RadioBanter - View Single Post

August 20th 04, 08:08 PM

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:15:14 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
Part Deux
I thought the last thread was a little short.....

I'm attempting to pacify your quest for brevity

Are you suggesting that there are ways to

identify someone who takes serious steps to

hide their identity?

If unfounded character assassinations (libel) was committed, absolutely.

How? When people hide behind anonymous

remailers, servers, public WIFI access nodes,

and NAT routers, how can you find out exactly
who they are?
_
Do some homework on the wealth of information out there,,,visit some of
the hacker sites and groups,,,how do you think the launchers of serious
virus' are tracked down?
_
The same way as many other criminals are

caught. They brag to their friends and get

turned in. That still doesn't address the basic

technical issue of how people can

anonymously post messages and e-mail using
"public" internet access or through clever

technical means to disguise their identity. A

simple IP lookup is no guarantee that you will

find the actual user.

In the fist manner, I was under the impression you were speaking of this
group.

I'm talking about the internet in general.

Since it is now apparent you are
experiencing problems of this nature somewhere else, I suggest you
consult an attorney.

What would give you that idea? I'm talking

purely hypothetically.

I concern myself with real word issues. I don;t have time to sit around
entertaing "what-if's" in the world.

_
Or are you saying that we all should just have

to deal with abusive insulting and libelous

comments because they are not worth the

trouble to pursue seriously?

If my emotions were to take over, I would simply turn the thing off and
walk away. No one is forcing you to partake in what you view as an
injurous electronic arena. It is your choice.
-
The same "turn it to the left" mentality that

abusive CBers use to force good people off of

the CB band?
_
The very idea that you feel "forced" by another has moved you to the
point of wanting to force others to conform to your beliefs,,,nice.

Not forced to conform to "my" beliefs. Only

that they maintain a certain level of

accountability and by extension civility.

Yes,,accountability and civility according to YOUR beliefs, not the law.
You have already demonstrated your disain and disagreeing with the law
that allows anonymity in life, most recently, to usenet and CB.
_

Decent people should be forced to yield to

malcontents, rather than fight back?

That is a personal decision and an apparent unresolved issue that
plagues you.

So you posit that decent people should be

held hostage to the whims of these

malcontents, and those of us who feel

otherwise have "issues"?

There are no "us", as you are alone in your radical beliefs. No one else
feels "held hostage" or "forced" concerning their freedom of choice to
partake in usenet, only you.
_

I believe in the example of not saying

something on a forum, that you wouldn't have

the cajones to say to someone's face.

Very noble. Many agree with you. Obviously, those like Dogie, do not.

Doug has personal issues of his own.
_
...and he fostered his personal issues on this group. Again, I ask of
you, how would you he be held accountable for such behavior that you
continue to rail against?

If you are asking how Doug should be held

accountable, first I'd have to ask; how do we

know for sure that the person everyone thinks

is Doug, really is?

Yea, you already established that the same entity (the FCC) you say we
should all obey can be mistaken when it comes to Dogie's bust, but they
couldn't possibly be mistaken in not repealing their poorly constructed
dx rule. AS always, you take an issue and slant it toward your own
agenda, invoking it (the FCC) as one we should obey, but not necessarily
believe. More hypocrisy.

_
Once we establish that it is him, then he

should have his access revoked for behaving

in an inappropriate manner.

Well, there you have it. It is not up to YOU to establish anything. His
antics have been reporeted many times by the many on this group and he
has lost several accesses to this group over the years. Yet, it is not
up to any "we" to establish his wrong doing,,,that is the job of his
isp, and when they find such, as they had in the past, they take
action,,not you, despite the status you seek.
_
I have incredible restraint and am overly
polite, even to you in many instances when you began reambling off-topic
with insult. I invite anyone who has a problem with me to come forward.

How does one "come forward" if we don't

know who you are or where you live?

"We" lends the notion you are aware of someone, other than you, who
shares your incredible identity obsessions and problem regarding myself.
Care to specify?

That is paranoia speaking.

No, it is a command grasp of basic English. You said "we". "We" is not
singular. Again, I ask who you refer in addition to yourself?

All that "We" refers to is anyone who happens
to be a member of this group who would like

the opportunity to "come forward". Nothing

nefarious about it.

No,,you said how do "we" come forward if
"we" don;t know who you are. Not many really care WHO I am in addition
to yourself, Now, I ask again, who else do you profess to caring about
my identity as much as yourself?
_
Who I am and where I live is personal information, something you claimed
you didn't seek.

I don't need to know, but if you want me to

"come forward" I do need to know some

details.

Oh, I NEVER said I wanted you to come forward,,,just the opposite, you
said you were coming to Florida. My invite hasn' changed. Anyone that
wishes or "wants" to look me up can do do. If I was concerned about you,
then I would travel to you, but this isn't the case. YOU apparently want
to come forward, so come on down.
_

I mean Florida is a big state (assuming that is
where you really live)

Well then, if you have doubts, perhaps you better reconsider.
_
Many know where I live. I am incredibly easy to find, as Doctor X
recently found.

Does Dr. X know where you live?

Dr. X never asked.

Does anyone?

Oh yesiree

Somehow I doubt it. You are a little too

secretive about this. And you know all too

well, that once one person finds out, it'll only

be a matter of time before the information

spreads around.

More of your far-removed delusions. I have ordered apparatus from two
separate regular businesses on this group, one place twice. That makes
two businesses in addition to those I have met from this group that
"know" me. See Davie, these people don't give a damn as they don't have
the motives you telegraph with your intentions to "spread around"
personal information. This is undertaken by those like yourself.

_
Of course, those who
do, encapsulate the very idea you are railing against...not identifying
themselevs, only it doesn't bother me like it does you. I have an open
door policy and will meet anyone from this group for coffee, fishing, or
to continue our rec.radio.cb debates.

Ok, I'm coming to Orlando in October. I might

make a detour to Tampa. Where do you want

to meet?

My house. Are you driving? Bring a radio. I'll guide you right to my
front door from the interstate.
_
I'm flying, renting a car, no room to pack

radios. Doing "Mickey Mouse" for my kid.

Mickey Mouse is like a six foot rat to little toddlers. I'm 90 minutes
from Orlando. Provide me a cell phone number like Keith did and I'll
call you, if that's what you wish. I'll give you precise directions. In
fact, if you rent a room in Tampa Bay for a day, I'll take you and show
you the way Florida was millions of years ago. Some areas remain
untouched.

_
So far, I have met several from
this forum and plan on meeting more. If I didn't fish for the day, and
we didn't talk about politics or cb, I am certain you and I would get
along just fine on the boat for an afternoon ride talking of nothing but
hammie radio.

Nothing wrong about talking about CB. I love

the hobby (at least in the old days), and I

could tell you a few good stories. But in order

for you to talk authoritatively about hammie

radio, that would imply that you are a ham

yourself (or at least should be). You've implied
similar before. The fact that you won't admit it

one way or the other probably speaks more

about your fear of identification, considering

your admitted behavior on the freeband.

No doubt about it. Using the freeband always runs the risk of being
identified.
But you can rest easy realizing that I just may, perhaps, have the best
of both worlds and have for years.

I figured as much. Much like I have, even if

you might not see it that way from your

perspective.
=A0

_
Anonymity is the enabler for people to act

inappropriately, and rudely. Using the excuse

that privacy overrides acting in a civilized

manner is weak IMHO.

No one suggested such..but the gist of it, is that American's are
afforded the right to act like idiots, even it offends you to no end.
Using the excuse that it ought be over-ridden is what is weak.

So then you assert that an American's right to

act like an anti-social idiot deserves more

consideration than other people's right to

expect civilized behavior in public places?

You said that. You're wandering. You are confusing consideration with
rights. There are very many things I can do well within my rights that
offend you, in fact, I have no problem offending you with my legal
rights merely because you disagree with them and my right to exercise
them.
_
It has everything to do with the core issue.

Which was what? Law? Breaking the law? Offending you isn't necessarily
against the law.

_
You are attempting to make value judgements
regarding the relative priority of the rights that

people have. You have prioritized the right to

privacy (and by extension enabled the

unaccountable actions of malcontents) over

the right of people to expect civilized behavior

in public places.

I didn't make that priority,,,the law did. The law outweighs your demand
for what you interpret as civilized behavior.

When those rights clash,

something has to give. You seem to have

made your choice, even though you keep

dancing around it and not quite ready to

directly admit to it.

What you misinterpret as clashing rights is not illegal.