow for ethical use of P2P apps, but clearly state that I've not seen
it.

You seem to think that some poster that claims they only use P2P apps
ethically is telling the truth - how would anyone know?

So, grow up sonny - fact is that what I said is clearly true, in the
context that I've stated.


--
Leythos - (E-Mail Removed) (remove 999 to email me)

Fight exposing kids to porn, complain about sites like pcbutts1 that
create filth and put it on the web for any kid to see: Just take a look
at some of the FILTH he's created and put on his website:
http://forums.speedguide.net/archive.../t-223485.html all exposed
to children (the link I've include does not directly display his filth).
You can find the same information by googling for 'PCBUTTS1' and
'exposed to kids'.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nemo_outis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2007
Leythos <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:MPG.217abde941147b52989ad3
@adfree.Usenet.com:


Are you back again?

Look, you won! You've firmly established your right to be stupid, your
right to weasel, your right not to learn anything.

And I must say you've shown that, for you, thse are not just theoretical
rights either.

No, with each successive post you prove you fully live out those rights,
you demonstrate your complete committment to putting those rights into
practice.

So congratulations on being a man who lives up (down?) to his principles.

Regards,
 
Reply With Quote
 
Leythos
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2007
In article <Xns99C875F69D308abcxyzcom@204.153.245.131>, (E-Mail Removed)
says...
> Regards


So, you were trolling - I have to admit, until your previous post I
wasn't sure you were a troll, now with this one I see I've fallen for
it.

--
Leythos - (E-Mail Removed) (remove 999 to email me)

Fight exposing kids to porn, complain about sites like pcbutts1 that
create filth and put it on the web for any kid to see: Just take a look
at some of the FILTH he's created and put on his website:
http://forums.speedguide.net/archive.../t-223485.html all exposed
to children (the link I've include does not directly display his filth).
You can find the same information by googling for 'PCBUTTS1' and
'exposed to kids'.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nemo_outis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2007
Leythos <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:MPG.217adaad8e51141e989ad7
@adfree.Usenet.com:

> So, you were trolling - I have to admit, until your previous post I
> wasn't sure you were a troll, now with this one I see I've fallen for
> it.



No, the only thing that tripped you up and made you fall is your own
stupidity - the stupidity, the obduracy, the weaselling you campaigned so
hard for.

But the really good news is that now you can continue with your stupidity
and weaselling with no downside since you've long since destroyed any
credibility you may have had.

Regards,







 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: How include a large array? Edward A. Falk C Programming 1 04-04-2013 08:07 PM
Dpreview doesn't care where they get ad dollars from, do they? RichA Digital Photography 1 02-28-2011 02:15 AM
Re: How did they get past my NAT? Leythos Computer Security 73 12-03-2007 04:03 PM
so how the heck did they get google to do this? Peter Huebner NZ Computing 7 11-10-2004 09:18 AM
they turn, they power, they make nice pics Keith and Jenn Z. Digital Photography 0 09-21-2003 04:16 AM



Advertisments