"Live Strong in Character - Don't Leave Your Family"

[Cheto]

"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> No, Tommy. From what I can gather, the "Gay Agenda" is "Dinner at 8."

Yeah, and weenie is the main course.

Cheto

 

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Bill Sornson wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>> Bill Sornson wrote:
> >>
> >>>> If Buttpacker were truly God-fearing, then he wouldn't spew his
> >>>> hate-filled, judgmental ****.
>
> >>> Hate-filled and judgemental are perfect descriptions for the modern
> >>> Christian conservative.
>
> >> Who's talking about a Christian conservative? The subject was
> >> Buttpacker.
>
> > If you're having trouble grasping the subject matter, I suggest one of
> > two things:
>
> 1.) Stop reading the thread.
>
> Um, you replied to /me/.

Which has exactly what to do with the price of silk in Morocco?

> > 2.) Re-read the thread for context.
>
> I think I know what /I/ meant.

Of that I am sure. Whether others have a grasp of your intent is
anyone's guess.

I'll give you a clue: thread drift happens. It even happens to the
most upright of netizens. Get used to it, get over it, or get off the
'net.

Hoping you know what /I/ meant,

E.P.

 

[Bill Sornson]

[email protected] wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> If Buttpacker were truly God-fearing, then he wouldn't spew his
>>>>>> hate-filled, judgmental ****.
>>
>>>>> Hate-filled and judgemental are perfect descriptions for the
>>>>> modern Christian conservative.
>>
>>>> Who's talking about a Christian conservative? The subject was
>>>> Buttpacker.
>>
>>> If you're having trouble grasping the subject matter, I suggest one
>>> of two things:
>>
>> 1.) Stop reading the thread.
>>
>> Um, you replied to /me/.
>
> Which has exactly what to do with the price of silk in Morocco?
>
>>> 2.) Re-read the thread for context.
>>
>> I think I know what /I/ meant.
>
> Of that I am sure. Whether others have a grasp of your intent is
> anyone's guess.
>
> I'll give you a clue: thread drift happens. It even happens to the
> most upright of netizens. Get used to it, get over it, or get off the
> 'net.

I'll write slowly so you can move your lips.

My comment about Buttpacker was independent of the thread's subject matter.
(It's a simple declarative statement -- still up there if you need a
refresher.) YOU chose to take it and make some comment about so-called
conservative Christians, which I repeat has nothing to do with Buttpacker.
(Hint: he only /proclaims/ to be "God-fearing" -- which prompted my
comment.)

You can make all the political posts you want, but if you bounce off MY post
to do it I'll reply if I think it's unfair or inapprpriate or illogical or
just plain wrong.

Last word is yours (whoever you are), as always...

BS

 

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> I'll write slowly so you can move your lips.

That didn't seem to help you - how is it supposed to help me?

> My comment about Buttpacker was independent of the thread's subject matter.

Well, there you go. And you're whining my replies.

Classic.

E.P.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 00:50:16 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>My name *was* spelled out in my signature, which you even quoted - it
>was backwards to reduce the chances of a dictionary attack on the part
>of spammers who might know something about the internet service
>provided by SBC (formerly PacBell).

FOFLMAO! That cracks me up every time. The very idea that spammers
are going to scarf the contents of Usenet messages, pick out names
form sigs, reassemble them with domain names from headers and send
spam! Like there aren't several dozen easier ways to get addies
together! Bill, your paranoia is hilarious :-D


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"Let’s have a moment of silence for all those Americans who are stuck
in traffic on their way to the gym to ride the stationary bicycle."
- Earl Blumenauer

 

[k.papai]

This OP had degraded too much. STOP IT!

All your base are belong to us!

Justice is there. Main Screen turn off or on.

 

[The Wogster]

Bill Z. wrote:
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>Showing your 7th grade mentality, redneck upbringing, poor manners,
>>>and abusive personality once again? You really are a piece of work,
>>>aren't you, Kunich. Quite pitiful, actually.
>>>
>>>--
>>>My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
>>
>>Let me get this straight - someone who is scared witless to spell his own
>>NAME out is telling me that I'm pitiful?
>
>
> My name *was* spelled out in my signature, which you even quoted - it
> was backwards to reduce the chances of a dictionary attack on the part
> of spammers who might know something about the internet service
> provided by SBC (formerly PacBell).
>
> Your tendency to jump to the wrong conclusion, even when the facts are
> right in front of your face, is duly noted. And, as I said, you
> really are rather pitiful. You should get some help. You really need
> it.
>

There are better solutions then being paranoid about your sig, for
example I use a spam trap. Check out my email address, it's not my real
email address. It's actually a spam trap, it gets about 50 a day, I use
it when I publicly want to publish an address, and don't want my real
address spammed. Email sent to the address gets sorted, if it's from a
Yahoo List, it gets processed into a folder on my mail reader,
everything else gets tossed into a bucket called Suspected Junk Mail,
once a week I run junkmail controls over it, then look at the 2 or 3
that are left, 99% of the time I use those to update the filter.....

W

 

[Dave Vandervies]

In article <[email protected]>,
gds <[email protected]> wrote:

> Yep, that is the main problem in the world. God spoke the truth to ME
>and all who don't agree should be... .

If Jesus was a white english-speaking male, we should ALL be white
english-speaking males...


dave

--
Dave Vandervies [email protected]

You know this. I know this. Would somebody _please_ tell @IDIOTS this?
--Stuart Lamble in the scary devil monastery

 

[Dave Vandervies]

In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Z. <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

>> Isn't that the Gay Agenda?
>
>No, Tommy. From what I can gather, the "Gay Agenda" is "Dinner at 8."
>If you think I'm misinformed, please explain why.

I thought that was when the recruiting drive planning meeting started?

My copy of the Gay Agenda must be out of date. Any gays have a current
version they're willing to let me copy?


dave

--
Dave Vandervies [email protected]

All that is gold does not glitter; not all those that wander are lost.
--J. R. R. Tolkien (Shamelessly Stolen From AdB in the SDM)

 

[Bill Z.]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 00:50:16 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >My name *was* spelled out in my signature, which you even quoted - it
> >was backwards to reduce the chances of a dictionary attack on the part
> >of spammers who might know something about the internet service
> >provided by SBC (formerly PacBell).
>
> FOFLMAO! That cracks me up every time. The very idea that spammers
> are going to scarf the contents of Usenet messages, pick out names
> form sigs, reassemble them with domain names from headers and send
> spam! Like there aren't several dozen easier ways to get addies
> together! Bill, your paranoia is hilarious :-D

Your ignorance is really pathetic. Spammers do something quite
similar to that. I started getting spam within a week or so of
posting a usenet message after setting up an account with my ISP, and
I did not include my email address in any usable form in the message
nor give it to any web site. I did have a URL in the signature,
pointing to a GIF file containing my email address in non-linear text
so that even character recognition wouldn't work.

They may have known that pacbell initially set one's home page
to http://home.pacbell.net/USER with [email protected] being the
corresponding email address, or they could simply collect words
and try a dictionary attack on all of them - you hardly have to
pick up names specifically - you just look for the lack of
bounced messages to confirm what might be a legitimate one.

Since you are technically naive, try looking up the term
"dictionary attack" and see what it means, and you might consider
trying not to make a fool of yourself until you know something
about the field.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

The Wogster <[email protected]> writes:


> There are better solutions then being paranoid about your sig, for
> example I use a spam trap. Check out my email address, it's not my
> real email address. It's actually a spam trap, it gets about 50 a
> day, I use it when I publicly want to publish an address, and don't
> want my real address spammed. Email sent to the address gets sorted,
> if it's from a Yahoo List, it gets processed into a folder on my mail
> reader, everything else gets tossed into a bucket called Suspected
> Junk Mail, once a week I run junkmail controls over it, then look at
> the 2 or 3 that are left, 99% of the time I use those to update the
> filter.....

Have fun - I've better things to do with my time.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

[email protected] (Dave Vandervies) writes:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Z. <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >> Isn't that the Gay Agenda?
> >
> >No, Tommy. From what I can gather, the "Gay Agenda" is "Dinner at 8."
> >If you think I'm misinformed, please explain why.
>
> I thought that was when the recruiting drive planning meeting started?

I thought that was when "please recruit me" started, although I've
heard that the official starting time is quite a bit later in the
evening, no doubt past my bedtime.

In case anyone didn't get it, "Dinner at Eight" is a classic film (see
<http://www.filmsite.org/dinn.html>) with an excellent cast including
John and Lionel Barrymore and Billie Burke (who played the nice witch
in _The Wizzard of Oz_). Billie Burke was hillarious as a spaced out
hostess dealing with a disfunctional family and an array of other
problems, all blown out of proportion. Also, the director (George
Cukor) was gay. See <http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/32/cukor1.html>
for a bio.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[StaceyJ]

---snip---
> FOFLMAO! That cracks me up every time. The very idea that spammers
> are going to scarf the contents of Usenet messages, pick out names
> form sigs, reassemble them with domain names from headers and send
> spam! Like there aren't several dozen easier ways to get addies
> together! Bill, your paranoia is hilarious :-D

Um, this is actually fairly common practice (or was back in the day).
I've had several different e-mail addys (used ONLY for usenet posting)
'scarfed' in just this fashion over the years.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 00:53:46 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>> FOFLMAO! That cracks me up every time. The very idea that spammers
>> are going to scarf the contents of Usenet messages, pick out names
>> form sigs, reassemble them with domain names from headers and send
>> spam! Like there aren't several dozen easier ways to get addies
>> together! Bill, your paranoia is hilarious :-D

>Your ignorance is really pathetic. Spammers do something quite
>similar to that.

Oh really? Quite similar? They take names from .sigs and combine
them with domains from headers to make addresses? Do cite some proof.
That would be really interesting to see.

>I started getting spam within a week or so of
>posting a usenet message after setting up an account with my ISP,

Maybe your style ****** someone off to the extent they signed you up
for some Special Offers

>Since you are technically naive, try looking up the term
>"dictionary attack" and see what it means, and you might consider
>trying not to make a fool of yourself until you know something
>about the field.

LOL! I shall be sure to tell my boss I am "technically naive" - I'm
the senior mail administrator for the company, worldwide!


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"Let’s have a moment of silence for all those Americans who are stuck
in traffic on their way to the gym to ride the stationary bicycle."
- Earl Blumenauer

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 3 Aug 2005 00:09:18 -0700, "StaceyJ" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Um, this is actually fairly common practice (or was back in the day).
>I've had several different e-mail addys (used ONLY for usenet posting)
>'scarfed' in just this fashion over the years.

Addresses in .sigs, yes, but not names in sigs without reference to
any domain name.

My name is in the .sig, and the domain in the link is valid and owned
by me. Email sent to that name @ that domain will arrive in my inbox.
None ever has. I have also used the technique of spelling out the
punctuation, with similar results.

Bill is just paranoid. Ask him what helmet he wears and you'll find
out

These days I use a valid reply-to and even that has not been spammed.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"Let’s have a moment of silence for all those Americans who are stuck
in traffic on their way to the gym to ride the stationary bicycle."
- Earl Blumenauer

 

[Tom Kunich]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "We"? As in the royal "We"? Were, or were not, the Inquisitors the
> conservative Christians of their day?

And what has that to do with anything? You seem to be indicating that change
for the sake of change is somehow good. Because some people avoid changes
that are necessary doesn't mean that it is good.

> Judgemental? If you say that modern conservative Christians are not
> passing judgement, then you are either a liar or a fool.

Explain to me these judgements you believe are being passed. If I understand
you correctly you want the right to think whatever you like but refuse to
honor that same right for others. Most especially if you believe that they
are using the First Amendment for that basis.

>> Isn't that the Gay Agenda?
>
> That is the logical fallacy of begging the question.
>
> *If* there was such a thing as a "gay agenda", it hardly seems likely
> that they want to make everyone gay. Proseletyzing is the purview of
> evangelicals, and while I understand that you view all the world
> through that lense, I do not accept the premise that gay people wish to
> convert straight folks. The same cannot be said for the wacko
> Christian folks who think that prayer and behavior modification will
> "cure" homosexuals somehow.

Most homosexuals are completely normal in other respects. Most of them are
also very conservative.

But the public Gay groups are essentially 100% leftist-Liberals and indeed
they most certainly DO have an agenda. And they pour a great deal of money
into politicians that support that agenda. Or perhaps you missed the fact
that they tried virtually every year for the last three decades to change
the federal age to qualify as an adult to under 15?

And for that matter homosexuals proseletyze as a matter of course.
Homosexual studies report that something like 90% of homosexuals had their
first experience in their early teen years with an older and often very much
older man. Pretending differently doesn't change those facts.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> My name *was* spelled out in my signature, which you even quoted - it
> was backwards to reduce the chances of a dictionary attack on the part
> of spammers who might know something about the internet service
> provided by SBC (formerly PacBell).

Calling into question your mental competency isn't going to make me any
kinder to you.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 00:53:46 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>>Your ignorance is really pathetic. Spammers do something quite
>>similar to that.
>
> Oh really? Quite similar? They take names from .sigs and combine
> them with domains from headers to make addresses? Do cite some proof.
> That would be really interesting to see.

It's easy to imagine Zaumen's eyes rolling as he shouts
"Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee".

 

[Tom Kunich]

"StaceyJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ---snip---
>> FOFLMAO! That cracks me up every time. The very idea that spammers
>> are going to scarf the contents of Usenet messages, pick out names
>> form sigs, reassemble them with domain names from headers and send
>> spam! Like there aren't several dozen easier ways to get addies
>> together! Bill, your paranoia is hilarious :-D
>
> Um, this is actually fairly common practice (or was back in the day).
> I've had several different e-mail addys (used ONLY for usenet posting)
> 'scarfed' in just this fashion over the years.

No you didn't. Unless you crack your email program it appends your address
onto outgoing messages. All spammers used to do was do a copy of the mail
going though any particular server and that gave them the addresses. It is
still done to this day. Every time I post to the newsgroup I get a large
amount of junk email. Since I get all of my mail at Yahoo! Mail they skim
off the worst of it.

Like this is a really hard problem to take care of.

 

[Bill Z.]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

> On 3 Aug 2005 00:09:18 -0700, "StaceyJ" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Um, this is actually fairly common practice (or was back in the day).
> >I've had several different e-mail addys (used ONLY for usenet posting)
> >'scarfed' in just this fashion over the years.
>
> Addresses in .sigs, yes, but not names in sigs without reference to
> any domain name.

That's not been my experience. As I said, you are unware of
the term "dictionary attack".

> Bill is just paranoid. Ask him what helmet he wears and you'll find
> out

Guy is a moron with an axe to grind regarding helmets. His paranoia
thing just shows his stupidity - the measures I take to limit spam
are tuned to my particular situation.

Also, telling someone that personal information about my purchasing
decisions is none of their business is not "paranoia". I'm under
no obligation to provide such information to people I've never met.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB