New iPhones to use 3G network

In article <5rnun0F14aanrU1@mid.individual.net>, "Tinman" <ask@for.it>
wrote:

> > You want to go calling others cowards for not spelling out their names
> > and addresses, you'd better pony up your own information first.
>
> Knock it off, Elmo. You are aren't fooling anyone with these infantile
> responses...

-hh is the anonymous one who went around throwing stones. You don't
like it? Start with him.

You want to go calling other cowards for not spelling out their names
and addresses, you'd better pony up your own information first,
****tards.

At 05 Dec 2007 12:15:02 -0500 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> -hh is the anonymous one who went around throwing stones. You don't
> like it? Start with him.

I guess it depends on your definition of "anonymous." I don't think it's a
particularly good idea to post all of your contact info on usenet- I think
"anonymous" here simply means "no way to contact you via e-mail." For
example, My name and e-mail here are legit (you do have to abbreviate
"AmericaOnLine" to it's better known initials, of course.)

I'd argue that by usenet standards, I'm not anonymous. However, I'd go out
on a limb and guess that there's no Mr. or Mrs. Shagnasty, and they didn't
name their little boy "Elmo."


> You want to go calling other cowards for not spelling out their names
> and addresses, you'd better pony up your own information first,
> ****tards.

Personally, I can see where some folks just might be leery of posting that
info in front of people who call folks they don't even know, a "****tard."

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 10:29:05 -0700, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@aol.com> wrote:
> At 05 Dec 2007 12:15:02 -0500 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>> -hh is the anonymous one who went around throwing stones. You don't
>> like it? Start with him.
>
> I guess it depends on your definition of "anonymous." I don't think it's a
> particularly good idea to post all of your contact info on usenet- I think
> "anonymous" here simply means "no way to contact you via e-mail."

Why not? I have done since the eighties.

> For
> example, My name and e-mail here are legit (you do have to abbreviate
> "AmericaOnLine" to it's better known initials, of course.)

Just grow a set and use a real address.

>
> I'd argue that by usenet standards, I'm not anonymous. However, I'd go out
> on a limb and guess that there's no Mr. or Mrs. Shagnasty, and they didn't
> name their little boy "Elmo."

If I hit the "e-mail reply" option what do I get? If that
doesn't work, you have taken steps to make yourself unreachable -
Therefore anonymous.

>
>
>> You want to go calling other cowards for not spelling out their names
>> and addresses, you'd better pony up your own information first,
>> ****tards.

> Personally, I can see where some folks just might be leery of
> posting that info in front of people who call folks they don't
> even know, a "****tard."

Welcome to the real world. If you act like a ****tard,
you will be called a ****tard. There is a way to fix that.


--
"[T]he people who plant and tend [these marijuana] gardens are terrorists
who wouldn't hesitate to help other terrorists get into the country with
the aim of causing mass casualties." Drug Czar John Walters, 12 July 2007

Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> Personally, I can see where some folks just might be leery of posting
> that info in front of people who call folks they don't even know, a
> "****tard."

Very true, Todd. But that's not even the issue. The issue was about posting
with x-no-archive: yes while telling someone else their posts are preserved
for posterity. It had very little to do with "anonymous," but for some
reason Elmo thinks it did. All I've done is point out the obvious, and I'm
on the verge of being called an Oxford puppet too.

This is what fixating on Oxford will do to you! <g>

(Actually, Oxford has won: he manages to snare far too many otherwise
reasonable people into foolish discussions that I am 100% certain are only
meant to provoke.)


--
Mike

Todd Allcock <eleccon...@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
> > -hh is the anonymous one who went around throwing stones. You don't
> > like it? Start with him.
>
> I guess it depends on your definition of "anonymous."

The hypocrite is desparate to use whatever definition will suit him
for the moment - - and he will neglect to realize that it applied to
him first, due to his "you do realize...archives" (sic) remark.


> I don't think it's a
> particularly good idea to post all of your contact info on usenet- I think
> "anonymous" here simply means "no way to contact you via e-mail." For
> example, My name and e-mail here are legit (you do have to abbreviate
> "AmericaOnLine" to it's better known initials, of course.)

My email address is actually completely unadulterated.

But it is protected by Forwarding, Spam Assassin and BoxTrapper Spam
Trap before it can be delivered to one of my mailboxes. As such,
while it does require a "Yes I am a real human" response on the first
contact attempt, I'm eminently contactable by email.


> I'd argue that by usenet standards, I'm not anonymous.

You're not, at least by the standards I've practiced for the past 2+
decades on USENET.


> However, I'd go out on a limb and guess that there's no
> Mr. or Mrs. Shagnasty, and they didn't name their little boy "Elmo."

Of course there isn't. He's also cybersquatting on someone else's
domain.

The USENET tradition has been that if you don't use your real name,
you use a handle, and said handle will be obvious (eg, using one's
aircraft or HAM callsign, the name of a cartoon character, a common
database test name, or someone dead or infamous [Bill Gates], etc.),
as the intent is to not allow it to be mistaken as a real person's
real name.

We can see this in practice in this very thread: Oxford, DTC,
CozmicDebris, -hh, Anybody, Znu, Tinman, SMS, Sandman, etc ... are all
handles. And with the exception of 'Elmo', the ones that look like
real names generally are, even if its just the poster's first name.

And insofar as domain selection, it is very tacky to use a real one
that you don't own yourself, because you burden that domain's
postmaster with the spam that any 'clear' email address automatically
attracts.


> Personally, I can see where some folks just might be leery of posting that
> info in front of people who call folks they don't even know, a "****tard."

The foul language is merely because "Elmo" is an immature and
frustrated little boy from having his trolling game backfire on him:

http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2007/despair_CSMA.jpg


-hh

On 2007-12-05, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> At 05 Dec 2007 12:15:02 -0500 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>> You want to go calling other cowards for not spelling out their names
>> and addresses, you'd better pony up your own information first,
>> ****tards.
>
> Personally, I can see where some folks just might be leery of posting that
> info in front of people who call folks they don't even know, a "****tard."

That might be, but the truly silly bit is that -hh himself quite
early on in this pointed out, e.g.

http://www.aboutus.org/HUNTZINGER.COM
http://www.networksolutions.com/whoi...huntzinger.com

Why he's still being asked for it I know not.

Dennis Ferguson

Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> wrote:
> Todd Allcock <eleccon...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > I guess it depends on your definition of "anonymous." I don't think it's a
> > particularly good idea to post all of your contact info on usenet- I think
> > "anonymous" here simply means "no way to contact you via e-mail."
>
> Why not? I have done since the eighties.

Back in the '80s, I did so too.

However, back then, there were fewer than 100,000 people online
worldwide, which meant a smaller & tighter community and thus, far
fewer unsavory individuals who might abuse any such volunteered
information.

So I don't do it anymore, and by the lack of a full listing on your
post, you don't do so anymore either. As such, why are we talking
about the "Old Days" that no longer apply?

FWIW, we used to announce online to our friends when we were leaving
home to go away on vacation. When was the last time you were stupid
enough to do that?


> If I hit the "e-mail reply" option what do I get? If that
> doesn't work, you have taken steps to make yourself unreachable -
> Therefore anonymous.

Sorry, but defeating the autoreply feature merely breaks a software
tool that was being abused more than it was being used. It doesn't
make him anonymous, particularly if the address munging is obvious,
and especially if clear instructions were provided in his organization
or .sig lines that a human can decipher.

The first meaningful spam abuse occurred in 1994, namely Canter &
Siegel's "Green Card Lottery", which was shortly after the pain of
"Eternal September" began. Not too long thereafter, the community
suffered from the advancment in sophistication of automated email
address harvesters, and until various spam traps were invented, the
only viable defense was to munge one's email address in non-email
outlets.

Today, our spam traps have gotten quite good, but they're still not
100% (or even 99%), even if we accept the extra overhead costs from
the touch labor from running whitelists and "Yes I am a Human"
confirmation techniques, since from: addresses can be falsified and
address books stolen (or hijacked). As such, it comes down to the
question of what your personal tolerance level is for receiving UCE &
Spam for how many of the various techniques you want to impose.


-hh

At 05 Dec 2007 11:30:37 -0700 Tinman wrote:
>
> Very true, Todd. But that's not even the issue. The issue was
> about posting with x-no-archive: yes while telling someone else
> their posts are preserved
> for posterity. It had very little
> to do with "anonymous," but for some
> reason Elmo thinks it did.
I realize that was -hh's point, but I disagree that "Elmo thinks it did."
Elmo is intentionally deflecting that issue because he has no defense for
that point, so instead he picked upon the minor point in a very Oxford-like
way.

> All I've done is point out the obvious, and I'm
> on the verge of being called an Oxford puppet too.

As am I shortly, I'm sure!

> This is what fixating on Oxford will do to you! <g>
>
> (Actually, Oxford has won: he manages to snare far too many otherwise
> reasonable people into foolish discussions that I am 100% certain are
only
> meant to provoke.)

Agreed, but I for one, actually enjoy Oxford's inane posts- it livens up an
otherwise dull NG!

At 05 Dec 2007 18:09:30 +0000 Julian Macassey wrote:

> > I guess it depends on your definition of "anonymous." I don't think
> > it's a particularly good idea to post all of your contact info on
> > usenet- I think "anonymous" here simply means "no way to contact
> > you via e-mail."
>
> Why not? I have done since the eighties.

I used to post with an unmunged e-mail address, but a spam-flooded inbox
taught me the error of my ways. I think my current posted e-mail address
is obvious enough to unmunge, but seems effective in blocking the harvesters.




> > For
> > example, My name and e-mail here are legit (you do have to abbreviate
> > "AmericaOnLine" to it's better known initials, of course.)
>
> Just grow a set and use a real address.

Why, since I apparently have you to unmunge it for me when you quote me? I
would assume common courtesy would dictate that you'd respect my wishes,
but as they say, common courtesy is, apparently, not very common.


> > I'd argue that by usenet standards, I'm not anonymous. However, I'd go
> > out on a limb and guess that there's no Mr. or Mrs. Shagnasty,
> > and they didn't name their little boy "Elmo."
>
> If I hit the "e-mail reply" option what do I get?

My not very cleverly munged address. Judging by those that have managed to
follow up with me by private e-mail, my method seems to work ok. You
apparently had little difficulty figuring it out.

> If that
> doesn't work, you have taken steps to make yourself unreachable -
> Therefore anonymous.

Certainly I'm more reachable
than the "Elmo" I replied to. There's difference between hiding a key
under the mat and welding your front door shut.

> > Personally, I can see where some folks just might be leery of
> > posting that info in front of people who call folks they don't
> > even know, a "****tard."
>
> Welcome to the real world. If you act like a ****tard,
> you will be called a ****tard. There is a way to fix that.

Really? I don't know you from Adam, but you managed to put my e-mail in
the clear. A minor annoyance to be certain, but it doesn't get our
relationship off to a good start, did it? Still, it's nothing I'd label
someone a "****tard" over, though.

Courtesy is a two-way street, and those lacking it rarely play by the same
rules as those that do.

If you're comfortable posting with a real unmunged address, you're a better
man than I, sir.

And if you'd like to continue this conversation via private e-mail, you
obviously know how to find me. (So much for your claim as to my
"anonymity...")

At 05 Dec 2007 19:16:15 +0000 Dennis Ferguson wrote:

> That might be, but the truly silly bit is that -hh himself quite
> early on in this pointed out, e.g.
>
> http://www.aboutus.org/HUNTZINGER.COM
>
http://www.networksolutions.com/whoi...huntzinger.com
>
> Why he's still being asked for it I know not.

I assume it's either because our friend Elmo is simply being obstinate, or
else he can't put two and two together as well as his cute, red, furry,
Sesame Street namesake...