OT: "eBay Safeharbor Department Notice"?



On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 00:29:34 +0100, Dr Curious <[email protected]>
wrote:

> I can only conclude, that while along with any number of
> other contributors to this group, you consider yourself
> something of an authority on technical matters, your basic
> comprehension skils and reasoning ability, certainly
> appear to leave a lot to be desired.

I thought this paragraph was worth repeating.

Colin
 
"Wild Wind" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Dr Curious" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> <snip>
>
> Dr. Curious,
>
> Just to get back to the original debate, you are saying
> that http://scgi.ebay.com means that the domain is owned
> by scgi.com, right?
>
> Let's try a bit of empiricism. How would then explain the
> ownership of http://pages.ebay.com, (which on visiting
> appears to be owned more by ebay.com than pages.com) or
> http://news.bbc.co.uk (more bbc.co.uk than news.co.uk)? Or
> have I got this all wrong?

This episode reminds me somewhat of Tim Godfrey who used to
write articles in our gliding club magazine about how, for
example, cold air rises, or how wind is caused by trees
waving their branches about to keep warm on chilly days. In
subsequent editions he would defend his position in the
letters page. He used to pride himself on being able to find
rational counter-arguments to any conventional explanation
of natural phenomena while keeping his whole theory
internally consistent.

--
Dave...

I took a course in speed reading learning to read straight
down the middle of the page, and was able to read War and
Peace in twenty minutes. It's about Russia. — Woody Allen
 
"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Pete Biggs wrote:
> > I've just received an email asking me to "verify" my
> > "personal information" because "you or someone else had
> > used your identity to
make
> > false purchases on eBay...".
> >
>
> This is one of the most worrying threads I've read in a
> long time.

...

That's certainly true.

...

> This is a well known and well publicised scam and yet
> there was a lot of uncertainty in the replies initially as
> to whether it was real or not -

...

Er, not quite.

< quote >

At 11.02 am "Dr Curious" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...

Unless the email was posted directly to you as Pete Biggs,
rather than just "member" and referred to your Ebay name
then its a hoax.

In other words unless the email contains information which
only you and Ebay know - or which soemone has gone to a lot
of trouble to find out - or maybe a previous customer might
know, then its a hoax.

If it contains generalised rubbish - dear Ebay member - and
nothing specific then its a hoax.

</quote>

No uncertainty there, I'd have said.

...

> and this from an internet savvy group. No wonder the scam
> works so well in the general population.

...

No Tony. Only among a group of self regarding techies who
seem to imagine that an intimate knowledge of such things as
the distinction between domain names and web adresses is the
sole criterion of superior intelligence. To witness a gaggle
of these nauseatingly condescending and arrogant experts
seeking to congratulate each other as they take in turns to
heap odium on anyone who shows themselves to be in any way
unfamiliar with the topic is truly something. The boasting
and overweening arrogance this can engender is truly a sight
for sore eyes.

To say nothing of the efforts of late comers such as Mr
Senior. Whose criticisms were addressed solely at the
content of a quasi academic website, parts of which I
merely quoted without endorsing or commenting on in any
way. And who thus only succeeded in making a complete fool
of himself in the process. To say nothing of Mr Kahn, who
seemingly did likewise.

The fact that people once given any chance to show off their
technical expertise in respect of trivial detail should at
the same time show themselves be singularly lacking in
ordinary common sense - street smarts to use the more
popular phrase - comes as no great surprise to me
personally, or probably to many others. Neither does the
fact that they quite possibly demonstrate a deal less common
sense on such occasions than does the general population,
over whom they might wish to claim superiority.

Basically, all such tecchie threads have a grim
inevitability about them. The seeming obsession with trivia,
the air of nauseating condescension, the boasting, combined
with what would be otherwise be laughable blindness to the
bigger picture. The actual problem seeking to be addressed.

...

>
> Any e-mail that asks you to go to a website and confirm
> your details is very highly suspect. Do not fall for it.

...

Any email that doesn't contain specific information about
the recipient personally will most likely be a hoax. Either
that, or if the senders are sufficiently inept not to
realise that in order to convince the recipient of any email
of its genuineness, it's necessary to include such
information, then you're probably better off not giving them
your business in the first place.

Lets just see the techies get stuck into that last
paragraph, shall we ?

No. I think not somehow.

...

>
> You can fool some of the people all of the time and those
> are the ones they're after.
>
> Tony

Curious
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> > This is a well known and well publicised scam and yet
> > there was a lot of uncertainty in the replies initially
> > as to whether it was real or not -
>
> ...
>
> Er, not quite.
<snipped - your original post on the topic>

Congratulations, you correctly identified the scam. But as
you were _not_ the only posted, Tony's point remains valid.
There was a lot of uncertainty in the initial replies.

> > and this from an internet savvy group. No wonder the
> > scam works so well in the general population.

<snipped - vast rambling diatribe>

But Tony is right. If a group of techies (who whether you
like it or not, do know what they're talking about) are
unsure about whether this is a scam or not, what hope do the
less savvy general populace have.

And the reason you got jumped on was not simply that you
posted false information, but that you weren't prepared to
research it after correction, and insisted on fighting your
corner (Or digging your hole) for many more posts. A quick
google for "Web Address" reveals two hits on the first page
of results which define / analyze URLs. You could have saved
yourself a great deal of anguish by simply looking before
you put your foot in your mouth.

I am however in two minds as to whether you are real. The
idea that you are a sock puppet of one of the regular
posters is appealing although I note that you have posted in
response to earlier threads which implies some brilliant
forward planning.

Jon
 
in message <[email protected]>, Richard Bates
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 11:38:58 +0100, in
> <[email protected]>, Eugenio
> Mastroviti <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 11:29:45 +0100, Mark Tranchant wrote:
>>
>>> mark@mauve:~$ dig -x 68.213.208.2
>>
>>Makes me wonder...
>>
>>is there a relationship between Linux/*nix and cycling?
>
> It's worse than that: Windows users run Shimano. *nix
> users run Campag.
>
> MacOS users run erm erm ?

Specialities TA.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke)
http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Diplomacy, American: see Intelligence, Military
 
"Colin Blackburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 00:29:34 +0100, Dr Curious
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I can only conclude, that while along with any number of
> > other contributors to this group, you consider yourself
> > something of an authority on technical matters, your
> > basic comprehension skils and reasoning ability,
> > certainly appear to leave a lot to be desired.
>
> I thought this paragraph was worth repeating.
>
> Colin

Given that you probably didn't understand it, doubtless
you would.

Or would you like to supply the missing "context" to which
Mr Kahn referred in explaining his post, but which when
challenged, was unable to actually supply any evidence of?

Or do you simply intend to bask for a while in that glow of
smug satisfaction you've bestowed on yourself with your
seemingly clever remark, and then scamper back to oblivion?

Curious
 
"Jon Senior" <jon@restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk.remove> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > > This is a well known and well publicised scam and yet
> > > there was a lot
of
> > > uncertainty in the replies initially as to whether it
> > > was real or
not -
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Er, not quite.
> <snipped - your original post on the topic>
>
> Congratulations, you correctly identified the scam. But as
> you were _not_ the only posted, Tony's point remains
> valid. There was a lot of uncertainty in the initial
> replies.
>
> > > and this from an internet savvy group. No wonder the
> > > scam works so
well
> > > in the general population.
>
> <snipped - vast rambling diatribe>
>
> But Tony is right. If a group of techies (who whether you
> like it or not, do know what they're talking about) are
> unsure about whether this is a scam or not, what hope do
> the less savvy general populace have.

Because you don't need to be a tecchie or Einstein to put
yourself in the shoes of somebody who needs to convince a
recipient that an email is genuine.

Problem: how do I convince a recipient that an email(might
be)genuine?

Answer: Include some personal information (most probably)
known only to the recipient and myself. And immediately
recognisable as such.

This doesn't guarentee that any such email will be genuine,
as such information can possibly be obtained by other means.
But it strongly suggests that any email that doesn't contain
any such information is most probably bogus.

Certainly any email that requires you to carry out a certain
action within a specified time frame, that doesn't at the
same time offer any means for the recipient to satisfy
themselves of its genuineness is most definitely bogus.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with technical knoweldge.

Not in all cases maybe, but in many cases, all you ever need
to do to avoid scams such as these is to exercise some basic
common sense.

Whereas you and your fellow tecchies appear to be too
blinded by technicalities, to recognise that simple fact.

< Snipped no doubt fascinating insight, into Mr
Senior's motivation and thought processes>

Curious

>
> Jon
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> This has nothing whatsoever to do with technical
> knoweldge.
>
> Not in all cases maybe, but in many cases, all you ever
> need to do to avoid scams such as these is to exercise
> some basic common sense.

Indeed, often shown to be lacking.

> Whereas you and your fellow tecchies appear to be too
> blinded by technicalities, to recognise that simple fact.

The technicalities include things like recognising the
difference between ebay.sgci.com and sgci.ebay.com (I know
this didn't happen, just offering an example) or seeing an
IP address instead of a domain name. Just as a non-techy
might be made wary by the lack of personal information, a
techy is more likely to be warned by the nature of the
communication itself.

It's still common sense, the difference is that relying on
the technical knowledge should mean that even a scam which
uses valid personal information will be picked up on.

I don't believe that everyone should be forced to understand
the underlying protocols of the internet in order to use it.
I do share Tony's concern that a predominantly techy
audience was initially unsure of the nature of this scam.

Jon
 
Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>,
> Richard Bates ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 11:38:58 +0100, in
>> <[email protected]>,
>> Eugenio Mastroviti <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 11:29:45 +0100, Mark Tranchant
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> mark@mauve:~$ dig -x 68.213.208.2
>>>
>>> Makes me wonder...
>>>
>>> is there a relationship between Linux/*nix and cycling?
>>
>> It's worse than that: Windows users run Shimano. *nix
>> users run Campag.
>>
>> MacOS users run erm erm ?
>
> Specialities TA.

ATM I am using Windows, VMS, Linux and some terrifying-
looking IBM thing which appears to date from the same era as
the Austin Maxi. And I think I still have a Mac in the
wardrobe back at Larrington Towers.

I need help.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================
 
"Dr Curious" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> No Tony. Only among a group of self regarding techies who
> seem to imagine that an intimate knowledge of such things
> as the distinction between domain names and web adresses
> is the sole criterion of superior intelligence. To witness
> a gaggle of these nauseatingly condescending and arrogant
> experts seeking to congratulate each other as they take in
> turns to heap odium on anyone who shows themselves to be
> in any way unfamiliar with the topic is truly something.
> The boasting and overweening arrogance this can engender
> is truly a sight for sore eyes.

You're either a complete ******, or a troll (or of course
both). You got corrected in the way you did because you
refused to admit you were wrong, even when people were still
trying to be helpful to you.

clive
 
news:[email protected]...
> "Dr Curious" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > No Tony. Only among a group of self regarding techies
> > who seem to imagine that an intimate knowledge of such
> > things as the distinction between domain names and web
> > adresses is the sole criterion of superior intelligence.
> > To witness a gaggle of these nauseatingly condescending
> > and arrogant experts seeking to congratulate each other
> > as they take in turns to heap odium on anyone who shows
> > themselves to be in any way unfamiliar with the topic is
> > truly something. The boasting and overweening arrogance
> > this can engender is truly a sight for sore eyes.
>
> You're either a complete ******,

I know that like most people you don't like hearing the
truth about yourself Mr George. But it might be advisable to
try and keep your feelings to yourself, by kindly refraining
from insults.

You, you see Mr George, are apparently such a stunted
individual, with seemingly so little to occupy your tiny
mind, that you made great play of the fact that I confused
"ftp" with "fttp" for all of three posts running.

Allowing others to explain your little conceit on your
behalf. How perfectly delighted with yourself you must
have been!

If that isn't as good a defintion of a "******" - no let's
say a "really sad ******" as anyone is ever likely to find
Mr George, then I'd very much like to know what is.

Curious

>
> clive
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> ATM I am using Windows, VMS, Linux and some terrifying-
> looking IBM thing which appears to date from the same era
> as the Austin Maxi. And I think I still have a Mac in the
> wardrobe back at Larrington Towers.

And how many bikes do you own?

> I need help.

Is that a general request or is it related to the preceeding
statements? ;-)

Jon
 
Jon Senior wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> ATM I am using Windows, VMS, Linux and some terrifying-
>> looking IBM thing which appears to date from the same era
>> as the Austin Maxi. And I think I still have a Mac in the
>> wardrobe back at Larrington Towers.
>
> And how many bikes do you own?

Four. And a trike.

>> I need help.
>
> Is that a general request or is it related to the
> preceeding statements? ;-)

Yes.

Note to self: Reconfigure UKLO_QASAP2. With a gas axe.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Four. And a trike.

There you go then, one per OS / system.

> >> I need help.
> >
> > Is that a general request or is it related to the
> > preceeding statements? ;-)
>
> Yes.

<grins>

> Note to self: Reconfigure UKLO_QASAP2. With a gas axe.

?

Jon
 
"Dr Curious" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>

> news:[email protected]...
> > "Dr Curious" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> > > No Tony. Only among a group of self regarding techies
> > > who seem to imagine that an intimate knowledge of such
> > > things as the distinction between domain names and web
> > > adresses is the sole criterion of
superior
> > > intelligence. To witness a gaggle of these
> > > nauseatingly condescending and arrogant experts
> > > seeking to congratulate each other as they take in
> > > turns to heap odium on anyone who shows themselves to
> > > be in any way unfamiliar with the topic is truly
> > > something. The boasting and overweening arrogance this
> > > can engender is truly a sight for sore eyes.
> >
> > You're either a complete ******,
>
> I know that like most people you don't like hearing the
> truth about yourself Mr George. But it might be advisable
> to try and keep your feelings to yourself, by kindly
> refraining from insults.
>
> You, you see Mr George, are apparently such a stunted
> individual, with seemingly so little to occupy your tiny
> mind, that you made great play of the fact that I confused
> "ftp" with "fttp" for all of three posts running.
>
> Allowing others to explain your little conceit on your
> behalf. How perfectly delighted with yourself you must
> have been!
>
> If that isn't as good a defintion of a "******" - no let's
> say a "really sad ******" as anyone is ever likely to find
> Mr George, then I'd very much like to know what is.

Tell me why I should bother replying to you.

clive
 
In article <[email protected]>, Dr Curious wrote:
>
>Futhermore you'll be pleased to know that your little
>lessons are totally wasted on me. If I want to learn any of
>this then I'm perfectly capable of reading up on it for
>myself from authors whose main intention is to inform,
>rather than simply to impress.

Well, at least we've got you to acknowledge that you don't
want to learn anything about the subject, and haven't learnt
anything yet. Now if you would stop spouting misinformation
about things you don't want to learn about, we could all
move on to something else.
 
Jon Senior wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...

>> Note to self: Reconfigure UKLO_QASAP2. With a gas axe.
>
> ?

'tis a Babbage-Box and the bane of my life at present though
(grasping handy picture of Keanu Reeves[1]) it is behaving
uncommonly well today.

1 - seeing as how he is a Big Piece of Wood

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================
 
"Alan Braggins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Dr
> Curious wrote:
> >
> >Futhermore you'll be pleased to know that your little
> >lessons are totally wasted on me. If I want to learn any
> >of this then I'm perfectly capable of reading up on it
> >for myself from authors whose main intention is to
> >inform, rather than simply to impress.
>
> Well, at least we've got you to acknowledge that you don't
> want to learn anything about the subject,

...

No.

Unfortunately it would seem that your reading and
comprehension skills have let you down on that score. What I
actually said was

a) if I want to learn any of this I can read up on it.

and not

b) that I don't want to learn about it.

Now if you'd like to point out which of those phrases you're
having such difficulty with, then perhaps we can move on.

...

> and haven't learnt anything yet. Now if you would stop
> spouting misinformation about things you don't want to
> learn about, we could all move on to something else.

...

Oh dear!

So not only do you seem to be having problems with your
reading and comprehension, but with your reasoning
ability as well.

So in the present circumstances do you think that the best
way of moving onto something else is

[ ] a) to first post a message to that effect ?

or

[ ] b) do nothing?

If you would be so kind as to put a cross in the
appropriate box.

Oh and by the way, you're not another IT expert by any
chance are you ?

Curious
 
news:[email protected]...
> "Dr Curious" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >

> > news:[email protected]...
> > > "Dr Curious" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > > message news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > > No Tony. Only among a group of self regarding
> > > > techies who seem to imagine that an intimate
> > > > knowledge of such things as the
distinction
> > > > between domain names and web adresses is the sole
> > > > criterion of
> superior
> > > > intelligence. To witness a gaggle of these
> > > > nauseatingly
condescending
> > > > and arrogant experts seeking to congratulate each
> > > > other as they
take
> > > > in turns to heap odium on anyone who shows
> > > > themselves to be in any
way
> > > > unfamiliar with the topic is truly something. The
> > > > boasting and overweening arrogance this can engender
> > > > is truly a sight for sore eyes.
> > >
> > > You're either a complete ******,
> >
> > I know that like most people you don't like hearing the
> > truth about yourself Mr George. But it might be
> > advisable to try and keep your feelings to yourself, by
> > kindly refraining from insults.
> >
> > You, you see Mr George, are apparently such a stunted
> > individual, with seemingly so little to occupy your tiny
> > mind, that you made great play of the fact that I
> > confused "ftp" with "fttp" for all of three posts
> > running.
> >
> > Allowing others to explain your little conceit on your
> > behalf. How perfectly delighted with yourself you must
> > have been!
> >
> > If that isn't as good a defintion of a "******" - no
> > let's say a "really sad ******" as anyone is ever
> > likely to find Mr George, then I'd very much like to
> > know what is.
>
> Tell me why I should bother replying to you.
>
> clive
>

Because you simply can't help yourself?

How should I know ?

What do you take me for, a mind reader or something?

Curious

...
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Jon Senior wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
>
> >> Note to self: Reconfigure UKLO_QASAP2. With a gas axe.
> >
> > ?
>
> 'tis a Babbage-Box and the bane of my life at present
> though (grasping handy picture of Keanu Reeves[1]) it is
> behaving uncommonly well today.

I've discovered that a) A very old PC bodged together with
bits lying around works nicely as a home web server.
b) Elonex are responsible for the creation of the least
reliable PC I've ever encountered. Casualty list to date:
1 x HDD 1 x Motherboard 1 x Fan - Not replaced but it
randomly starts whining. Performing a reset is enough to
cure the problem!

Not bad for less than 6 months of use.

> 1 - seeing as how he is a Big Piece of Wood

Unecessary explanation. ;-)

Jon