Re: goodbye rec.photo.digital -hello rec.photo.digital.slr-systems?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Woodchuck Bill, Oct 25, 2004.

  1. "Mark M" <> wrote in
    news:IX0fd.170415$a85.116312@fed1read04:

    > He did voice that opinion, as have the majority of people here on this
    > NG who have voiced their opinion that it is entirely unnecessary. You
    > are all pathetic little dweebs seeking self-importance here. Your
    > quest has failed, because you are all still quite recognizable as the
    > silly little lifeless boys that you are.


    You're a real charming, intelligent individual.

    > You are not even photographers, for crying out loud.


    That is just a lie. I suspect you aren't much of one, and that is why you
    feel the need to accuse others of something you know absolutely nothing
    about.

    --
    Bill
    Woodchuck Bill, Oct 25, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Woodchuck Bill

    Mark M Guest

    "Woodchuck Bill" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns958D5387A35E6bswr607h4@130.133.1.4...
    > "Mark M" <> wrote in
    > news:IX0fd.170415$a85.116312@fed1read04:
    >
    > > He did voice that opinion, as have the majority of people here on this
    > > NG who have voiced their opinion that it is entirely unnecessary. You
    > > are all pathetic little dweebs seeking self-importance here. Your
    > > quest has failed, because you are all still quite recognizable as the
    > > silly little lifeless boys that you are.

    >
    > You're a real charming, intelligent individual.
    >
    > > You are not even photographers, for crying out loud.

    >
    > That is just a lie. I suspect you aren't much of one, and that is why you
    > feel the need to accuse others of something you know absolutely nothing
    > about.


    Woodchuck.
    That really shouldn't have been addressed to you.
    There have been hideous trolls on this NG for years now, and not so long ago
    (months) there was a steady effort to destroy this NG with trolling which
    included sick gay porn, attacks on regulars, and general disgusting
    behavior. If you had been here for that, you might feel similarly. Steve
    Young and his "friends" were the ones this was directed at, and I assure you
    that my words were not more harsh than they deserve. You seem to be
    pursuing things on the level, however, so my apologies.
    Mark M, Oct 25, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Mark M" <> wrote in
    news:r%7fd.170436$a85.39393@fed1read04:

    >> That is just a lie. I suspect you aren't much of one, and that is why
    >> you feel the need to accuse others of something you know absolutely
    >> nothing about.

    >
    > Woodchuck.
    > That really shouldn't have been addressed to you.
    > There have been hideous trolls on this NG for years now, and not so
    > long ago (months) there was a steady effort to destroy this NG with
    > trolling which included sick gay porn, attacks on regulars, and
    > general disgusting behavior. If you had been here for that, you might
    > feel similarly. Steve Young and his "friends" were the ones this was
    > directed at, and I assure you that my words were not more harsh than
    > they deserve. You seem to be pursuing things on the level, however,
    > so my apologies.


    Accepted, and I apologize too. Truthfully, I am not a pro photographer by
    any measure, but at least two of the other proponents (Alan Browne and Rose
    Parchen) are close to that level, based on what I've seen and read. I was
    defending them, more than myself.

    Steve Young and his kook friends have also been recently screwing around
    with news.groups and the Big-8 voting system, so I know exactly what you're
    talking about. I can assure you that nobody from the "Steve Young" element
    was involved in the creation of these four new groups. Actually, they have
    been unsuccessfully trying to stuff the ballot boxes with "no" votes for
    many of the recent proposals, in a campaign to convince the NAN team to
    accept proposals to change charters of existing groups.

    Regarding the new groups, I seriously doubt that any of them will hurt your
    Usenet experience in any way, and that was never the intention of any of
    the proponents. Despite our differences, I do hope that you decide to have
    a look at one or more of the new groups, once they have been alive for
    several months and have had a chance to propagate. If any of the groups
    turn out to be something of interest to you, then please, jump in and share
    your experience with those who are there to learn about photography.

    Cheers!

    --
    Bill
    Woodchuck Bill, Oct 25, 2004
    #3
  4. Woodchuck Bill

    Steve Young Guest

    "Woodchuck Bill" <> wrote

    > Steve Young and his kook friends have also been recently screwing around
    > with news.groups and the Big-8 voting system, so I know exactly what
    > you're talking about. I can assure you that nobody from the "Steve
    > Young" element was involved in the creation of these four new groups.
    > Actually, they have been unsuccessfully trying to stuff the ballot boxes
    > with "no" votes for many of the recent proposals, in a campaign to
    > convince the NAN team to accept proposals to change charters of
    > existing groups.


    You're backwards on this Bill. First, you're wrong that I have anything
    to do with it. I only post under this current handle and valid email.
    Second, it appears the vote stuffing is with the yes votes, not the no
    votes. (I'm really surprised you missed this point). So they are
    assuring that you get your way. I'm wondering if maybe you're not the
    culprit behind it :(

    Steve Young

    --
    "We should try to stay calm, there is someone trying to test
    our reaction." - Paul Ebermann
    Steve Young, Oct 25, 2004
    #4
  5. "Steve Young" <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote in news:CYKdnZfRuvaGvuDcRVn-
    :

    > You're backwards on this Bill. First, you're wrong that I have anything
    > to do with it. I only post under this current handle and valid email.
    > Second, it appears the vote stuffing is with the yes votes, not the no
    > votes. (I'm really surprised you missed this point). So they are
    > assuring that you get your way. I'm wondering if maybe you're not the
    > culprit behind it :(


    A number of credible people have told me that you are responsible for all
    of the e-mail forgeries. I would watch my keystrokes if I were you.

    The NAN team has ruled that there is evidence to investigate ballot
    stuffing on one of the other proposals, but they have made it clear that
    the rec.photo.digital reorganization result is accurate, and that the
    groups will be created on schedule.

    Just remember..it was *you* who threatened to get your "family" involved in
    the voting process if your charter demands were not met.

    After many months of nonsensical debates with you, I shall move you into my
    bin with the rest of the bozos.

    PLONK!

    --
    Bill
    Woodchuck Bill, Oct 25, 2004
    #5
  6. Woodchuck Bill

    Steve Young Guest

    "Woodchuck Bill" <> wrote

    > "Steve Young" <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote


    >> You're backwards on this Bill. First, you're wrong that I have
    >> anything
    >> to do with it. I only post under this current handle and valid email.
    >> Second, it appears the vote stuffing is with the yes votes, not the no
    >> votes. (I'm really surprised you missed this point). So they are
    >> assuring that you get your way. I'm wondering if maybe you're not the
    >> culprit behind it :(


    > A number of credible people have told me that you are responsible for
    > all of the e-mail forgeries.


    This is apparently because you are unable to sus the truth? See, when
    you're innocent, as I am, you can have fun with those who always see the
    boogie man and believe everything their favored people say.

    > I would watch my keystrokes if I were you.


    I proof everything I send.
    Is there some kind of threat you want to issue with this?

    > The NAN team has ruled that there is evidence to investigate ballot
    > stuffing on one of the other proposals, but they have made it clear that
    > the rec.photo.digital reorganization result is accurate, and that the
    > groups will be created on schedule.


    No, they haven't ruled, only suggested so far You read too much into
    what pleases you Bill

    > Just remember..it was *you* who threatened to get your "family"
    > involved in the voting process if your charter demands were not met.


    Here I was thinking you actually read news.groups
    Lot of people have talked about 'their families'.
    Didn't you catch the comment on renting the ballroom?

    > After many months of nonsensical debates with you, I shall move you
    > into my bin with the rest of the bozos.


    > PLONK!


    heh, heh. Many do this when they can no longer combat good sense, or
    change the truth We'll see how long it sticks :)

    Steve Young
    Steve Young, Oct 25, 2004
    #6
  7. Woodchuck Bill

    Alan Browne Guest

    Woodchuck Bill wrote:

    > Accepted, and I apologize too. Truthfully, I am not a pro photographer by
    > any measure, but at least two of the other proponents (Alan Browne and Rose
    > Parchen) are close to that level, based on what I've seen and read. I was
    > defending them, more than myself.


    I'm no professional photographer! An enthusiastic amateur at best. We are
    blessed with a some interested (and interesting) professionals such as Gordon
    Moat and McLeod, just to name a couple.

    The NG's need all levels of people interested in photography and equipment.
    People who are interested enough to ask questions; people who are interested
    enough to help and to reply. Enthusiastic interest to the point of boiling over
    with photo links to their works... the SI too!

    > Regarding the new groups, I seriously doubt that any of them will hurt your
    > Usenet experience in any way, and that was never the intention of any of
    > the proponents. Despite our differences, I do hope that you decide to have
    > a look at one or more of the new groups, once they have been alive for
    > several months and have had a chance to propagate. If any of the groups
    > turn out to be something of interest to you, then please, jump in and share
    > your experience with those who are there to learn about photography.


    Agree. My main incentive in helping Thad's proposal was that r.p.d is just too
    thick with things that are not of interest to me ... that led to the rpd.slr
    proposal ... the other three groups are the result of others like Rose wanting
    to take it further into their areas of interest.

    Cheers,
    Alan



    --
    -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
    -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
    Alan Browne, Oct 25, 2004
    #7
  8. Woodchuck Bill

    Steve Young Guest

    "Alan Browne" <> wrote

    that led to the rpd.slr proposal ...

    yes, what an excellent group name choice :)
    Steve Young, Oct 25, 2004
    #8
  9. Alan Browne <> wrote in
    news:QBafd.32392$:

    > I'm no professional photographer!


    Based on what I've seen, you are "close to that level", as I said in the
    other post. It was a compliment. Take it in stride!

    --
    Bill
    Woodchuck Bill, Oct 25, 2004
    #9
  10. Woodchuck Bill

    Alan Browne Guest

    Woodchuck Bill wrote:

    > Alan Browne <> wrote in
    > news:QBafd.32392$:
    >
    >
    >>I'm no professional photographer!

    >
    >
    > Based on what I've seen, you are "close to that level", as I said in the
    > other post. It was a compliment. Take it in stride!


    Well, thanks for the compliment... there are many amateurs who do a lot better
    than I do (and better than many "pros"), and there are some pros with 1 year of
    experience that they've repeated 40 times...

    Cheers,
    Alan


    --
    -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
    -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
    Alan Browne, Oct 25, 2004
    #10
  11. Woodchuck Bill

    McLeod Guest

    On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:20:53 -0400, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >I'm no professional photographer! An enthusiastic amateur at best. We are
    >blessed with a some interested (and interesting) professionals such as Gordon
    >Moat and McLeod, just to name a couple.


    I wish I could be more helpful but I am more of a lurker who doesn't
    step in if I agree with someone, but only if I strongly disagree.
    McLeod, Oct 26, 2004
    #11
  12. Woodchuck Bill

    Matt Ion Guest

    Woodchuck Bill wrote:

    > "Mark M" <> wrote in
    > news:IX0fd.170415$a85.116312@fed1read04:
    >
    >
    >>He did voice that opinion, as have the majority of people here on this
    >>NG who have voiced their opinion that it is entirely unnecessary. You
    >>are all pathetic little dweebs seeking self-importance here. Your
    >>quest has failed, because you are all still quite recognizable as the
    >>silly little lifeless boys that you are.

    >
    >
    > You're a real charming, intelligent individual.
    >
    >
    >>You are not even photographers, for crying out loud.

    >
    >
    > That is just a lie. I suspect you aren't much of one, and that is why you
    > feel the need to accuse others of something you know absolutely nothing
    > about.


    No no, this has been settled elsewhere... digital pictures aren't
    photography, remember? Thus, those of us using digital cameras aren't
    photographers.

    Or something...
    Matt Ion, Oct 26, 2004
    #12
  13. In article <FIhfd.23294$nl.1854@pd7tw3no>,
    Matt Ion <> wrote:
    >
    > Or something...


    Like idiots?
    --
    Duzz that A moose you ?
    Any Moose Poster, Oct 26, 2004
    #13
  14. Woodchuck Bill

    Mark M Guest

    "Woodchuck Bill" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns958D7BE3D3765bswr607h4@130.133.1.4...
    > "Steve Young" <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote in news:CYKdnZfRuvaGvuDcRVn-
    > :
    >
    > > You're backwards on this Bill. First, you're wrong that I have anything
    > > to do with it. I only post under this current handle and valid email.
    > > Second, it appears the vote stuffing is with the yes votes, not the no
    > > votes. (I'm really surprised you missed this point). So they are
    > > assuring that you get your way. I'm wondering if maybe you're not the
    > > culprit behind it :(

    >
    > A number of credible people have told me that you are responsible for all
    > of the e-mail forgeries. I would watch my keystrokes if I were you.
    >
    > The NAN team has ruled that there is evidence to investigate ballot
    > stuffing on one of the other proposals, but they have made it clear that
    > the rec.photo.digital reorganization result is accurate, and that the
    > groups will be created on schedule.
    >
    > Just remember..it was *you* who threatened to get your "family" involved

    in
    > the voting process if your charter demands were not met.
    >
    > After many months of nonsensical debates with you, I shall move you into

    my
    > bin with the rest of the bozos.
    >
    > PLONK!


    Steve Young is NOTHING but a troll who has influence over a number of other
    idiot trolls. Don't ever believe any of his garbage.
    Mark M, Oct 26, 2004
    #14
  15. Woodchuck Bill

    Mark M Guest

    "Steve Young" <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Woodchuck Bill" <> wrote
    >
    > > "Steve Young" <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote

    >
    > >> You're backwards on this Bill. First, you're wrong that I have
    > >> anything
    > >> to do with it. I only post under this current handle and valid email.
    > >> Second, it appears the vote stuffing is with the yes votes, not the no
    > >> votes. (I'm really surprised you missed this point). So they are
    > >> assuring that you get your way. I'm wondering if maybe you're not the
    > >> culprit behind it :(

    >
    > > A number of credible people have told me that you are responsible for
    > > all of the e-mail forgeries.

    >
    > This is apparently because you are unable to sus the truth? See, when
    > you're innocent, as I am, you can have fun with those who always see the
    > boogie man and believe everything their favored people say.
    >
    > > I would watch my keystrokes if I were you.

    >
    > I proof everything I send.
    > Is there some kind of threat you want to issue with this?


    You like threats, don't you Steve.
    -Because you then use what you perceive as a threat to get your dumb friends
    to attack the person. Nice try, idiot.
    Mark M, Oct 26, 2004
    #15
  16. Woodchuck Bill

    Steve Young Guest

    "Mark M" <> wrote

    > "Woodchuck Bill" <> wrote


    >> "Steve Young" <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote


    >> > You're backwards on this Bill. First, you're wrong that I have
    >> > anything to do with it. I only post under this current handle
    >> > and valid email.


    >> > Second, it appears the vote stuffing is with the yes votes, not the
    >> > no votes. (I'm really surprised you missed this point). So they are
    >> > assuring that you get your way. I'm wondering if maybe you're
    >> > not the culprit behind it :(


    >> A number of credible people have told me that you are responsible
    >> for all of the e-mail forgeries. I would watch my keystrokes
    >> if I were you.


    >> The NAN team has ruled that there is evidence to investigate ballot
    >> stuffing on one of the other proposals, but they have made it clear
    >> that the rec.photo.digital reorganization result is accurate,
    >> and that the groups will be created on schedule.


    >> Just remember..it was *you* who threatened to get your "family"
    >> involved in the voting process if your charter demands were not met.


    >> After many months of nonsensical debates with you, I shall move you
    >> into my bin with the rest of the bozos.


    >> PLONK!


    > Steve Young is NOTHING but a troll who has influence over a number of
    > other idiot trolls. Don't ever believe any of his garbage.


    borken bonker Mark!?

    --
    He's right Mark. We don't like it. Stop the yapping and learn to use
    your killfile. Then we can all have a *jolly good* *knee slappin* great
    time! :)))) Have fun watching Sesame Street and R0mper R00m!
    - Organizer
    Steve Young, Oct 26, 2004
    #16
  17. Woodchuck Bill

    Guest

    Kibo informs me that "Mark M" <>
    stated that:

    >"Steve Young" <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote in message
    >> This is apparently because you are unable to sus the truth? See, when
    >> you're innocent, as I am, you can have fun with those who always see the
    >> boogie man and believe everything their favored people say.
    >>
    >> > I would watch my keystrokes if I were you.

    >>
    >> I proof everything I send.
    >> Is there some kind of threat you want to issue with this?

    >
    >You like threats, don't you Steve.
    >-Because you then use what you perceive as a threat to get your dumb friends
    >to attack the person. Nice try, idiot.


    Yep. Every time I screw up one Steve 'Organizer' Young's stupid schemes,
    I get childish, anonymous emails like this one:
    ------------------------------------------
    Received: from unknown (HELO mail3.lidya.net) (212.79.114.20)
    by mail.ve.ly (203.221.237.148) with SMTP; 24 Oct 2004 01:20:15 -0000
    Received: (qmail 21369 invoked by uid 398); 24 Oct 2004 01:17:22 -0000
    Date: 24 Oct 2004 01:17:22 -0000
    Message-ID: <>
    To: "Lionel" <>
    Subject: Hi Lionel
    From: "" <>
    X-Mailer: BÝANet.org
    X-UIDL: 8Bb!!h6-"!,)/!!:Vc"!

    Missed ya! ;)

    Why ya been so quiet?

    Humiliated because nobody fell for your b00gieman story?

    Lookin forward to seeing your latest SI submission. Did ya get the ack
    from Al Denelsbeck?

    Maybe you'll entertain us with a *beaver* *shot* from Josie's garden.
    :))))

    The news.groups crowd started spanking you again I see. Pity.

    You're such an insecure ****, and you'll never prove *SHIT* to anyone,
    3lTCh!

    L00zer!
    ------------------------------------------

    Funny how Steve keeps on claiming that he isn't the one sending them,
    despite the fact that the culprit is really lousy at impersonating other
    posters, but is really, really good at impersonating Steve's posting
    style. I've received dozens of anonymous kook-farts like this one over
    the last 6 months or so, all of which are either from Steve, or perfect
    imitations of his writing style.
    It's also strange how all the posts via anonymous remailers stopped
    after I told Steve that the headers of those posts contained subtle
    evidence linking them to him.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    , Oct 26, 2004
    #17
  18. Woodchuck Bill

    Mark M Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Kibo informs me that "Mark M" <>
    > stated that:
    >
    > >"Steve Young" <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote in message
    > >> This is apparently because you are unable to sus the truth? See, when
    > >> you're innocent, as I am, you can have fun with those who always see

    the
    > >> boogie man and believe everything their favored people say.
    > >>
    > >> > I would watch my keystrokes if I were you.
    > >>
    > >> I proof everything I send.
    > >> Is there some kind of threat you want to issue with this?

    > >
    > >You like threats, don't you Steve.
    > >-Because you then use what you perceive as a threat to get your dumb

    friends
    > >to attack the person. Nice try, idiot.

    >
    > Yep. Every time I screw up one Steve 'Organizer' Young's stupid schemes,
    > I get childish, anonymous emails like this one:
    > ------------------------------------------
    > Received: from unknown (HELO mail3.lidya.net) (212.79.114.20)
    > by mail.ve.ly (203.221.237.148) with SMTP; 24 Oct 2004 01:20:15 -0000
    > Received: (qmail 21369 invoked by uid 398); 24 Oct 2004 01:17:22 -0000
    > Date: 24 Oct 2004 01:17:22 -0000
    > Message-ID: <>
    > To: "Lionel" <>
    > Subject: Hi Lionel
    > From: "" <>
    > X-Mailer: BÝANet.org
    > X-UIDL: 8Bb!!h6-"!,)/!!:Vc"!
    >
    > Missed ya! ;)
    >
    > Why ya been so quiet?
    >
    > Humiliated because nobody fell for your b00gieman story?
    >
    > Lookin forward to seeing your latest SI submission. Did ya get the ack
    > from Al Denelsbeck?
    >
    > Maybe you'll entertain us with a *beaver* *shot* from Josie's garden.
    > :))))
    >
    > The news.groups crowd started spanking you again I see. Pity.
    >
    > You're such an insecure ****, and you'll never prove *SHIT* to anyone,
    > 3lTCh!
    >
    > L00zer!
    > ------------------------------------------
    >
    > Funny how Steve keeps on claiming that he isn't the one sending them,
    > despite the fact that the culprit is really lousy at impersonating other
    > posters, but is really, really good at impersonating Steve's posting
    > style. I've received dozens of anonymous kook-farts like this one over
    > the last 6 months or so, all of which are either from Steve, or perfect
    > imitations of his writing style.
    > It's also strange how all the posts via anonymous remailers stopped
    > after I told Steve that the headers of those posts contained subtle
    > evidence linking them to him.


    This is standard fare for Steve and his pathetic "family" of trolls.
    He won't get away with it forever.
    At some point, an axe will fall--just as it does on all jerks who deserve
    their "just reward." The sad thing is, none of us will likely know when
    that happens, so we won't get to enjoy it.
    Mark M, Oct 26, 2004
    #18
  19. Woodchuck Bill

    Mark M Guest

    "Steve Young" <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > "Mark M" <> wrote
    >
    > > "Woodchuck Bill" <> wrote

    >
    > >> "Steve Young" <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote

    >
    > >> > You're backwards on this Bill. First, you're wrong that I have
    > >> > anything to do with it. I only post under this current handle
    > >> > and valid email.

    >
    > >> > Second, it appears the vote stuffing is with the yes votes, not the
    > >> > no votes. (I'm really surprised you missed this point). So they are
    > >> > assuring that you get your way. I'm wondering if maybe you're
    > >> > not the culprit behind it :(

    >
    > >> A number of credible people have told me that you are responsible
    > >> for all of the e-mail forgeries. I would watch my keystrokes
    > >> if I were you.

    >
    > >> The NAN team has ruled that there is evidence to investigate ballot
    > >> stuffing on one of the other proposals, but they have made it clear
    > >> that the rec.photo.digital reorganization result is accurate,
    > >> and that the groups will be created on schedule.

    >
    > >> Just remember..it was *you* who threatened to get your "family"
    > >> involved in the voting process if your charter demands were not met.

    >
    > >> After many months of nonsensical debates with you, I shall move you
    > >> into my bin with the rest of the bozos.

    >
    > >> PLONK!

    >
    > > Steve Young is NOTHING but a troll who has influence over a number of
    > > other idiot trolls. Don't ever believe any of his garbage.

    >
    > borken bonker Mark!?
    >
    > --
    > He's right Mark. We don't like it. Stop the yapping and learn to use
    > your killfile. Then we can all have a *jolly good* *knee slappin* great
    > time! :)))) Have fun watching Sesame Street and R0mper R00m!
    > - Organizer


    I don't speak troll...
    The fact that you use this as your sig is just more evidence of your
    attitude toward the trolls. What you "didn't like" was my objection to
    your, and other's trolling...so you (and they) attacked me in libelous ways.
    If you aren't sympathetic to the trolls, you wouldn't use this sig.
    Mark M, Oct 26, 2004
    #19
  20. Woodchuck Bill

    Steve Young Guest

    <> wrote

    > Kibo informs me that "Mark M" <>
    > stated that:
    >
    >>"Steve Young" <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote in message
    >>> This is apparently because you are unable to sus the truth? See, when
    >>> you're innocent, as I am, you can have fun with those who always see
    >>> the
    >>> boogie man and believe everything their favored people say.
    >>>
    >>> > I would watch my keystrokes if I were you.
    >>>
    >>> I proof everything I send.
    >>> Is there some kind of threat you want to issue with this?

    >>
    >>You like threats, don't you Steve.
    >>-Because you then use what you perceive as a threat to get your dumb
    >>to attack the person. Nice try, idiot. friends


    > Yep. Every time I screw up one Steve 'Organizer' Young's stupid schemes,
    > I get childish, anonymous emails like this one:
    > ------------------------------------------
    > Received: from unknown (HELO mail3.lidya.net) (212.79.114.20)
    > by mail.ve.ly (203.221.237.148) with SMTP; 24 Oct 2004 01:20:15 -0000
    > Received: (qmail 21369 invoked by uid 398); 24 Oct 2004 01:17:22 -0000
    > Date: 24 Oct 2004 01:17:22 -0000
    > Message-ID: <>
    > To: "Lionel" <>
    > Subject: Hi Lionel
    > From: "" <>
    > X-Mailer: BÝANet.org
    > X-UIDL: 8Bb!!h6-"!,)/!!:Vc"!
    >
    > Missed ya! ;)
    >
    > Why ya been so quiet?
    >
    > Humiliated because nobody fell for your b00gieman story?


    > Lookin forward to seeing your latest SI submission. Did ya get the ack
    > from Al Denelsbeck?


    > Maybe you'll entertain us with a *beaver* *shot* from Josie's garden.
    > :))))
    >
    > The news.groups crowd started spanking you again I see. Pity.
    >
    > You're such an insecure ****, and you'll never prove *SHIT* to anyone,
    > 3lTCh!
    >
    > L00zer!
    > ------------------------------------------
    >
    > Funny how Steve keeps on claiming that he isn't the one sending them,
    > despite the fact that the culprit is really lousy at impersonating other
    > posters, but is really, really good at impersonating Steve's posting
    > style. I've received dozens of anonymous kook-farts like this one over
    > the last 6 months or so, all of which are either from Steve, or perfect
    > imitations of his writing style.


    Now that boyz got some style :)))

    > It's also strange how all the posts via anonymous remailers stopped
    > after I told Steve that the headers of those posts contained subtle
    > evidence linking them to him.


    It wouldn't lead to my twisted pair in a million years of your ineptitude.
    You still haven't figured out Organizer is/was a different poster/person.

    Steve Young

    --
    "We should try to stay calm, there is someone trying to test
    our reaction." - Paul Ebermann
    Steve Young, Oct 26, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Thad
    Replies:
    217
    Views:
    2,549
    David Dyer-Bennet
    Sep 8, 2004
  2. Lionel
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    714
    Ken Tough
    Sep 17, 2004
  3. Woodchuck Bill
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    544
  4. Alan Browne

    [NG] news:rec.photo.digital.slr-systems is online

    Alan Browne, Oct 31, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    60
    Views:
    1,113
    schuetzen - RKBA!
    Nov 4, 2004
  5. Michael A. Covington

    Where is rec.photo.digital.slr-systems?

    Michael A. Covington, Dec 15, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    542
    Randy Howard
    Dec 22, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page