POOF! Ok, Dave,,,I'm back,,,let's resume where we left off...........
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:08:57 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
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

Thank you.


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 first 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.

I can respect that. I also "live" in the here and

now, but I like to ponder the future and

potential situations. Like playing chess, you

have to keep a few moves ahead of your

opponent and try to anticipate where they will

be going.
-
I like chess, but pool's my thang. 9 Ball, if you will.



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.


The law does not allow a person to use

anonymity to adversely affect the rights of

other people. That seems to be something you
have trouble understanding.


I understand just fine. You think you have some sort of right to operate
free from whatever it is you call "adversely effecting your rights",
whether or not what you refer to as a "right" is affected legally or
not.



-
There are no absolutes when it comes to

rights. Rights are always relative, and subject

to compromises, when they clash with the

rights of other people.



No,,rights are not relative. You are undermining the inherent, not
relative rights afforded us as US citizens. Rights are NOT subject to
compromises as they are specifically, not relatively spelled out in the
US Constitution.

-
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.
_
How can you make such a definitive

statement? How can you be so sure that I am,
in fact, "alone"? You tend to make these

blatantly absolute statements quite frequently,

when there is no possible way you can speak

with any authority on the subject.


I can and do speak with authority on the subject. I know exactly what
the public likes and dislikes covering a broad spectrum. I know when
there is a news worthy event the public enjoys reading about, I know
what information they are seeking and what is not important. I know how
much is too much information and I know how much is not enough. This is
necessary criteria when dealing with the public as I do in such a
manner. My broad experience catering to the general public as both A) my
client and b) audience for many years affirms what you claim the
opposite.

_

You might want to do a Google search on the

issues of privacy, the internet, anonymity and

the law regarding these things, and you will

find that quite a few people are looking to

change the way things are done.




I'm on the front lines of the threats to personal privacy and the
protection of media sources, but thanks for the head's up. Here's the
skinnny, No doubt there are those seeking to do such things and it began
with the assault on the US Constitution by Bush after taking
office.These movements you speak of will fade after November when us
freedom lovers tell GW Bush "You're Fired!"


-
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.


Woah, lets not put words in my mouth. I

wholeheartedly agree with you that the FCC

should remove the DX limitation.

If it were up

to me, they should allow unlimited DX, allow

100 watts of power, and open the band from

26.000 Mhz to 28.000 Mhz.
=A0




The 100 watts issue doesn't even faze me,,,I don't need it, but I can
appreciate many others need for it in the hills. Besides, 100 watts will
make me a big gun on the bowl g.

-


=A0AS 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.

Well, yea, if you assume to know what I think,

as opposed to what I really think.



While I don't profess to know what you think, I do know it's not in the
majority.
And you have done just that, taking the FCC and invoking that we should
blindly follow their rules, even if the rules are wrong. On the other
hand, you have made an argument that even though the FCC claimed Dogie
was guilty via his listing on the Rain Report for jamming, his innocence
may still be very possible. This shows you blindly follow the FCC when
it suits you, but question their authority when it does not, even when
enforcing the rules you claimed we should blindly follow.



_
=A0=A0Once 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 don't care who does it, as long as it's done.

_
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?

=A0=A0All 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?

-
Your paranoia is showing again.


Paranoia doesn't have an open door policy. Paranoia is seeking personal
and off-topic information on someone you debate on usenet.

-

I use the term

"We" as this is a public forum, which includes

more people than you and I. That makes it a

"we" issue.


Not concerning this issue, it doesn't.
_
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

Perhaps you've forgotten your own quote from
a few paragraphs above:

" I invite anyone who has a problem with me to come forward."

Do I

not count as "anyone"?



Certainly. If one has a problem with me, they will come to me, as it is
THEIR want, not mine. You certainly couldn't expect someone to come to
you because *you* have the problem.

_



,,,just the opposite, you
said you were coming to Florida.

After you made your invite to "come forward".

My invite hasn' changed. Anyone that
wishes or "wants" to look me up can do do.

Look you up? How is one supposed to do that

when you are not forthcoming with certain

pertinent information?



Already told you. Send me your cell number,,I'll guide you in. This is
my second attempt at assisting you.


-
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'm merely calling your bluff.



No bluff to call. I have made more than a few accomodating offers of
which you continue to offer additional excuses.


You know that I live an impractical driving

distance from you, so you feel relatively safe,

in making that claim. Now that you have an

opportunity to make good on your invite, you

start, ever so slightly, to back pedal. I'm

guessing that you will find some way to wiggle
out of any chance of a face-to-face meeting,

as it would blow the lid off of your secret life.



Cell number.

=A0=A0I 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.

So he doesn't know. Although you implied

such in your last statement above.



No,,I said I am incredibly easy to find, not that Dr. X knew where I
lived as you improperly implied.


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.



"Spreads around?" Are you for real? Only people like you give a damn
about "spreading around" personal information of those they debate on
usenet. Most have enough on the ball that simple things such as usenet
anonymity doesn't upset them or effect them to the point of threatening
to not only seek out their personal information, but to "spread it
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.
-
We only have your word for that, so it is as

meaningless as you claim my accounts are of

the CBer who got popped in Norristown.




(shrug),,fine and dandy. I'm not worried about who believes me or
not...never was.




Besides, anyone can use an anonymous PO

box or other address to conduct business.

They don't even need a real name as long as

the payment is real.




I always purchase by cc as it offers great protection. Name required.


_
=A0=A0See 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.
_
They probably don't know it was you they

were dealing with either.




It was I the businesses emailed after reading my posts, so there is no
question they know who they were dealing. In fact, I received many
emails for the same offer, but went with who I thought was the best
choice, not necessarily the cheapest.


-
I have found through many years of

experience on CB, that one of the best ways

to rid a channel of a belligerent anonymous

troublemaker, was to simply locate them and

then make that information public. Once they

are unmasked, they tend to give up causing

trouble, since they are basically cowards.



What trouble would you be referring or implying that fits this analogy?


-
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.

My daughter just wants to ride Space

Mountain, and see all the sights.
=A0


Call ahead and make sure it's not closed for maintenance as it always is
these days.
-
=A0I'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 don't own a cell phone. But I might bring a 2

meter H.T. There are several 2 meter

repeaters in the greater Tampa area. You

already know my callsign.



No dice. Assuming I had a call, there is no way I would volunteer such
information to another hammie who has already expressed his problem with
me and threatened to "spread around" any personal information he can
locate, assuming he can break the impotent streak he has had attempting
same for the past how many years.
-
Give me your room number and the hotel you are staying and I'll call
you. This is now the third attempt I am making to accomodate you and you
appear, however so slightly, to begin yet another back pedal.

-
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.

I've seen some of those areas. I'm no newby

to Florida, although I tend to prefer the east

coast. I almost moved to Melborne 14 years

ago. I might even stop at my favorite steak

house, Farmer Jones Red Barn in Lakeland. I

hope they're still there.


I have relatives in Palm Beach and have surfed Melbourne in the past, in
addition to Jupiter and Cocoa. Other than that, I prefer the clear water
and white sands the west coast offers.





-

Anonymity is the enabler for people to act

inappropriately, and rudely.

-
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.


If it is a simple matter of subjectivity and value

judgement, then I agree with you. But when

the exercising of your rights negatively

impacts on the rights of others, the line

becomes drawn, and some sort of

compromise is in order.



Only we weren't speaking of infringing on anther's rights,,,,*you*
entered that into the equation when you expressed your belief against
anonymity on the internet. You wish to infringe on another's right
(taking away the right to be anonymous on the internet) merely because
you feel it MAY lead to abuse. That's Orwellian and anti-American.



Remember, you rights are not worth any more
(or less) than anyone else's rights. You have

no exclusivity.

It has everything to do with the core issue.

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

We aren't talking about a simple case of

"offending" me.



But we were. YOU have the problem with anonymity. No one else is having
a cow over the issue on this group, so it indeed does offend you, so
much to the point, that you have made it clear that you wish it were no
longer so.
_


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 did no such thing. You have no "right" to expect what you call
"civilized" behavior. Show a single document that supports this
delusion.



The law has done no such thing. In fact, laws

are being crafted right now to deal with this

relatively new forum for abuse, and to protect

the rights of people who are victimized by

anonymous people who hide to escape

retribution.

The law outweighs your demand
for what you interpret as civilized behavior.

=A0=A0When those rights clash,

something has to give.


You have been asked over and over again and have yet to reply,,what
rights of yours have been infringed upon or do you consider "clashing"
with your rights by my postings?


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.

The truth in that statements depends on the

details of the infraction.



Anonymity is what originally set you off on a tangent about such
behavior clashing with your rights, which you have yet to define.


Dave

"Sandbagger"

N3CVJ

http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj