Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by cadmin, Jan 25, 2004.

  1. cadmin

    Mara Guest

    At the risk of sounding crude, I have to point out that most condoms are made of
    Mara, Jan 26, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. It was on Sun, 25 Jan 2004 23:55:13 +0000, just as I was halfway through a
    And another two today :)

    Systems Administrator (ISP)
    Kingston Communications
    Telephone House
    Carr Lane
    Hull, HU1 3RE

    Thank you for the information.

    Most of the info in this email seems to be fake.
    We have traced the user of account
    2-4 Roper Street,
    Humberside,HU1 2QA
    who was using the specificied IP at the
    time, and disabled the user's account.

    Kingston Communications is a division of Kingston Communications (HULL) PLC
    Registered office:
    37 Carr Lane
    Kingston upon Hull
    HU1 3RE
     Reg. No. 2150618

    Kabelfoon BV
    Industriestraat 30, Postbus 45,
    2670 AA Naaldwijk, The Netherlands

    Dear Madam or Sir,

    Thank you for your report, this is against our AUP
    & we have addressed our subscriber.
    A. Sturing
    Noorwegenlaan 59
    3402TB IJsselstein
    The Netherlands

    With kind regards,
    William Poaster, Jan 26, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. cadmin

    Boomer Guest

    It sure does.

    Thanks for posting this, William. :)
    Boomer, Jan 26, 2004
  4. cadmin

    °Mike° Guest

    Excellent. :)

    I don't think that was ever in doubt, other than to Voodoo.
    °Mike°, Jan 26, 2004
  5. cadmin

    °Mike° Guest

    Thank you for that little pearl of wisdom.
    °Mike°, Jan 26, 2004
  6. Poor baby. °Mike° said we could share, since we are clones....;oD
    @}-}-------Rosee, Jan 26, 2004
  7. Ahemmmmmm...boy are you going to be surprised.....;oþ
    @}-}-------Rosee, Jan 26, 2004
  8. cadmin

    Voodoo Guest

    This is just amazing. I post a contrary opinion in this group and you
    find it necessary to research Google to try to dig up anything I might
    ever have said on usenet that you might try to use against me.

    You finally came up with something from June 2002, a whole year and a
    half ago. Can't you do better than that? LOL.

    And all of that just because I said that I think it's a waste of time
    to report SPAM. What if I had said something really controversial?
    After all, I didn't call for anyone to be raped or pillaged or
    murdered. I just voiced an opinion about SPAM for goodness sake. IMO,
    several people should be ashamed of themselves for such an uncalled
    for over reaction to a simple innocent opinion of mine.

    Then we have some of the other "regulars" calling me "he, she, or it,"
    calling me a "whiner," saying "H/s/it hasn't got the first clue of
    what h/s/it's talking about, in any way," "You are totally out of your
    head," and finally "would make me start to wonder if he isn't a
    would-be spammer himself" and it really makes me speculate whether
    voicing any kind of contrary opinion that goes against the established
    way that a few of the regulars do things here is allowed at all, or am
    I expected to march in lock step with everyone else. It's gone so far
    that I am being accused of being a would be spammer, when there is
    absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up that claim.

    I have no problem with being disagreed with. But why does it have to
    be so personal? Why do you find the need to resort to name calling and
    belittling me just because you don't agree with what I said?

    To me, this is a much bigger issue than what got this all started.
    Reasonable people can disagree on what may or may not be the best and
    most effective ways to fight SPAM. That's fine. But this apparent
    attempt to stifle my particular opinion because it is not popular with
    the regulars in this group is very heinous.
    Voodoo, Jan 26, 2004
  9. cadmin

    Voodoo Guest

    I don't think so. If you look at some other popular usenet groups
    where SPAM is usually just ignored, there is certainly no more SPAM
    there than in this group.
    Voodoo, Jan 26, 2004
  10. cadmin

    Boomer Guest

    Looks like it's gonna be a good year! ;)
    Boomer, Jan 26, 2004
  11. cadmin

    °Mike° Guest


    °Mike°, Jan 26, 2004
  12. cadmin

    Boomer Guest

    ;) Life is good!
    Boomer, Jan 26, 2004
  13. cadmin

    Mara Guest

    I thought you knew. I'm allergic to latex. As in, "it will kill me very quickly"
    allergic. I have to wear special synthetic gloves at work, and I still have a
    reaction whenever I'm near someone who's wearing them or carrying them in their
    pockets. If I don't take meds every day, I can't enter the building.

    "I can think of a lot of pleasant ways to go, but death by latex isn't one of
    Mara, Jan 26, 2004
  14. cadmin

    °Mike° Guest

    No, I didn't know that. But, hey, there's alternatives. <g>
    °Mike°, Jan 26, 2004
  15. cadmin

    trout Guest

    On the contrary. I was simply reading what you may have written on
    the topic, in order to try to understand the basis of your rather inane
    opinion. Why you seem to feel it's unfair to quote your own post is
    mysterious to me.
    The topic, not the date, is pertinent. Do your views fluctuate
    wildly from year to year? Do facts have an expiry date?
    Along with your flat statement that people were wasting their time,
    you inferred that they were also wasting yours. Controversial, yes.
    What really got the ball rolling, aside from this controversial
    view, was your rather peculiar *request* that people join you in apathy,
    and do nothing. A more recent quote: "please don't take up additional
    space in this group with your fruitless replies to these messages".

    What if I had said something really controversial?
    Your post was a condescending insult to people that really do make a
    difference with their efforts. Yes, you have a right to your opinion.
    But you must have known that you were going to have to defend it.
    Particularly when expressed in such a beligerent manner; belittling the
    hard work of others, and requesting that they remove it from your sight
    because you consider it useless. You are really surprised that this
    elicited a hostile reaction?
    *This* is why I was reading your posts. I was genuinely curious as
    to whether or not you were typically this thick-headed. I posted,
    because I believe the material is relevant to the thread. Otherwise, I
    would not have bothered with this annoying conversation.
    I'm mystified as to why you feel that you need to express your
    dissatisfaction with all replies made to you, in your reply to my *one*
    post in this thread.
    As you are fond of attempting to dictate (yes, dictate) the posting
    rules for others; please state which restrictions you would place upon
    Is their a set limit of people that disagree with you in a thread,
    beyond which I may not post, or you'll cry "gang!" and call me to
    account for everything said by someone with a similar view? Are there
    specific posters that you would not allow me to agree with?
    You complain (in reply to me, for some reason) that you've been
    insulted; yet you insult me by discounting my opinion as worthless,
    because it *must* be some sort of hysterical mass attack against you.
    'Stifle *your* opinion'?!? This began when *you* flatly stated what
    was appropriate for other people to post.
    And yes. When someone is willing to boldly proclaim that many others
    are deluded, uselessly occupied, and should not post in certain threads;
    they should be able to deal with the heat generated. Or that person is,
    indeed, a "whiner".
    trout, Jan 26, 2004
  16. Most indubitably!....;oD

    @}-}-------Rosee, Jan 26, 2004
  17. cadmin

    trout Guest

    That is meaningless. As many spammers work their way through the
    newsgroup list; 'this' one is often among the first targets. Other
    groups, farther 'up the list', may actually benefit by having *less*
    spam, due to the spammer's account having been removed beforehand.
    trout, Jan 26, 2004
  18. cadmin

    Mara Guest

    Why, yes. Yes, there are. <beg>
    Mara, Jan 26, 2004
  19. cadmin

    Voodoo Guest

    I can see that I am not going to make any converts to my side of this
    argument here.

    So rather than continuing now, I am going to start counting SPAM
    messages to this ng. I will do it for six months, then I will post my

    If it turns out that the volume of SPAM to this group has gone down, I
    will apologize and admit that I was wrong. If, on the other hand, as I
    suspect, the efforts of the would be net cops in this group aren't
    working and SPAM has increased in this group, then we will know that I
    was right after all.
    Voodoo, Jan 27, 2004
  20. cadmin

    trout Guest

    Voodoo wrote:
    An astute observation.
    Why not, if it keeps you out of the pool-halls.
    I'd have to guess that you're not a scientist. Whatever the volume
    of spam in six months; how are you to say that it would not have been
    greater, had spammers not been reported, and their accounts closed? What
    if the spam has increased by two percent; while the number of potential
    spammers has increased four-fold by increases in the number of rogue
    ISP's and anti-filtering technology?
    These are only a couple of possible factors of many. But I suspect
    that you aren't exactly engaged in a pure fact-finding mission, are you?
    No, this is just a petulant, grumbling attempt to 'prove' a
    ridiculous point, to salve your bruised ego. Argument for the sake of
    trout, Jan 27, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.