test post - Security

This is a discussion on test post - Security ; base60 wrote: > Moe Trin wrote: > > [...] snip > >> In the mean time - stop whining - you are destroying what little >> credibility you had, and are showing why other posters recommend >> killfiling you in ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 40 of 40

Thread: test post

  1. Re: test post

    base60 wrote:

    > Moe Trin wrote:
    >
    > [...] snip
    >
    >> In the mean time - stop whining - you are destroying what little
    >> credibility you had, and are showing why other posters recommend
    >> killfiling you in a.o.l.m.

    >
    > Matt's sick.
    >
    > Let it go.


    The people that are sick that think telling a lie like "your test post
    failed because it did not go to a test group". I also put people that
    support such lies in the same group.



  2. Re: test post

    Trygve Selmer wrote:

    > matt_left_coast wrote:
    >> Moe Trin wrote:
    >>
    >>>>That assumes the poster HAS ACCESS to test groups. The server I post
    >>>>from has no test groups.
    >>>
    >>>Sweat mother of Ghod! Matt, you've been whining about this crap for
    >>>weeks now - first in alt.os.linux.mandrake, then in alt.os.linux, and now
    >>>here.

    >>
    >> You seem to have a problem with someone telling the truth. The fact of
    >> the matter is, I am correct. My leafnode is configured in a valid way
    >> that makes sense for me and my family. This is the type of FREEDOME that
    >> I want and need by using OSS. Also, My leafnode is NOT the only system
    >> that does not carry test groups. The fact that you and others seem to
    >> want to take away the FREEDOME for families and businesses to run
    >> configurations that best suite the needs of the family and business makes
    >> me wonder about your commitment to the freedom of OSS.

    >
    > I'm sorry Matt, but you are *not* correct. Leafnode is *not* a proper
    > news-server, it is primarily for off-line reading in a home and/or
    > small office environment (see http://leafnode.sourceforge.net/). When
    > you install "inn", a proper news-server, come back and talk to us.


    Dude, even INN allows for people to server ONLY the groups they want. If you
    also notice, I never claimed leafnode to be a "proper news-server". I would
    appreciate you not make up things in your attempt to bash me.

    My main points remain the same. Claiming that a test post fails because it
    does not go to a test group is a lie.



  3. Re: test post

    Huge wrote:

    > On 2006-05-15, matt_left_coast wrote:
    >>

    >
    > [More stupid selfish whiney crap]
    >
    > *plonk*
    >
    >
    >
    >


    Good.

  4. Re: test post

    Trygve Selmer wrote:

    > matt_left_coast wrote:
    >> Jon Solberg wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Moe Trin said the following on 2006-05-13 18:47:
    >>>
    >>>>On Fri, 12 May 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.security, in
    >>>>article <3eiej3-9hu.ln1@alta.sierrandays.org>, matt_left_coast wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Keith Keller wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>>Next time try alt.test or some other test group.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>That assumes the poster HAS ACCESS to test groups. The server I post
    >>>>>from has no test groups.
    >>>>
    >>>>Sweat mother of Ghod! Matt, you've been whining about this crap for
    >>>>weeks now - first in alt.os.linux.mandrake, then in alt.os.linux, and
    >>>>now here.
    >>>>
    >>>>Nobody gives a flying fsck that your leafnode client doesn't carry the
    >>>>test groups. [..]
    >>>
    >>>Hear, hear.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> There, there.
    >>
    >> Message ID:
    >>
    >> It's all about FREEDOM. Should I be free to configure my system the way
    >> that *I* want, or should I give into usenet net nannies that want to take
    >> that freedome away?

    >
    > Of course you should. The problem is, it's not about your personal
    > server, but how any official servers should be configured!


    My point is, people do not always HAVE access to "official servers". As you
    pointed out leafnode is "it is primarily for off-line reading in a home
    and/or small office environment". The people in that "small office
    environment" that post thought leafnode are NOT posting to "official
    servers". They are posting to a small office server (and yes it IS a
    server, just not an "official server") that can be used to limit access to
    the groups only the manager of the office wants them to have.

    > Please,
    > Matt. Stop this nonsense and accept that your news-server (leafnode?)
    > is private, not an official one.


    That is my point, not everyone posts to "official" servers. Many people in
    offices and homes post though PRIVATE servers that LIMIT access to the
    groups the company allows! Why is that such a difficult concept for you to
    grasp?


  5. Re: test post

    Rich Piotrowski wrote:

    > matt_left_coast wrote:
    >
    > ...
    >
    >> It's all about FREEDOM. Should I be free to configure my system the way
    >> that *I* want, or should I give into usenet net nannies that want to take
    >> that freedome away?

    >
    > You keep prattling on and on about freedom. How about some mention of
    > responsibility?
    >


    Yes, Here we go. Adding "test" groups to servers does not stop people from
    posting "test" messages to usenet.

    If you can show that my server is "responsible" for test messages going
    where you don't like, let me know and I will fix the issue. This is the
    gas. people are bitching about my configuration without ever seeing a test
    post that has come from it!

    But back to "responsibility" Responsible people would not lie and say a test
    post failed because it did not go to a test group. They would say the
    truth, that the person is being rude. I don't see why you people that hold
    netiquette and "responsibility" in such high regard was so willing to
    support a lie.

  6. Re: test post

    matt_left_coast wrote:
    > Trygve Selmer wrote:
    >
    >>matt_left_coast wrote:
    >>>
    >>>It's all about FREEDOM. Should I be free to configure my system the way
    >>>that *I* want, or should I give into usenet net nannies that want to take
    >>>that freedome away?

    >>
    >>Of course you should. The problem is, it's not about your personal
    >>server, but how any official servers should be configured!

    >
    > My point is, people do not always HAVE access to "official servers". As you
    > pointed out leafnode is "it is primarily for off-line reading in a home
    > and/or small office environment". The people in that "small office
    > environment" that post thought leafnode are NOT posting to "official
    > servers". They are posting to a small office server (and yes it IS a
    > server, just not an "official server") that can be used to limit access to
    > the groups only the manager of the office wants them to have.
    >
    >>Please,
    >>Matt. Stop this nonsense and accept that your news-server (leafnode?)
    >>is private, not an official one.

    >
    > That is my point, not everyone posts to "official" servers. Many people in
    > offices and homes post though PRIVATE servers that LIMIT access to the
    > groups the company allows! Why is that such a difficult concept for you to
    > grasp?


    Oh, I do grasp the concept, do you? You are indeed posting through an
    "official" server (news.rcn.net) from your machine belonging to
    *.cable.rcn.com. So please, how you configure your client (and
    leafnode *is* a client when posting articles) is your business, but do
    not use that as a description of how a "real" news-server should be
    configured.


  7. Re: test post

    On Tue, 16 May 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.security, in article
    , matt_left_coast wrote:

    >Moe Trin wrote:
    >
    >> Matt, no one gives a fsck how your leafnode client is configured. It is
    >> a client - it is not, no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise,
    >> a Usenet server.

    >
    >I never claimed it WAS.


    =======
    Message-Id: <3eiej3-9hu.ln1@alta.sierrandays.org>
    From: matt_left_coast
    Subject: Re: test post
    Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.security
    Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 07:24:33 -0700

    That assumes the poster HAS ACCESS to test groups. The server I post from
    has no test groups.

    =======
    Message-Id: <4055791.Crbad8chOy@rcn.com>
    From: matt_left_coast
    Subject: Re: New Users - FAQ for alt.os.linux.mandrake/mandriva
    Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.mandrake
    Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:28:15 -0700

    The server I am posting to right now does not. Many companies that want to
    grant access to news groups FOR COMPANY BUSINESS ONLY will set up something
    like a leafnode server with only company approved groups only.

    =======
    Message-Id: <10448245.UX3NmCuD5N@rcn.com>
    From: matt_left_coast
    Subject: Re: New Users - FAQ for alt.os.linux.mandrake/mandriva
    Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.mandrake
    Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:36:57 -0700

    I post though a LOCAL leafnode server, RCN does not and can not distingusish
    between a leafnode server that serves the 3 people using this particular
    server and a single desktop.

    =======

    That's just the ones that are handy. Or do you forget that a real news
    server has retention of several weeks or (a lot) more. Notice the message
    IDs which also reflect your belated discovery that even the message ID's
    showed that your server wasn't, and you then bought the domain name to make
    it appear that your client was really a server. Or are you _now_ going to
    say that what you wrote in those threads didn't mean anything?

    Don't bother responding - you're just wasting time and bandwidth, mainly your
    own. There's obviously no reason to continue this thread - you'll believe what
    you want to, and forget about the past. Also, seeing as how you seem to like
    using foul words - FOAD! How's that feel, l00ser.

    Old guy

  8. Re: test post

    matt_left_coast wrote:
    > Trygve Selmer wrote:
    >
    >>matt_left_coast wrote:
    >>
    >>>Moe Trin wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>That assumes the poster HAS ACCESS to test groups. The server I post
    >>>>
    >>>>>from has no test groups.
    >>>>
    >>>>Sweat mother of Ghod! Matt, you've been whining about this crap for
    >>>>weeks now - first in alt.os.linux.mandrake, then in alt.os.linux, and now
    >>>>here.
    >>>
    >>>You seem to have a problem with someone telling the truth. The fact of
    >>>the matter is, I am correct. My leafnode is configured in a valid way
    >>>that makes sense for me and my family. This is the type of FREEDOME that
    >>>I want and need by using OSS. Also, My leafnode is NOT the only system
    >>>that does not carry test groups. The fact that you and others seem to
    >>>want to take away the FREEDOME for families and businesses to run
    >>>configurations that best suite the needs of the family and business makes
    >>>me wonder about your commitment to the freedom of OSS.

    >>
    >>I'm sorry Matt, but you are *not* correct. Leafnode is *not* a proper
    >>news-server, it is primarily for off-line reading in a home and/or
    >>small office environment (see http://leafnode.sourceforge.net/). When
    >>you install "inn", a proper news-server, come back and talk to us.

    >
    > Dude, even INN allows for people to server ONLY the groups they want. If you
    > also notice, I never claimed leafnode to be a "proper news-server". I would
    > appreciate you not make up things in your attempt to bash me.


    First, it's proper to configure INN with some test-groups. Second, I'm
    not trying to bash you. My opinion should be as valid as yours. This
    is a discussion (ie two-way communication exchange of opinions), is it
    not ?

    > My main points remain the same. Claiming that a test post fails because it
    > does not go to a test group is a lie.


    Well, many people feel this way. If you don't does not automatically
    make these people liers. Please be more polite in your statements.


  9. Re: test post

    Moe Trin wrote:

    > On Tue, 16 May 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.security, in
    > article , matt_left_coast wrote:
    >
    >>Moe Trin wrote:
    >>
    >>> Matt, no one gives a fsck how your leafnode client is configured. It is
    >>> a client - it is not, no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise,
    >>> a Usenet server.

    >>
    >>I never claimed it WAS.

    >
    > =======
    > Message-Id: <3eiej3-9hu.ln1@alta.sierrandays.org>
    > From: matt_left_coast
    > Subject: Re: test post
    > Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.security
    > Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 07:24:33 -0700
    >
    > That assumes the poster HAS ACCESS to test groups. The server I post from
    > has no test groups.
    >


    But where did I say "Usenet serve"????? I said "server".

    Ok, If you want to get all hard about leafnode being a "server" vs. what YOU
    claimed "a client - it is not, no matter how much you want to pretend
    otherwise, a Usenet server." Tell it to leafnode. Let's see what leafnode
    has to say, http://leafnode.sourceforge.net/ In bold letters right across
    the TOP:

    Leafnode - NNTP Server For Small Sites

    Is it a usenet backbone server? NO. is it both a CLIENT AND A SERVER? YES.
    According to leafnode:

    "Leafnode is a software package that implements a store & forward NNTP proxy
    (client and server)..."

    If you want to debate if leafnode is a server, take it to leafnode. I
    personally no longer care about your twisted version of what server means.
    Leafnode is clearly used as a server in many environments.

    Now the truth is, businesses and families use leafnode _servers_ (not
    claiming it to be "USENET SERVER" for the brain dead in the cols) and other
    NNTP servers to act as a proxy to limit what groups their employees and
    children have access to.



  10. Re: test post

    Trygve Selmer wrote:

    > matt_left_coast wrote:
    >> Trygve Selmer wrote:
    >>
    >>>matt_left_coast wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Moe Trin wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>>That assumes the poster HAS ACCESS to test groups. The server I post
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>from has no test groups.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Sweat mother of Ghod! Matt, you've been whining about this crap for
    >>>>>weeks now - first in alt.os.linux.mandrake, then in alt.os.linux, and
    >>>>>now here.
    >>>>
    >>>>You seem to have a problem with someone telling the truth. The fact of
    >>>>the matter is, I am correct. My leafnode is configured in a valid way
    >>>>that makes sense for me and my family. This is the type of FREEDOME that
    >>>>I want and need by using OSS. Also, My leafnode is NOT the only system
    >>>>that does not carry test groups. The fact that you and others seem to
    >>>>want to take away the FREEDOME for families and businesses to run
    >>>>configurations that best suite the needs of the family and business
    >>>>makes me wonder about your commitment to the freedom of OSS.
    >>>
    >>>I'm sorry Matt, but you are *not* correct. Leafnode is *not* a proper
    >>>news-server, it is primarily for off-line reading in a home and/or
    >>>small office environment (see http://leafnode.sourceforge.net/). When
    >>>you install "inn", a proper news-server, come back and talk to us.

    >>
    >> Dude, even INN allows for people to server ONLY the groups they want. If
    >> you also notice, I never claimed leafnode to be a "proper news-server". I
    >> would appreciate you not make up things in your attempt to bash me.

    >
    > First, it's proper to configure INN with some test-groups.


    SAYS WHO??????????? Is it a RFC STANDARD?????

    > Second, I'm
    > not trying to bash you. My opinion should be as valid as yours. This
    > is a discussion (ie two-way communication exchange of opinions), is it
    > not ?


    No you are saying that I my opinion is not valid unless I have a "a proper
    news-server" installed.

    >
    >> My main points remain the same. Claiming that a test post fails because
    >> it does not go to a test group is a lie.

    >
    > Well, many people feel this way.


    That does not make it a FACT.

    > If you don't does not automatically
    > make these people liers.


    They did it when they claimed that a test post going to a non-test group was
    a failure. It is not.

    > Please be more polite in your statements.


    Me? I'm not the one running around telling people not to post here unless
    they have what YOU call "a proper news-server" installed.




  11. Re: test post

    Trygve Selmer wrote:

    > matt_left_coast wrote:
    >> Trygve Selmer wrote:
    >>
    >>>matt_left_coast wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>It's all about FREEDOM. Should I be free to configure my system the way
    >>>>that *I* want, or should I give into usenet net nannies that want to
    >>>>take that freedome away?
    >>>
    >>>Of course you should. The problem is, it's not about your personal
    >>>server, but how any official servers should be configured!

    >>
    >> My point is, people do not always HAVE access to "official servers". As
    >> you pointed out leafnode is "it is primarily for off-line reading in a
    >> home and/or small office environment". The people in that "small office
    >> environment" that post thought leafnode are NOT posting to "official
    >> servers". They are posting to a small office server (and yes it IS a
    >> server, just not an "official server") that can be used to limit access
    >> to the groups only the manager of the office wants them to have.
    >>
    >>>Please,
    >>>Matt. Stop this nonsense and accept that your news-server (leafnode?)
    >>>is private, not an official one.

    >>
    >> That is my point, not everyone posts to "official" servers. Many people
    >> in offices and homes post though PRIVATE servers that LIMIT access to the
    >> groups the company allows! Why is that such a difficult concept for you
    >> to grasp?

    >
    > Oh, I do grasp the concept, do you? You are indeed posting through an
    > "official" server (news.rcn.net)


    No, that is NOT the server I post to. I post to a LEAFNODE server on my
    private network. So do 3 other people. The other 3 have NO DIRECT ACCESS TO
    rcn.com. The do not post to rcn.com. Guess you are a little light on the
    concept.

    > from your machine belonging to
    > *.cable.rcn.com. So please, how you configure your client (and
    > leafnode *is* a client when posting articles)


    Wrong, AGAIN. According to leafnode http://leafnode.sourceforge.net/ , right
    up across the top of the page: "Leafnode - NNTP Server For Small Sites" If
    you have a problem with leafnode being called a "server" take it up with
    leafnode. Until you can convince the people at leafnode that leafnode is
    not a server, I see no reason to believe YOU over them. Specially when it
    is used AS A SERVER, and as a client, in my environment.


    > is your business, but do
    > not use that as a description of how a "real" news-server should be
    > configured.


    I am NOT saying how what you call a "real" news-server should be configured.
    I am saying how a PROXY server (and according to leafnode, leafnode IS A
    PROXY SERVER "Leafnode is a software package that implements a store &
    forward NNTP proxy (client and server)...") Can be configured to limit
    access of groups to employees or children.




  12. Re: test post

    Trygve Selmer wrote:
    > matt_left_coast wrote:
    >> Trygve Selmer wrote:
    >>
    >>> matt_left_coast wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Moe Trin wrote:


    [...]

    >
    > Well, many people feel this way. If you don't does not automatically
    > make these people liers. Please be more polite in your statements.


    Obviously, you're unfamiliar with matt aka binky-boy :-)

    FWIW, you're arguing with someone whom is considered by many to be
    more than slightly barmy.

    If you're doing it for entertainment value, enjoy.

    Otherwise, you're wasting your time because he does so enjoy his
    insane little rants.

  13. Re: test post

    base60 wrote:

    > Trygve Selmer wrote:
    >> matt_left_coast wrote:
    >>> Trygve Selmer wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> matt_left_coast wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Moe Trin wrote:

    >
    > [...]
    >
    >>
    >> Well, many people feel this way. If you don't does not automatically
    >> make these people liers. Please be more polite in your statements.

    >
    > Obviously, you're unfamiliar with matt aka binky-boy :-)
    >


    Of course he is. I will point out where people are wrong no matter how
    unpopular or how many people try to discredit me, as a person, rather than
    debate what I have to say.

    > FWIW, you're arguing with someone whom is considered by many to be
    > more than slightly barmy.
    >


    Ahhh, try to discredit the person rather than what is said.

    > If you're doing it for entertainment value, enjoy.


    You mean he is acting as if he does not know what a server is?

    >
    > Otherwise, you're wasting your time because he does so enjoy his
    > insane little rants.


    So, I make the case that leafnode is a server and it is an insane rant? Get
    real.


  14. Re: test post

    base60 wrote:
    > Trygve Selmer wrote:
    >
    >> matt_left_coast wrote:
    >>
    >>> Trygve Selmer wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> matt_left_coast wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Moe Trin wrote:

    >
    > [...]
    >
    >> Well, many people feel this way. If you don't does not automatically
    >> make these people liers. Please be more polite in your statements.

    >
    > Obviously, you're unfamiliar with matt aka binky-boy :-)
    >
    > FWIW, you're arguing with someone whom is considered by many to be
    > more than slightly barmy.
    >
    > If you're doing it for entertainment value, enjoy.
    >
    > Otherwise, you're wasting your time because he does so enjoy his
    > insane little rants.


    I understand this now. Case closed.


  15. Re: test post

    On Wed, 17 May 2006 10:40:18 +0200, Trygve Selmer wrote:

    > base60 wrote:
    >> Trygve Selmer wrote:
    >>
    >>> matt_left_coast wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Trygve Selmer wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> matt_left_coast wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Moe Trin wrote:

    >>
    >> [...]
    >>
    >>> Well, many people feel this way. If you don't does not automatically
    >>> make these people liers. Please be more polite in your statements.

    >>
    >> Obviously, you're unfamiliar with matt aka binky-boy :-)
    >>
    >> FWIW, you're arguing with someone whom is considered by many to be more
    >> than slightly barmy.
    >>
    >> If you're doing it for entertainment value, enjoy.
    >>
    >> Otherwise, you're wasting your time because he does so enjoy his insane
    >> little rants.

    >
    > I understand this now. Case closed.


    No, no, I think we need to revisit the need for more than 64mb of ram in
    order to run X.


  16. Re: test post

    Trygve Selmer wrote:

    > base60 wrote:
    >> Trygve Selmer wrote:
    >>
    >>> matt_left_coast wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Trygve Selmer wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> matt_left_coast wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Moe Trin wrote:

    >>
    >> [...]
    >>
    >>> Well, many people feel this way. If you don't does not automatically
    >>> make these people liers. Please be more polite in your statements.

    >>
    >> Obviously, you're unfamiliar with matt aka binky-boy :-)
    >>
    >> FWIW, you're arguing with someone whom is considered by many to be
    >> more than slightly barmy.
    >>
    >> If you're doing it for entertainment value, enjoy.
    >>
    >> Otherwise, you're wasting your time because he does so enjoy his
    >> insane little rants.

    >
    > I understand this now. Case closed.


    This from a guy that does not even know what a server is. Yet again another
    person that does not know what he is talking about is acting as if I am the
    ass.

  17. Re: test post

    matt_left_coast wrote:
    > Trygve Selmer wrote:
    >
    >>base60 wrote:
    >>
    >>>Trygve Selmer wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>matt_left_coast wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>Trygve Selmer wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>matt_left_coast wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Moe Trin wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>[...]
    >>>
    >>>>Well, many people feel this way. If you don't does not automatically
    >>>>make these people liers. Please be more polite in your statements.
    >>>
    >>>Obviously, you're unfamiliar with matt aka binky-boy :-)
    >>>
    >>>FWIW, you're arguing with someone whom is considered by many to be
    >>>more than slightly barmy.
    >>>
    >>>If you're doing it for entertainment value, enjoy.
    >>>
    >>>Otherwise, you're wasting your time because he does so enjoy his
    >>>insane little rants.

    >>
    >>I understand this now. Case closed.

    >
    > This from a guy that does not even know what a server is. Yet again another
    > person that does not know what he is talking about is acting as if I am the
    > ass.


    Oh dear, do you understand the difference of a proxy server and a real
    server ? If I had stated the above, I would be called a lier. Why can
    you not behave as a normal person ?

    A discussion is a two-way exchange of information, but you obviously
    are walking a one-way street. Sorry you have to walk alone.


  18. Re: test post

    On 2006-05-17, prodigal1 wrote:
    >
    > No, no, I think we need to revisit the need for more than 64mb of ram in
    > order to run X.


    Pish posh! 640K ought to be enough for anybody!

    --keith, who suspects that matt's brain is running on 640K

    --
    kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
    (try just my userid to email me)
    AOLSFAQ=http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom
    see X- headers for PGP signature information


  19. Re: test post

    Trygve Selmer wrote:

    > matt_left_coast wrote:
    >> Trygve Selmer wrote:
    >>
    >>>base60 wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Trygve Selmer wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>matt_left_coast wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Trygve Selmer wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>matt_left_coast wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>Moe Trin wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>[...]
    >>>>
    >>>>>Well, many people feel this way. If you don't does not automatically
    >>>>>make these people liers. Please be more polite in your statements.
    >>>>
    >>>>Obviously, you're unfamiliar with matt aka binky-boy :-)
    >>>>
    >>>>FWIW, you're arguing with someone whom is considered by many to be
    >>>>more than slightly barmy.
    >>>>
    >>>>If you're doing it for entertainment value, enjoy.
    >>>>
    >>>>Otherwise, you're wasting your time because he does so enjoy his
    >>>>insane little rants.
    >>>
    >>>I understand this now. Case closed.

    >>
    >> This from a guy that does not even know what a server is. Yet again
    >> another person that does not know what he is talking about is acting as
    >> if I am the ass.

    >
    > Oh dear, do you understand the difference of a proxy server and a real
    > server ?


    Oh, dear where did I ever say "REAL" (what ever that is supposed to mean)? A
    proxy server is STILL A SERVER, that is what the second word of "proxy
    server" is /*_SERVER_*/ regardless if you what to call it "real" (what ever
    that means) or not. It IS A SERVER. Even the leafnode page calls it
    a /*_SERVER_*/. What more do you need?

    > If I had stated the above, I would be called a lier. Why can
    > you not behave as a normal person ?


    What is "normal"? Is running around trying to say what server is "real" and
    what server is not NORMAL? Not in MY book.

    >
    > A discussion is a two-way exchange of information, but you obviously
    > are walking a one-way street. Sorry you have to walk alone.


    Yes, I am. I have read what YOU have to say and tried to address the points
    you made, but you refuse to accept the DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE that shows that
    leafnode IS A SERVER:

    http://leafnode.sourceforge.net/

    Right up across the top of the page in big bold letters that even you can
    not miss: "Leafnode - NNTP Server For Small Sites".

    Now why can't you be like a mature person, accept the documented evidence
    and admit you are wrong?




  20. Re: test post

    Keith Keller wrote:

    > On 2006-05-17, prodigal1 wrote:
    >>
    >> No, no, I think we need to revisit the need for more than 64mb of ram in
    >> order to run X.

    >
    > Pish posh! 640K ought to be enough for anybody!
    >
    > --keith, who suspects that matt's brain is running on 640K
    >


    Ahh, more personal insults rather than address the issue. This is why I
    don't care what you trolls think of me.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2