Verily I say unto thee, that The Ghost In The Machine spake thusly:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, chrisv wrote on
> Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:56:17 -0500
> :
>> Identity wrote:

>>> Now,
>> *plonk*
>>
>
> He's now properly scored down in my file as well.
>
> For what all this is worth. ;-)

I didn't even see it.

It must be one of those Dizum or Motzarella posts.

Hmmm [quick look on Google], it seems it got caught in the filter for
Level3.net.

--
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
| the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
| weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
23:51:12 up 4 days, 8:47, 3 users, load average: 0.26, 0.15, 0.10

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Homer

wrote
on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:53:09 +0100
:
> Verily I say unto thee, that The Ghost In The Machine spake thusly:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, chrisv wrote on
>> Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:56:17 -0500
>> :
>>> Identity wrote:
>
>>>> Now,
>>> *plonk*
>>>
>>
>> He's now properly scored down in my file as well.
>>
>> For what all this is worth. ;-)
>
> I didn't even see it.
>
> It must be one of those Dizum or Motzarella posts.
>
> Hmmm [quick look on Google], it seems it got caught in the filter for
> Level3.net.
>

Level3, huh? My path suggests he's coming in from Earthlink's old NNTP
server, routing through giganews.

My brain's beginning to hurt...

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Linux. Because it's there and it works.
Windows. It's there, but does it work?
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

After takin' a swig o' grog, The Ghost In The Machine belched out
this bit o' wisdom:

> I for one would have thought the difference obvious, since
> SLRN includes the email addresses within <>.

True, but not everyone reads headers, especially when some spider
collects the posts for google groups or such.

> In any event, I tend to respond to the actual message. ;-)

Sure, but this guy is probably just posting nicely for awhile, to lull
ya.

--
It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you mean it
is. If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers. It isn't her's. It
isn't our's either. It's ours, and likewise yours and theirs.
-- Oxford University Press, Edpress News

After takin' a swig o' grog, Identity belched out
this bit o' wisdom:

> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, The Ghost In The Machine belched out
>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Ahlstrom
>>>
>>
>> Please ignore the forger, Ghost, or include a disclaimer that you know
>> he is adopting my name without permission.
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> Christine, here you go you little *bitch*. Now, maybe, you'll stop
> whining like a little *bitch*, you little bitch.

Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

Maybe Spock was talking about you:

--
"That unit is a woman."
"A mass of conflicting impulses."
-- Spock and Nomad, "The Changeling", stardate 3541.9

After takin' a swig o' grog, chrisv belched out
this bit o' wisdom:

> Identity wrote:
>
>>Now,
>
> *plonk*

You're slow on the draw today, chrisv. Heh heh.

--
When you're not looking at it, this fortune is written in FORTRAN.

After takin' a swig o' grog, The Ghost In The Machine belched out
this bit o' wisdom:

>> Yes the mechanisms are in place and Linux being built on the Unix model,
>> technically, should be secure.
>
> No, the mechanisms are *not* in place; the above link proves it.
> Otherwise, why are Apache servers being compromised more than 4 times
> more than IIS ones?

Uh, because they're more useful?

http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/...25736A000E4723

Capabilities like this make Linux machines highly coveted by online
attackers, and they fetch a premium in the underground marketplace
for compromised machines, Amit said.

> Correct, though with checksums one has a fighting chance.
> But really, Linux isn't more secure than Windows now, and we
> all need to be more careful.

Indeed. You mean to say "Apache isn't more secure than Windows now",
I think.

--
Many a writer seems to think he is never profound except when he can't
understand his own meaning.
-- George D. Prentice

After takin' a swig o' grog, The Ghost In The Machine belched out
this bit o' wisdom:

> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, the Chris Ahlstrom FAKEBOI wrote:
>>
>> WTF? This is nothing but a bunch of damn BS out of you.
>>
>> Amityville.Linux.Advocacy is nothing but bull****.
>>
>> I don't think any of you people are sane.
>
> You want sanity, try alt.24hour.support. ;-)

Told ya he was tryin' to lull ya!

--
As the trials of life continue to take their toll, remember that there
is always a future in Computer Maintenance.
-- National Lampoon, "Deteriorata"

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Ahlstrom

wrote
on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:26:09 -0400
:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, The Ghost In The Machine belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>> Yes the mechanisms are in place and Linux being built on the Unix model,
>>> technically, should be secure.
>>
>> No, the mechanisms are *not* in place; the above link proves it.
>> Otherwise, why are Apache servers being compromised more than 4 times
>> more than IIS ones?
>
> Uh, because they're more useful?
>
> http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/...25736A000E4723
>
> Capabilities like this make Linux machines highly coveted by online
> attackers, and they fetch a premium in the underground marketplace
> for compromised machines, Amit said.
>
>> Correct, though with checksums one has a fighting chance.
>> But really, Linux isn't more secure than Windows now, and we
>> all need to be more careful.
>
> Indeed. You mean to say "Apache isn't more secure than Windows now",
> I think.
>

A point, indeed a point, though I'll admit to wondering. There's
probably multiple issues here:

[1] Apache vulnerability found the hard way e.g. some sort of
buffer overflow hack.

[2] A default password a la the very old SYSTEM/MANAGER
VAX/VMS default account setup (this is unlikely admittedly,
but vaguely possible).

[3] Cross-scripting vulnerabilities coupled with phishing techniques.

Wish I knew for sure what they're using. The above article does
have the following paragraph:

Since Linux machines can be used to more easily
create specially crafted networking packets, they
can be used in highly sophisticated online attacks,
said Iftach Amit, director of security research with
Finjan's malicious code research centre.

[Translation: socket(AF_INET, SOCK_RAW, 0), if I'm not
mistaken. I'd have to fiddle, and it's not all that useful
to me personally for writing custom packets, though it
might be useful to sniff my LAN. I still remember the fuss
regarding XP's capability to generate raw socket packets,
and it turns out *Linux* is the preferred OS for churning
out such.]

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Linux. Because it's there and it works.
Windows. It's there, but does it work?
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Verily I say unto thee, that The Ghost In The Machine spake thusly:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Homer wrote on Tue, 14
> Oct 2008 23:53:09 +0100 :
>> Verily I say unto thee, that The Ghost In The Machine spake thusly:
>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, chrisv wrote
>>> on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:56:17 -0500
>>> :
>>>> Identity wrote:

>>>>> Now,
>>>> *plonk*
>>>>
>>> He's now properly scored down in my file as well.
>>>
>>> For what all this is worth. ;-)
>>
>> I didn't even see it.
>>
>> It must be one of those Dizum or Motzarella posts.
>>
>> Hmmm [quick look on Google], it seems it got caught in the filter
>> for Level3.net.
>
> Level3, huh? My path suggests he's coming in from Earthlink's old
> NNTP server, routing through giganews.
>
> My brain's beginning to hurt...

Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.225.26.25

whois 4.225.26.25
OrgName: Level 3 Communications, Inc.

host 4.225.26.25
dialup-4.225.26.25.Dial1.Cincinnati1.Level3.net

--
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
| the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
| weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
01:55:04 up 4 days, 10:50, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.04, 0.03

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Homer
>
> wrote
> on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:53:09 +0100
> :
>> Verily I say unto thee, that The Ghost In The Machine spake thusly:
>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, chrisv wrote on
>>> Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:56:17 -0500
>>> :
>>>> Identity wrote:
>>>>> Now,
>>>> *plonk*
>>>>
>>> He's now properly scored down in my file as well.
>>>
>>> For what all this is worth. ;-)
>> I didn't even see it.
>>
>> It must be one of those Dizum or Motzarella posts.
>>
>> Hmmm [quick look on Google], it seems it got caught in the filter for
>> Level3.net.
>>
>
> Level3, huh? My path suggests he's coming in from Earthlink's old NNTP
> server, routing through giganews.
>
> My brain's beginning to hurt...
>

You people are *clowns*. I never knew that a dial-up connection could be
so powerful. You know, I could easily get an access number in
Mississippi. 24hrs huh? I expect the loony-ness in that NG to happen.
But this ****ing cesspool called Amityville.Linux.Advocacy is just below
it and not by much.

I may look and see if this one NNTP service that didn't work with Vista,
because it's software was not Vista compliant may be Vista compliant.
They were working on it. And no one could track on headers. There is
nothing to key on, just to **** with this NG and the regulars in it. :-P

I wouldn't mess with you, because you are not so much of an ass-wipe,
like the rest. And I like Ballard. But the rest of these mother****ing
ass-wipe wannabe gurus are just that -- mother****ing ass-wipe wannabe
gurus.

On Oct 14, 8:31*pm, Identity wrote:
>
> You people are *clowns*. I never knew that a dial-up connection could be
> so powerful. You know, I could easily get an access number in
> Mississippi.

Who you think yer crappin? You've got dialup because you can't afford
anything faster. You have to kite a check for cash at the gas station
and run to the bank on payday to cover it, remember?

> 24hrs huh? I expect the loony-ness in that NG to happen.
> But this ****ing cesspool called Amityville.Linux.Advocacy is just below
> it and not by much.

You're at the bottom of the cesspool's drain, slurping up the thick
stuff, bozo. You love it here.

> I may look and see if this one NNTP service that didn't work with Vista,
> because it's software was not Vista compliant may be Vista compliant.
> They were working on it. And no one could track on headers. There is
> nothing to key on, just to **** with this NG and the regulars in it. :-P

They'll know you: your lack of style is easily identified.

COLA Loon's Nick-list Keeper wrote:




Montgomery you old Geritol drunk, what makes you think that the same
rules that apply to your dumbass in other NG(s) that you chase in don't
apply to you here?

You need go on and lay down with your old ass, you Geritol old drunk.
And you should take the Geritol bottle and stick it up you ass sideways
and twist it.

I stopped reading you cluck and whine months ago, and you have been told
that you old moron.

Identity wrote:
> COLA Loon's Nick-list Keeper wrote:
>
>
>
> Montgomery you old [snip]

I loved it when sock puppets talk.

--
HPT
Quando omni flunkus moritati
(If all else fails, play dead)
- "Red" Green

High Plains Thumper wrote:
> Identity wrote:
>> COLA Loon's Nick-list Keeper wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Montgomery you old [snip]
>
> I loved it when sock puppets talk.
>

You should know, since you're one of them. Let's not forget your
personal visit to Vista.General, you ass-wipe.

On Oct 14, 9:49*pm, Identity wrote:
> COLA Loon's Nick-list Keeper wrote:
>
>
>
> Montgomery you old Geritol drunk, what makes you think that the same
> rules that apply to your dumbass in other NG(s) that you chase in don't
> * apply to you here?
>
> You need go on and lay down with your old ass, you Geritol old drunk.
> And you should take the Geritol bottle and stick it up you ass sideways
> and twist it.
>
> I stopped reading you cluck and whine months ago, and you have been told
> that you old moron.

HA! Your reply to me proves what I've said all along: you HAVE to
read those who openly and joyfully piss in your face. You can't HELP
yourself. You become OBSESSED with them.

You sick little check-kiting puppy. You're really very entertaining.

Identity wrote:
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>> Identity wrote:
>>> COLA Loon's Nick-list Keeper wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Montgomery you old [snip]
>>
>> I loved it when sock puppets talk.
>
> You should know, since you're one of them. Let's not forget
> your personal visit to Vista.General, you ass-wipe.

Bingo! Same troll. Seems to have heartburn over my reply to one
of its troll friends, who crossposted (favoured troll tactic).

Nonetheless, this type childish vulgar talk is an example of:

http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killf..._troll_faq.htm

Subject: 3.4 The nasty Troll

If anyone does anything which will interfere with the troll's
ability to cause mayhem, they can become very nasty, posting from
obviously incorrect variations of the name etc. insults, call
them netcops, netnannies, homosexuals.

also

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/

7.6 Trespasser Disinformation Tactics [...]

[3.] Put your opponent off guard by insulting him. The
liberal use of profanity and vulgarisms can be very effective,
particularly when used against you more dignified opponents. Your
experience as a school yard bully can be handy here.

[... and]

34. Use of false identities. Create throw away identities to
enter the newsgroup to spread discord and after a few days or
weeks, stop using that identity. If you are losing an argument
create a new identity to support the position of your main
identity. If things are getting slow, create a few identities
counter to your primary identity. Start a n-on-1 argument with
your primary identity being outnumbered. Then have each of your
new identities be convinced by your primary identity to the error
of their ways.

--
HPT
Quando omni flunkus moritati
(If all else fails, play dead)
- "Red" Green

After takin' a swig o' grog, High Plains Thumper belched out
this bit o' wisdom:

> Identity wrote:
>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> This applies to you too. You need to go find yourself some ...
>
> Bingo! No application, try again. Nonetheless, this type
> childish vulgar talk is an example of:
>
> http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killf..._troll_faq.htm
>
>

Subject: 3.4 The nasty Troll
>
> If anyone does anything which will interfere with the troll's
> ability to cause mayhem, they can become very nasty, posting from
> obviously incorrect variations of the name etc. insults, call
> them netcops, netnannies, homosexuals.

And he had

fun !
fun !
fun !

Till his daddy took his modem awayyyyy!

--
Beware the new TTY code!

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:26:09 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> After takin' a swig o' grog, The Ghost In The Machine belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>> Yes the mechanisms are in place and Linux being built on the Unix model,
>>> technically, should be secure.
>>
>> No, the mechanisms are *not* in place; the above link proves it.
>> Otherwise, why are Apache servers being compromised more than 4 times
>> more than IIS ones?
>
> Uh, because they're more useful?
>
> http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/...25736A000E4723
>
> Capabilities like this make Linux machines highly coveted by online
> attackers, and they fetch a premium in the underground marketplace
> for compromised machines, Amit said.

So, in other words, by your own admission, should an attacker find it
useful to attach Linux, then they succeed at a high rate.

Sounds a lot like the "If Linux were as popular a target as windows, it
would be compromised as often as windows" argument.

Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:26:09 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, The Ghost In The Machine belched out
>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>>> Yes the mechanisms are in place and Linux being built on the Unix
>>>> model, technically, should be secure.
>>>
>>> No, the mechanisms are *not* in place; the above link proves it.
>>> Otherwise, why are Apache servers being compromised more than 4 times
>>> more than IIS ones?
>>
>> Uh, because they're more useful?
>>
>>
http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/...25736A000E4723
>>
>> Capabilities like this make Linux machines highly coveted by online
>> attackers, and they fetch a premium in the underground marketplace
>> for compromised machines, Amit said.
>
> So, in other words, by your own admission, should an attacker find it
> useful to attach Linux, then they succeed at a high rate.

Nope. Not linux. Apache. Try to keep up, Erik, even if that is very
difficult for someone like you

> Sounds a lot like the "If Linux were as popular a target as windows, it
> would be compromised as often as windows" argument.

And it would still be bull****
--
Windows is just the instable version of Linux for users who are too
dumb to handle the real thing