|
Home > Archive > Anonymous Servers > February 2006 > Twisty Remailer New Blocking Policy
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Twisty Remailer New Blocking Policy
|
|
|
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 00:51:04 -0500, TwistyCreek Admin wrote:
>
> I did take a little time to re-write my help page today.
I took a look at the new version. You say:
****
If personal information, address, phone number, bank account,
SSN, etc. is posted in order to incite or harass and I receive a
complaint from the person being harassed, I will install
additional filters to delete those posts before they are sent.
To summarize, I will block ... certain messages containing
sensitive personal information on that persons request.
***
I think that is a sensible policy and one I have always used, but
you may take some heat for it, since the purists here think that
any filtering of content is wrong.
If you amended the bit about blocking the publication of address
and phone number to say that you will block them only if they are
not already public, the purists may have no complaint, but
then again they would probably say that all addresses are public.
You also say:
****
I will also destination block the normal posting name of a person
normally posts through a regular news service, again at the request
of that person.
****
I guess what you are saying is that if somebody uses a
nickname/email address that is not real, and uses it to post
through a non-anonymous news server so he can have a persona, then
you will treat it as a real nickname/email address, and block
posts from others that try to use it.
Again, I think that is sensible, but the purists will be after you
for doing that.
Good luck with the new policy; it is good to see common-sense
reasoning for a change.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFD8IjoEC+g9Qawm6QRAhGIAJ0X35eI6JOQ
ivVfmFlRekLAKB1NvACfTM/V
dGLxTwg64qgQSYAHm/5ais8=
=oi0v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Anonymous 2006-02-13, 5:50 pm |
| In article <pan.2006.02.13.13.37.25.237985@eelbash.org>
admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>
> I took a look at the new version. You say:
>
> ****
> If personal information, address, phone number, bank account,
> SSN, etc. is posted in order to incite or harass and I receive a
> complaint from the person being harassed, I will install
> additional filters to delete those posts before they are sent.
>
> To summarize, I will block ... certain messages containing
> sensitive personal information on that persons request.
> ***
>
> I think that is a sensible policy and one I have always used, but
> you may take some heat for it, since the purists here think that
> any filtering of content is wrong.
Twisty thinks that filtering of content is wrong. His lawyers have
already advised him not to filter content in any way so he has the
maximum legal defense.
You have obviously misunderstood what he wrote, and assume that his
abuse measures mean content filtering.
| |
|
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:02:40 +0000, Anonymous wrote:
> In article <pan.2006.02.13.13.37.25.237985@eelbash.org> admin
> <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>
> Twisty thinks that filtering of content is wrong. His lawyers have already
> advised him not to filter content in any way so he has the maximum legal
> defense.
>
> You have obviously misunderstood what he wrote, and assume that his abuse
> measures mean content filtering.
You are playing word games.
Tell us how the blocking of messages containing certain content is not
filtering on content.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFD8LBBEC+g9Qawm6QRArgmAKC5UzVbpUz6
WeM7enHxsKTTTglZ2QCbB79U
IZIDZIFWqLkG9zPUDVm+dHg=
=mZQe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
|
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 08:37:26 -0500, admin wrote in
Message-Id: <pan.2006.02.13.13.37.25.237985@eelbash.org>:
>
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 00:51:04 -0500, TwistyCreek Admin wrote:
>
>
> I took a look at the new version. You say:
>
> ****
> If personal information, address, phone number, bank account,
> SSN, etc. is posted in order to incite or harass and I receive a
> complaint from the person being harassed, I will install
> additional filters to delete those posts before they are sent.
>
> To summarize, I will block ... certain messages containing
> sensitive personal information on that persons request.
> ***
>
> I think that is a sensible policy and one I have always used, but
> you may take some heat for it, since the purists here think that
> any filtering of content is wrong.
No he won't. Filtering out an attack against an individual at that
person's request is unlikely to upset anyone. Steve has plenty of
experience and can no doubt select the best method to provide an
effective filter.
> ****
> I will also destination block the normal posting name of a person
> normally posts through a regular news service, again at the request
> of that person.
> ****
>
> I guess what you are saying is that if somebody uses a
> nickname/email address that is not real, and uses it to post
> through a non-anonymous news server so he can have a persona, then
> you will treat it as a real nickname/email address, and block
> posts from others that try to use it.
>
> Again, I think that is sensible, but the purists will be after you
> for doing that.
Again, no they will not. Preventing the forgery of someones email
address is a good policy.
> Good luck with the new policy; it is good to see common-sense
> reasoning for a change.
You make far too big a deal out of filtering. Most operators just go
ahead and do it in an unobtrusive manner using their own common sense
to elect the best methods. This isn't something unique to remailers,
the same happens with every method of Usenet posting.
The reason people in here have suspicions of your filtering methods is
because you have previously given them cause to be suspicious. You
crossed the border from simple filtering into content censorship. Even
now you can't resist jumping into the witness box and applauding any
mention of filtering. Instead of a simple operator routine, you turn it
into a personal obsession.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iQEVAwUBQ/ C3c2oLu9HNUqmMAQplvgf+NgGeCAVch5+DOy5cqU
cGj0wnVnobWYfJ
MWFITUKqbOEMq8LIQcBXB49/qBBI0JHX8Tj7UtrwN/JjMC0dKWqI2q9wPgKz6HqO
ZcsGdIEb59OBPtELFKcXP2JTNVAP4MS292y2LqK3
Cwf3i/damUaFqZBsLXCVqYZG
bjupQ2xE67zR7s8G8/ qY5y4dC4WgnozTEb+Ign0X3J7kw4G+uYG1QDQmnQ
psBwoI
PqG45xK06SLl4Xhf/8Oe/9Fk/Pprh7KCwEFVcL+3IN7gGJB/LvpteLYSQUCtww1D
fvP1XJpb4VhlhZ1ZFF0xCyU0JKKBRkxwZ+IjRWcf
NJRz2i9OaxOXiA==
=Ffpk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
pub 1024D/8ED57743 2003-07-08 Bananasplit Operator
Key fingerprint = 796F 67E0 E890 A0BB BDAE EBB4 94A6 7A09 8ED5 7743
uid Admin <admin.bananasplit.info>
| |
|
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:44:35 +0000, Zax wrote:
>
> You make far too big a deal out of filtering. Most operators just go
> ahead and do it in an unobtrusive manner using their own common sense to
> elect the best methods. This isn't something unique to remailers, the
> same happens with every method of Usenet posting.
>
> The reason people in here have suspicions of your filtering methods is
> because you have previously given them cause to be suspicious. You
> crossed the border from simple filtering into content censorship. Even
> now you can't resist jumping into the witness box and applauding any
> mention of filtering. Instead of a simple operator routine, you turn it
> into a personal obsession.
Rubbish. I have always considered it a 'simple operator routine'; it is
the people who make nonsensical attacks on common-sense filtering, at
least when done by my remailer, that are obsessed with it.
If those people are going to trash my remailer for what is common-sense
filtering, I am certainly going to point out, when I have the chance, that
other remailer operators do it as well.
To say nothing is to allow those clowns to convince people that there is
some reason not to use the remailer.
I'm glad to see that you have explicitly stated that most operators do the
same kind of filtering as I do and as Twisty does.
It shows that the filtering done by my remailer cannot be condemned
without condemning the other remailers as well.
*
*
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFD8L58EC+g9Qawm6QRAiqPAKDK8L2VbWIk
f9n23AykUTgnFlg0iACdEgq8
iTCoM3nInhgvobH49+E9EiY=
=Was8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| TwistyCreek 2006-02-14, 2:46 am |
| admin wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:02:40 +0000, Anonymous wrote:
>
>
> You are playing word games.
>
> Tell us how the blocking of messages containing certain content is not
> filtering on content.
It's you that's playing word games to justify your insidious behavior.
Harassment and abuse, illegal in most jurisdictions, don't qualify as
valid content and consequently don't deserve any sort of "free speech"
based protections.
The very simple concept you've never been able to wrap that tiny, under
medicated brain of yours around is that there IS a difference between
reactively dealing with identifiable abuse, and proactive meddling and
tampering with the content of someone's posts in the name of "prevention".
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2006-02-14, 2:46 am |
| admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
> Tell us how the blocking of messages containing certain content is not
> filtering on content.
Twisty has expressed his opposition to content filtering, and repeatedly
stated the advice he was given by his legal team as to why it would be
a bad idea.
It's very unlikely that overnight he'd have a complete change of heart,
ignore his legal team, and start content filtering. Far more likely is
that he just used the wrong words. He's done that before and corrected
it when pointed out.
I'm sure he will clarify it, either way, when he returns. You'll just
have to wait before you can say with any certainty that he's joined
your dark side.
| |
| TwistyCreek 2006-02-14, 2:46 am |
| In article <f145912efd4785e546be389a03d1a303@pseudo.borked.net>
nobody@pseudo.borked.net (Borked Pseudo Mailed) wrote:
>
> admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>
>
> Twisty has expressed his opposition to content filtering, and repeatedly
> stated the advice he was given by his legal team as to why it would be
> a bad idea.
>
> It's very unlikely that overnight he'd have a complete change of heart,
> ignore his legal team, and start content filtering. Far more likely is
> that he just used the wrong words. He's done that before and corrected
> it when pointed out.
>
> I'm sure he will clarify it, either way, when he returns. You'll just
> have to wait before you can say with any certainty that he's joined
> your dark side.
Copy and Paste from
Help File for Twisty Creek Re-mailer
TwistyCreek re-mailer help Modified 02/12/2006
Message Body Blocking Filters:
This is another hot topic of discussion. I do have the ability to block
messages based on message body content. I do have some blocking in
place at this time. I had received numerous complaints from readers of
different news groups of someone sending “spam” to just about every non-
related newsgroup you can think of. By allowing a custom from name, my
re-mailer was targeted as the exit for those messages to many different and
unrelated news groups. This message was nothing more than unadulterated
spam. I have used the custom filtering ability in Mercury to delete these
messages before they are sent. I will not filter just anything because
someone doesn’t like it. I will filter if it is a wide spread case of
spamming
and I receive complaints about it. Unless YOU are the spammer, the filter
will not have any effect on any message you post.
Posting of personal information is prohibited under my abuse policy for the
re-mailer. If personal information, address, phone number, bank account,
SSN, etc. is posted in order to incite or harass and I receive a complaint
from the person being harassed, I will install additional filters to delete
those
posts before they are sent.
I will NOT block any messages on just a person’s name, language someone
doesn’t like, or on any key words or phrases that some people may find
offensive. To summarize, I will block wide spread spam messages and
block certain messages containing sensitive personal information on that
person’s request. BTW, posting personal information in order to harass is in
violation of USA Federal Law and is the home of this re-mailer.
These blocks are not shown in the remailer-config.
| |
| Thrasher Remailer 2006-02-14, 7:46 am |
| > These blocks are not shown in the remailer-config.
That is very disturbing. Guess that's eelbash and now twisty on my block list.
| |
| Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer 2006-02-14, 7:46 am |
| > On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:44:35 +0000, Zax wrote:
>
>
> Rubbish.
Now who should I believe? A respected remailer operator, or a proven
lying censor. Tough one.
| |
| Anonymous 2006-02-14, 7:46 am |
| In article <pan.2006.02.13.17.17.06.21298@eelbash.org>
admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>
> To say nothing is to allow those clowns to convince people that there is
> some reason not to use the remailer.
I can send more controversial posts or flames through Google than I
can send through your so called remailer.
When a company can offer me more free speech than a remailer can, there
is something very wrong.
| |
| privacy.at Anonymous Remailer 2006-02-14, 7:46 am |
|
In article <pan.2006.02.13.17.17.06.21298@eelbash.org>
admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:44:35 +0000, Zax wrote:
>
>
> Rubbish. I have always considered it a 'simple operator routine'; it is
> the people who make nonsensical attacks on common-sense filtering, at
> least when done by my remailer, that are obsessed with it.
Always? Common-sense filtering? Making custom programs modifying posts
to change words that you don't like into [BAD_WORD] isn't a simple
operator routine and it isn't common sense filtering.
| |
| Anonymous 2006-02-14, 7:46 am |
| TwistyCreek <anon@comments.header> wrote:
> admin wrote:
>
> It's you that's playing word games to justify your insidious behavior.
> Harassment and abuse, illegal in most jurisdictions, don't qualify as
> valid content and consequently don't deserve any sort of "free speech"
> based protections.
Very clever. You don't do content-filtering. You just define what content
is by your own rules and filter the rest.
| |
| Thrasher Admin 2006-02-14, 7:46 am |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <J5LB51Z438762.797962963@reece.net.au>
Thrasher Remailer <thrasher@reece.net.au> wrote:
>
>
> That is very disturbing. Guess that's eelbash and now twisty on my block list.
They are not shown in the remailer-config because, as far as I know, there
is no provision to do so. Twisty lists (in some detail) all such things in
his remailer-help file.
- --
Cheers,
Thrasher...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQ/FmmWe9vBuCUlx7AQGgzQf/eLJASCd37MdnJg7kUjbAkv1sq4kRxH8g
xwLS/olyG8FGl8cejzgwrRT92bNF4xTCv/9IzdYpC8TIeM3qSyWTsicYNZu4RKDo
cEzZdK1trq0epi5P6Yzjdbq7mM/ewZB833J/x2BifnEac3EhT1t9b2kwu6Ev7dnU
hxbCXftz7vK7bIXBKl/QpqqXNnIM2pY8XUna0t/ZQ53qitCoyWXtWAkQH5cZSHhb
Rlip4dTAjsjFQPEisU8J5VNTEb5nQqwpiAL0n67G
GZaVRxcFL1GDhj/rEbqoveJ4
La1Qf4YxUNDrWU2R92bRCEnP4j9mdkQ3Cw6fTM54
WdKHsA/cRbkuZg==
=oMWw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2006-02-14, 5:47 pm |
| In article <pan.2006.02.13.13.37.25.237985@eelbash.org>
admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>
> I think that is a sensible policy and one I have always used, but
> you may take some heat for it, since the purists here think that
> any filtering of content is wrong.
The author of the remailer server that you are using was dead against
content filtering. He even put in the Reliable manual that remailers
known to filter on content should have 'filter' placed in their
capstrings.
I'm assuming you and Twisty will be adding that to your capstring?
It's good that RProcess is no longer around. I'm sure he'd be quite
upset to see people running his remailer server doing such things.
| |
|
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 08:35:10 -0700, Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> In article <pan.2006.02.13.13.37.25.237985@eelbash.org> admin
> <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>
> The author of the remailer server that you are using was dead against
> content filtering. He even put in the Reliable manual that remailers known
> to filter on content should have 'filter' placed in their capstrings.
We have it from Zax, one of the most respected remops here, that content
filtering is done by most of the exit remailers.
Here, read what he said:
****
You make far too big a deal out of filtering. Most operators just go
ahead and do it in an unobtrusive manner using their own common sense to
elect the best methods.
****
By the way, he was replying to me, and I said in reply that I do not make
a big deal out of it, but that other people do.
You are showing that I was correct by your remarks about how terrible
content filtering is. The fact is that I, and Twisty, and most operators
(according to Zax) just go ahead and quietly do the content filtering.
>
> I'm assuming you and Twisty will be adding that to your capstring?
What's the point since most operators do it?
>
> It's good that RProcess is no longer around. I'm sure he'd be quite upset
> to see people running his remailer server doing such things.
I don't think so. If he has any common sense, he would realize that
filtering abuse, threats, etc. is the only sensible way to run a remailer.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFD8f0BEC+g9Qawm6QRAiRyAJ9tA2+QBbJP
6WJZA6H4FLsQe3WfZwCbBJMn
ZSaOsJrje96/lsAEwQZW2d0=
=k61H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Thrasher Remailer 2006-02-14, 5:47 pm |
| In article <pan.2006.02.14.15.57.53.805212@eelbash.org>
admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 08:35:10 -0700, Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>
>
> We have it from Zax, one of the most respected remops here, that content
> filtering is done by most of the exit remailers.
>
> Here, read what he said:
>
> ****
> You make far too big a deal out of filtering. Most operators just go
> ahead and do it in an unobtrusive manner using their own common sense to
> elect the best methods.
> ****
>
> By the way, he was replying to me, and I said in reply that I do not make
> a big deal out of it, but that other people do.
>
> You are showing that I was correct by your remarks about how terrible
> content filtering is. The fact is that I, and Twisty, and most operators
> (according to Zax) just go ahead and quietly do the content filtering.
>
>
> What's the point since most operators do it?
I doubt most do but that's not the point. It doesn't matter how many
filter, if there is a provision for "filter" in the capstring it
should be added.
>
>
> I don't think so. If he has any common sense, he would realize that
> filtering abuse, threats, etc. is the only sensible way to run a remailer.
| |
| Anonymous 2006-02-14, 5:47 pm |
| nobody@pseudo.borked.net (Borked Pseudo Mailed) wrote:
> The author of the remailer server that you are using was dead against
> content filtering.
It's about time to put the religious beliefs to an end.
Get real.
What do *YOU* do against abuse of your remailer?
You don't run one? Thought so.
| |
|
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:36:40 +0000, Anonymous wrote:
> In article <pan.2006.02.13.17.17.06.21298@eelbash.org> admin
> <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>
> I can send more controversial posts or flames through Google than I can
> send through your so called remailer.
This I have to see. Give us an example of something that was blocked
by the remailer that got through Google.
>
> When a company can offer me more free speech than a remailer can, there is
> something very wrong.
*
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFD8hWBEC+g9Qawm6QRAvWLAKCx1JMFBChA
WM07xWKkz6nzvH914wCghXX2
JJhkdraLN4nnWaPLBE848WE=
=Bple
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
|
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:09:42 +0000, Thrasher Remailer wrote:
>
> That is very disturbing. Guess that's eelbash and now twisty on my block
> list.
You are a sensitive soul who doesn't see that other people may be
sensitive too.
Do you expect a remop to publicly display what he is blocking? Things like
the telephone number and address of somebody who has been harassed by
having those things published?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFD8cg2EC+g9Qawm6QRAhbSAKC7lxhvYowk
USxDxfBm3VYXwy9hgQCg1g2X
+aaY8DcvMDE5D2mRp5mO7PY=
=wP2l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
|
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:34:31 +0100, privacy.at Anonymous Remailer wrote:
>
> In article <pan.2006.02.13.17.17.06.21298@eelbash.org> admin
> <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>
> Always? Common-sense filtering? Making custom programs modifying posts to
> change words that you don't like into [BAD_WORD] isn't a simple operator
> routine and it isn't common sense filtering.
Cut the shit, junior. My 'civil remailer' joke took place over 4 years
ago. If you think you can still get mileage out of it, think again.
Give us an example of the eelbash remailer replacing words with other
words. Something that happened in the last month or so; or the last year
or so.
I won't hold my breath waiting.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFD8cf6EC+g9Qawm6QRAlEIAKCWsIp2lat2
mS7UQMj4aS89d0yKtQCfUyyl
TnFw+CDBxGkiIlOjolEeHBc=
=9noI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Non scrivetemi 2006-02-14, 5:47 pm |
| mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at wrote:
>
>
> Always? Common-sense filtering? Making custom programs modifying posts
> to change words that you don't like into [BAD_WORD] isn't a simple
> operator routine and it isn't common sense filtering.
That incident and others were put into the Memory Hole at the Ministry
of Truth. They did not happen. Please report to Room 101 immediately.
Eelbash has always been the shining light of the remailer network.
| |
|
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 04:42:41 +0000, TwistyCreek wrote:
> admin wrote:
>
> It's you that's playing word games to justify your insidious behavior.
Give us an example of such insidious behavior.
> Harassment and abuse, illegal in most jurisdictions, don't qualify as
> valid content
Except we weren't talking about 'valid content' we were talking
about 'content'. Whether the content is innocuous, or is harassment,
it is still 'content'.
> and consequently don't deserve any sort of "free speech"
> based protections.
>
> The very simple concept you've never been able to wrap that tiny, under
> medicated brain
If my brain is tiny, yours is microscopic. And rotten, what there is of it.
> of yours around is that there IS a difference between
> reactively dealing with identifiable abuse, and proactive meddling and
> tampering with the content of someone's posts in the name of "prevention".
Of course there is, which is why I do not do 'proactive meddling and
tampering'.
My 'reactively dealing with identifiable abuse' is the only way filters
get put in - just like every other exit remailer who filters on content.
If you have evidence that the remailer does 'proactive meddling and tampering'
let's see it.
You are a lying manipulator, who thinks your audience is too stupid to see
past the shabby lies you put out.
*
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFD8i/ tEC+g9Qawm6QRAlq8AKDAHwVXGpOPRXwViRggUPp
csc4h5ACfQ/2c
dyih9N0Ly7uDDAItj+nmK5c=
=GDe+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| TwistyCreek 2006-02-14, 5:47 pm |
| admin wrote:
>
> Give us an example of such insidious behavior.
Your [bad word] stupidity, your laughable sock puppetry to give the
appearance of support for your stupidity, and everything in between. In
fact everything you DO is insidious because you soil it with your
psychotic obsessions.
>
> Except we weren't talking about 'valid content' we were talking about
> 'content'. Whether the content is innocuous, or is harassment, it is still
> 'content'.
Once again you poor illiterate, harassment is NOT content. Not in the
sense that it enjoys any sort of consideration when it comes to dealing
with it. Filtering it is both morally and legally proper while diddling
people's posts just because you don't like their choice of words is just
another manifestation of your psychotic obsession to be a "someone" in the
Remop world.
It's not going to happen. You don't have what it takes. You'll always be
nothing more than a pitiful joke to other Remops and users alike. Welcome
to your reality Eelbash.
>
> If my brain is tiny, yours is microscopic. And rotten, what there is of
> it.
And yet I still am able to understand the same basic concepts everyone
else understands, but you alone can not. My microscopic, rotted brain has
outdistanced your superior intellect once again. Congratulations Eelbash,
you've been bested by the very same thing you look down on. How does that
make you feel? 
>
> Of course there is, which is why I do not do 'proactive meddling and
> tampering'.
Lies will get you absolutely nowhere. Or maybe you just don't understand
the difference between proactive and reactive? Try www.dictionary.com if
you're confused.
> My 'reactively dealing with identifiable abuse' is the only way filters
> get put in - just like every other exit remailer who filters on content.
No, not just as every other remailer filters on content. You take things
to obsessive extremes. Apply "solutions" where they shouldn't be applied,
in perverted ways that would never even be considered buy a competent
person. Consequently your feeble attempts to justify your idiocy by
including yourself in that group of competent, sane Remops is laughable
because nothing you do remotely resembles their mostly common sense
practices any longer.
> If you have evidence that the remailer does 'proactive meddling and
> tampering' let's see it.
You've provided it yourself over an over, from your [bad words] filters to
you recent admission that you have you own special brand of "traffic
analysis' tools. You are obsessed, it permeates everything you do, and
you're not intelligent enough to even successfully keep from demonstrating
those facts every time your fingers hit the keyboard.
> You are a lying manipulator, who thinks your audience is too stupid to see
> past the shabby lies you put out.
I am merely telling the truth. It's you who are trying to lie and
manipulate the facts to justify what's likely the result of some sort of
mental problems. Your unhealthy obsessiveness at least is plainly obvious.
No sane person would have their hand burned so many times, yet insist on
thrusting it into the fire time and time again. You are exactly like a
drunk, desperately grasping for your bottle on your way to jail, the
hospital, or whatever fate their drunkenness bestows on them.
That's not a lie, or even an embellishment. You exhibit all the symptoms
of someone so addicted to something they refuse to give it up no matter
how much pain it causes them, Eelbash.
| |
| George Orwell 2006-02-14, 5:47 pm |
| Anonymous wrote:
>
> Very clever. You don't do content-filtering. You just define what content
> is by your own rules and filter the rest.
No the subset of society commonly referred to as "sane people" defines
what's acceptable and what's not, and competent Remops follow their lead.
Odd that you can't seem to comprehend the difference between that, and
what you are actually describing... filtering posts on content that you
personally find offensive or undesirable. Like posts with certain [BAD
WORDS] in them. <laugh>
| |
| George Orwell 2006-02-14, 5:47 pm |
| admin wrote:
>
> Cut the shit, junior. My 'civil remailer' joke took place over 4 years
The real joke is that after years of getting repeatedly spanked over some
of the most the most incredibly asinine things any remailer operator has
ever attempted, you still just don't "get it". The joke is you. the
punchline is the retarded crap you do.
> ago. If you think you can still get mileage out of it, think again.
>
> Give us an example of the eelbash remailer replacing words with other
> words. Something that happened in the last month or so; or the last year
> or so.
"I'll give you $50 if you do this, but I get to define doing it or not."
Sorry weasel, it doesn't work that way.
Trick question anyay. You haven't been able to keep a remailer running for
a month straight for as long as you've been trying. <snicker>
By the way, DID you ever make good on your own challenge? You remember,
the one where you told everyone you'd pay cash money to anyone that
detected changes in the way your remailer operated, then almost
immediately went from filtering bad words to none at all (so you
claimed), changed the name or something, went from middle to exit or some
such other "minor changes" as I recall?
Or are you still desperately trying to brush that little incident under
the carpet with the rest of your long history of head shaking stupidity?
> I won't hold my breath waiting.
Probably a wise choice. While it's not hard to come up with glaring
examples of why you and a remailer shouldn't even be legally permitted
within 1000 yards of each other, I rather suspect that if you tried
holding your breath until someone offered one up, nobody would bother.
LOL!
| |
| George Orwell 2006-02-14, 5:47 pm |
| admin wrote:
> We have it from Zax, one of the most respected remops here, that content
> filtering is done by most of the exit remailers.
>
> Here, read what he said:
>
> ****
> You make far too big a deal out of filtering. Most operators just go
> ahead and do it in an unobtrusive manner using their own common sense to
> elect the best methods.
> ****
Using sane methods of dealing with abuse to justify your obsessive
bullshit is... well, rather pathetic.
You're grasping at straws, loon, and it's not pretty. Think real hard
about why, if everyone does exactly the same things you do, it's only you
that gets spanked so soundly and so frequently over it. Let us know what
you come up with.
This should be classic.... <snicker>
| |
| Anonymous 2006-02-14, 5:47 pm |
| On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>
>On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:34:31 +0100, privacy.at Anonymous Remailer wrote:
>
>Cut the shit, junior. My 'civil remailer' joke took place over 4 years
>ago. If you think you can still get mileage out of it, think again.
Bad words, eeltrash. Do we need to filter you?
>
>Give us an example of the eelbash remailer replacing words with other
>words. Something that happened in the last month or so; or the last year
>or so.
Um, you don't get to choose how far back into your sordid past we dig. *We*
get to decide. But since you are not comfortable with your actions a while
back (4 years? the hell you say), lets go with recent numbXXXXery. Did you
ever pay off that bet, or are you still shamefully welshing?
My guess is you're nothing but a welshing XXXX-up.
| |
| Anonyma 2006-02-14, 5:47 pm |
| On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Anonymous <nobody@invalid.org> wrote:
>nobody@pseudo.borked.net (Borked Pseudo Mailed) wrote:
>
>
>It's about time to put the religious beliefs to an end.
>Get real.
>
>What do *YOU* do against abuse of your remailer?
>You don't run one? Thought so.
Shut the XXXX up, eeltrash. You grow tiresome.
| |
|
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 22:17:41 +0000, TwistyCreek wrote:
> admin wrote:
>
>
> Once again you poor illiterate, harassment is NOT content.
No? Then what is it, telepathic messages? This is like trying to
reason with a low-grade moron.
The harassment is contained in the words in the message - the
content.
> Not in the sense that it enjoys any sort of consideration
> when it comes to dealing with it.
I see. It's content, but not in a certain sense. Just as, I
suppose, words in a book aren't words in a book, at least in the
sense that they are deposits of ink, strung out in peculiar shapes
along straight lines.
> Filtering it is both morally and legally proper
If I have done nothing else, I have forced people like you to admit
that filtering of certain kinds of content is justfied; even though
you continue to insist it is not content (in a certain sense).
> while diddling people's posts just because you don't like their
> choice of words
Again, provide evidence that the remailer changes the content of
any posts. Talking about the 'civil remailer' of two years ago
doesn't count; give evidence that the remailer is changing posts
now.
> is just
> another manifestation of your psychotic obsession to be a
> "someone" in the Remop world.
You are probably projecting your adolescent need for acceptance
onto me.
The only thing that interests me is in making the remailer an
effective tool which people can use to protect their anonymity.
I am far too old to care about being 'someone' in the remop world
or any other world.
>
>
> You've provided it yourself over an over, from your [bad
> words]...
Yet again, what evidence do you have that the remailer is doing
'proactive meddling and tampering'?
>
>
> I am merely telling the truth.
I think it is obvious to anybody reading this thread that you are
a liar, making up nutty definitions of words like 'content', and
making an accusation againt my remailer (that it tampers with
messages), while failing to provide any evidence for your
accusation.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFD8mdBEC+g9Qawm6QRAm6UAKD/4EnTxn71LBrQNSZUvOz01he+CgCgtVAF
R2K70okYALJ8J7mhYcFH3Xg=
=ncVJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Anonymous 2006-02-14, 8:59 pm |
| On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>
>I think it is obvious to anybody reading this thread that you are
>a liar,
No, it's not. What's clear is that you are desperately trying to distance
yourself from your past. Since you found out that someone filters out spam,
you are trying to turn that into a justification for all of the snooping,
spying, and digging *you* have done in the past.
It won't work. Apples and oranges, eeltrash.
>making up nutty definitions of words like 'content', and
>making an accusation againt my remailer (that it tampers with
>messages), while failing to provide any evidence for your
>accusation.
The evidence is abundant in Google. Also on blowjay's pages. Your insanity
is well documented, loser. You have read other peoples posts and emails.
You have admitted to doing so. To use one of the quotes from Dingo's
website:
"Human beings remain constant in their methods of conduct." - _The Prince_
-- Niccolo Machiavelli
IOW, once a snoop, always a snoop, you snoop.
| |
| Thrasher Remailer 2006-02-14, 8:59 pm |
|
| |
| TwistyCreek 2006-02-15, 2:46 am |
| admin wrote:
> The harassment is contained in the words in the message - the content.
>
>
> I see. It's content, but not in a certain sense.
My God, a glimmer of cognizance from the Eeltard! There may be hope for
you yet. Yes, in a strict technical sense harassment is contained in the
body or headers of a post. Sticking your dick in a 5 year old could
"technically" be considered sex too, but much to your dismay and the
folly of your arguments, that doesn't mean raping children enjoys the same
protections under the law that consensual adult sex enjoys.
Thank you for finally admitting you understand the difference.
>
> If I have done nothing else, I have forced people like you to admit that
> filtering of certain kinds of content is justfied; even though you
> continue to insist it is not content (in a certain sense).
Nobody ever said filtering certain kinds of content isn't justified. What
we have repeatedly tried to school you on is YOUR obsessive perversion of
that responsibility, and the idiotic illogic you use to try and justify it.
Harassment and abuse are not protected speech. Swearing, arguing, even
being annoying is. You attack both because you're too XXXXing stupid to
grasp the difference. That syntactically challenged cluster of fecal
matter you use to keep your skull from caving in on itself simply won't
assimilate ANYTHING that doesn't let you believe you're standing out among
Remops.
And the ironic thing is you DO stand out. Just not the way you want to.
>
> Again, provide evidence that the remailer changes the content of any
> posts. Talking about the 'civil remailer' of two years ago doesn't count;
Bullshit. You don't get to decide what parts of your abhorrent history we
choose to remember and what we must forget. Your asinine "civil" remailer
was just a glaring example of your everyday bullshit. It stands out as
exceptional, but it's far from standing alone.
>
> You are probably projecting your adolescent need for acceptance onto me.
ROTFL! That's funny. You're out here doing everything you can to get some
sort of "recognition", revising history and lying to cover up your own
bullshit, and *I'M* the one on a quest for acceptance? A completely
anonymous poster?
LOL!! You really are one confused pup, Eelbash.
> The only thing that interests me is in making the remailer an effective
> tool which people can use to protect their anonymity.
Is that why you do so many things to break them? Is that why you threaten
to out people, admit to snooping, devise insecure "gimics" to get people
to use your junk remailer, filter posts you just don't agree with?
You're a blatant liar. Your only interest is your pathetic ego and
satiating your obsession with truly anonymous posters. You're a sick,
demented person only pretending to care about anything but your obese
sense of self worth.
> I am far too old to care about being 'someone' in the remop world or any
> other world.
Now you're only deluding yourself. If you TRULY only cared about being
useful to those who want anonymity, you'd quietly operate a remailer, Tor
node, or whatever other anonymous service you chose just like every OTHER
competent Remop does. But no, you have the obsession for "sticking out".
Which all by itself opens you up for more attacks, and consequently
reduces your effectiveness considerably. Then you ice the cake by doing
some of the dumbest things we've ever seen a Remop ever try, and flat out
BREAKING your remailer with your incompetence.
Every single thing you do contradicts everything you say Eelbash. From the
name hopping right down to the deceipt of trying to run multiple remailers
on the sly and admitting to monitoring exit traffic, everything you touch
screams of obsessive fruitcake. You have YET to offer the remailer
community a single, useful service. At best you are a complete joke head
to toe, and most people consider you an actual subversive.
>
> Yet again, what evidence do you have that the remailer is doing 'proactive
> meddling and tampering'?
Your own admissions and practices, loon.
>
> I think it is obvious to anybody reading this thread that you are a liar,
I think you wish it was, but it's not. Delude yourself all you want. It's
amusing as hell watching you make a feeble attempt to appeal to the
masses. But when it boils down to it, we ALL know the only one agreeing
with your obsessive bullshit is you and your sock puppets. Everyone, and
that's EVERYONE else thinks you're anything from a certifiable crazy old
hag with no life, to a CoS busybody snoop pretending to run a remailer so
they can satiate their voyeuristic fantasies.
Personally, I just think you're insane, and lonely. Those cats only fill
so much of a void, don't they? And the voices in your head aren't always
your friend.... 
Maybe you SHOULD take up alcohol. At least that obsession does the most
damage to you and pretty much leaves innocent strangers out of the loop of
self destruction. Maybe you should take that money you saved welshing on
your own challenges and invest in a bottle of Jack or something.
Or is that why you're here now? Have you already destroyed your "real"
life? Is that why you're so obsessive for recognition and acceptance here?
Not that I give a shit mind you, I'm just trying to figure out why you're
so XXXXing nutty.
| |
| Anonymous 2006-02-15, 2:46 am |
| In article <pan.2006.02.14.23.34.06.720026@eelbash.org>
admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>
>
> Again, provide evidence that the remailer changes the content of
> any posts. Talking about the 'civil remailer' of two years ago
> doesn't count; give evidence that the remailer is changing posts
> now.
Of course it counts. Remailers work on nothing more than reputation.
When you have a history as long as your arm of changing posts, monitoring
and filtering, your reputation is zero. It really doesn't matter if
right this second you are not doing it, your reputation is still at
zero.
| |
| Anonymous 2006-02-15, 2:46 am |
| In article <pan.2006.02.14.23.34.06.720026@eelbash.org>
admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>
>
> Again, provide evidence that the remailer changes the content of
> any posts. Talking about the 'civil remailer' of two years ago
> doesn't count; give evidence that the remailer is changing posts
> now.
Of course it counts. Remailers work on nothing more than reputation.
When a remailer operator has a history as long as your arm of changing
posts, monitoring and filtering, their reputation is zero.
It really doesn't matter if at right this second you are not doing
anything bad. People only have your word to go on, and unfortunately
your word is no longer trustable. There has just been too much history.
You were probably on the right track when you created Razelka and never
told anyone it was yours. The only way you will ever be able to run a
normal remailer without causing a storm will be if nobody knows it is
you. If you really have turned over a new leaf now, I would urge you to
consider doing exactly that.
| |
| George Orwell 2006-02-15, 2:46 am |
| Anonymous wrote:
> In article <pan.2006.02.14.23.34.06.720026@eelbash.org> admin
> <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>
> Of course it counts. Remailers work on nothing more than reputation. When
> you have a history as long as your arm of changing posts, monitoring and
> filtering, your reputation is zero. It really doesn't matter if right this
> second you are not doing it, your reputation is still at zero.
Hell, just last week or so the silly sot outed himself chatting up his
idiocy with sock puppets. And what was it, a month or so ago we catch him
trying to sneak through a second remailer on the sly? And didn't he just
mention some sort of special "utility" he uses to monitor exit mail?
But he doesn't do anything any different than any other remop, and the
most glaring example to the contrary doesn't count because it happened
"before".
*laugh*
The guy is a friggin nut case. Certifiable loonytoon I tell ya'. NOBODY is
that big of a self delusional moron without having other "issues". Nobody.
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2006-02-15, 2:46 am |
| In article <pan.2006.02.14.15.57.53.805212@eelbash.org>
admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>
>
> I don't think so.
You obviously didn't know RProcess. He was against content filtering.
> If he has any common sense, he would realize that
> filtering abuse, threats, etc. is the only sensible way to run a remailer.
Right, you have more common sense than the guy who wrote your server
and helped with the design of the remailer network. Could your ego be
any bigger?
| |
| Non scrivetemi 2006-02-15, 2:46 am |
| In article < 83ed71fa1e9a812208697e806b5ab3a3@mixmast
er.it>
George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
>
>
> Hell, just last week or so the silly sot outed himself chatting up his
> idiocy with sock puppets. And what was it, a month or so ago we catch him
> trying to sneak through a second remailer on the sly? And didn't he just
> mention some sort of special "utility" he uses to monitor exit mail?
>
Yeah? Well that was last week, it doesn't count. Give evidence that
the remailer has done anything bad this morning, between the hours of
2am and 3am.
| |
| George Orwell 2006-02-15, 2:46 am |
| admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
> We have it from Zax, one of the most respected remops here, that content
> filtering is done by most of the exit remailers.
>
> Here, read what he said:
>
> ****
> You make far too big a deal out of filtering. Most operators just go
> ahead and do it in an unobtrusive manner using their own common sense to
> elect the best methods.
> ****
What's really funny is that Zax's post was criticizing you for jumping
on any mention of filtering and making a big thing about it. You've now
gone and done exactly what he said you do to *his* post.
He never said most operators content filter. Read your quote again.
Hint: the word content doesn't appear. He was referring to you going
on and on about filtering of any kind, and pointing out that most
operators just go ahead and use their own common sense in electing a
filtering method without making a big deal about it. He never said that
their elected filtering method was content filtering. You chose to
believe he said that.
You had a similar problem when he called you the bad apple of the
remailer network. You seemed to believe that he was praising you for
shaking out all of the bad apples.
>
> What's the point since most operators do it?
No, they don't. If it's something you're proud of, what's the problem
with adding filter to your capstring? After all, it's nothing to be
ashamed of, right?
>
> I don't think so. If he has any common sense, he would realize that
> filtering abuse, threats, etc. is the only sensible way to run a remailer.
It's not the only sensible way of running a remailer. And yes, he would
have criticized you.
| |
| Thrasher Remailer 2006-02-15, 2:46 am |
| In article <pan.2006.02.14.17.44.06.208872@eelbash.org>
admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>
> This I have to see. Give us an example of something that was blocked
> by the remailer that got through Google.
I imagine anything with the word pangborn in for starters.
| |
| Anonymous 2006-02-15, 2:46 am |
| In article <pan.2006.02.14.15.57.53.805212@eelbash.org>
admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>
> We have it from Zax, one of the most respected remops here, that content
> filtering is done by most of the exit remailers.
Man, can't you read? Zax said that the other remailers don't make a big
deal out of filtering, and use their own common sense to elect a way of
dealing with abuse. That does not equate to "most remops content filter".
> Here, read what he said:
>
> ****
> You make far too big a deal out of filtering. Most operators just go
> ahead and do it in an unobtrusive manner using their own common sense to
> elect the best methods.
> ****
| |
| TwistyCreek 2006-02-15, 7:46 am |
| In article <DFNHQX9238763.6939930556@reece.net.au>
Thrasher Remailer <thrasher@reece.net.au> wrote:
>
> In article <pan.2006.02.14.17.44.06.208872@eelbash.org>
> admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>
> I imagine anything with the word pangborn in for starters.
You meant Pigborn.
| |
| TwistyCreek 2006-02-15, 7:46 am |
| In article <DFNHQX9238763.6939930556@reece.net.au>
Thrasher Remailer <thrasher@reece.net.au> wrote:
>
> In article <pan.2006.02.14.17.44.06.208872@eelbash.org>
> admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>
> I imagine anything with the word pangborn in for starters.
How about pigbarn?
| |
| Thrasher Remailer 2006-02-15, 7:46 am |
|
| |
|
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 04:15:59 +0000, TwistyCreek wrote:
> admin wrote:
>
>
> My God, a glimmer of cognizance from the Eeltard!
As I added, and you left out, saying that it is content, but not in a
certain sense, is as lunatic as saying that words in a book are not words
in the sense of being splotches of ink.
Your problem is that you can't admit that filtering on content is
sometimes legitimate, for example, when someone complains that personal
information has been posted to a newsgroup through your remailer.
You seem to have such an emotional investment in the 'content filtering is
bad' mantra, that you claim that legitimate filtering on content is
actually filtering on something that is not content.
Bizarre, but there it is.
> There may be hope for
> you yet. Yes, in a strict technical sense harassment is contained in the
> body or headers of a post. Sticking your dick in a 5 year old could
> "technically" be considered sex too,
You can't help indulging in pedophile fantasies, can you?
>
>
> Nobody ever said filtering certain kinds of content isn't justified.
On the contrary, it has been a constant refrain that 'content filtering'
is bad. No distinctions have ever been allowed. Until now. Finally, the
'purists', like you, admit that content filtering is sometimes justified.
And you even called it 'content'. There is hope for you.
>
> Personally, I just think you're insane, and lonely.
Hardly. I have a normal family life, while you have, what? Pedophile
fantasies? Let's hope you never have the courage to try turning them into
reality.
*
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFD8yekEC+g9Qawm6QRAoMWAJ9tokIg8QRz
9UCxK+88RKYkzETyCACgse6P
hpwcJs4IT9xrl4VkqU6xl6k=
=n8Va
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
|
|
| Anonymous 2006-02-17, 11:08 pm |
| >> This I have to see. Give us an example of something that was blocked
>
> I imagine anything with the word pangborn in for starters.
That's a good point. Eelbash was saying any responsible remop would
block that word a few days ago.
However, because his filters are 'secret', he will unblock it for a
bit to make a post claiming it isn't true, and then block it again later.
You didn't expect a fair game, did you?
| |
| George Orwell 2006-02-17, 11:08 pm |
| In article < a3fd3c771f498a1067389a207b554d14@pboxmix
.winstonsmith.info>
"Non scrivetemi" <nonscrivetemi@pboxmix.winstonsmith.info> wrote:
>
> Yeah? Well that was last week, it doesn't count. Give evidence that
> the remailer has done anything bad this morning, between the hours of
> 2am and 3am.
ROFL!
| |
| privacy.at Anonymous Remailer 2006-02-17, 11:08 pm |
|
In article < 0d1f826f8cd88fb48370b372b8fe7a55@mixmast
er.it>
George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
>
> What's really funny is that Zax's post was criticizing you for jumping
> on any mention of filtering and making a big thing about it. You've now
> gone and done exactly what he said you do to *his* post.
Zax must be quietly laughing that his point was proved by eelbash so
well
| |
| Anonymous 2006-02-17, 11:08 pm |
| On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, nobody@pseudo.borked.net (Borked Pseudo Mailed) wrote:
>In article <pan.2006.02.14.15.57.53.805212@eelbash.org>
>admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>
>You obviously didn't know RProcess. He was against content filtering.
>
>
>Right, you have more common sense than the guy who wrote your server
>and helped with the design of the remailer network. Could your ego be
>any bigger?
If it did, we'd have to call him Frog.
| |
| Anonyma 2006-02-17, 11:08 pm |
| On 15 Feb 2006, TwistyCreek <anon@comments.header> wrote:
> That syntactically challenged cluster of fecal
>matter you use to keep your skull from caving in on itself simply won't
>assimilate ANYTHING that doesn't let you believe you're standing out among
>Remops.
ROFLMAO!!
| |
| George Orwell 2006-02-17, 11:08 pm |
| admin wrote:
> As I added, and you left out, saying that it is content, but not in a
> certain sense, is as lunatic as saying that words in a book are not words
> in the sense of being splotches of ink.
>
> Your problem is that you can't admit that filtering on content is
> sometimes legitimate, for example, when someone complains that personal
> information has been posted to a newsgroup through your remailer.
No, what we've been saying is that certain types of content don't deserve
to be considered as legitimate content, and that your insane way of
erasing those lines just to satiate your own questionable morality brings
everything you do into question.
> You seem to have such an emotional investment in the 'content filtering is
> bad' mantra, that you claim that legitimate filtering on content is
> actually filtering on something that is not content.
You still can't seem to grasp the "free speech" analogy. Opinions are
protected in most places, right up to the point they become harmful to
someone else. The concept of "harm" might vary, and even be used
subversively in draconian jurisdictions, or by remailer operators who want
to meddle where they shouldn't. But the simple fact of the matter
remains... speech that crosses certain lines really isn't considered
speech in the legal sense any more. It can't be, and not enjoy the
protections the law might afford.
Take for example a contract between two parties, where one or both were
unable to enter into a legal binding contract. That contract is
automatically rendered null and void. Any legal remedy should try to set
things to a state just prior to that agreement, like reversing any
monetary transactions. That's usually the way things happen.
Another good analogy would be emergency vehicles and their status on the
road. It's a little known fact that things like police cars and ambulances
are often not considered to be motor vehicles. Consequently, they're not
subject to motor vehicle law. They don't need inspected (although they
usually are), and more importantly they don't need to obey things like
speed limits. Yes, in many places (not just the US), police legally ARE
allowed to drive faster than the rest of us.
The point is, there are both legal and moral distinctions between valid
content and harassment or outright illegal activity. You could actually be
held liable for censoring or modifying the former, and liable for NOT
censoring or modifying the latter.
Your problem is that you lack the ability to understand the difference. Or
the consequences of your silly ways of dealing with the problem for that
matter. You look like a complete nutter to a group of people you're
apparently trying to impress, and if by some twisted mistake of fate you
were to ever gain any sort of prominence in the remailer community, you
are forcing responsibilities and liabilities on yourself AND other Remops
that they shouldn't have to deal with. You could in fact be a major
detriment to the remailer network, if they ever allow you to carry out
your silliness unabated.
> Bizarre, but there it is.
The only Bizarre thing here is your obsession with being part of the
remailer community. You're obviously not wanted. You are the laughing
stock of the day in fact. You've garnered no respect at all and you only
get the appearance of respect when you talk to yourself using sock
puppets. I can't see how ANY of this would give you any enjoyment at all,
but even after years of being XXXXX slapped, you're still at it.
That's just not natural. It's indicative of deeper problems to be real
honest about it. The "drunk grabbing a bottle" analogy was about the best
description I've seen.
>
> You can't help indulging in pedophile fantasies, can you?
It's actually YOUR fantasy, just juxtaposed over something that gave it
more "color".
You are the one sodomizing people's posts and raping the remailer network
in general, then trying to justify that abhorrent behavior just like every
other paedophile does... "but I was just showing them love, officer". The
Michael Jackson defense, applied to snooping on and manipulating
supposedly anonymous traffic.
> And you even called it 'content'. There is hope for you.
Imitation.... the sincerest form of flattery.
>
>
>
> Hardly. I have a normal family life, while you have, what? Pedophile
> fantasies? Let's hope you never have the courage to try turning them into
> reality.
It's VERY hard to believe that you would have any sort of normal
relationship with anyone. The time you spend here and the absolutely
insane things you do are symptoms of really deep seeded problems. Done
briefly they're "mistakes". Don repetitively and habitually they're
unhealthy obsessions and compulsions. The sort of shit therapists drool
over.
No, methinks you have very little in your life but your animals. Or
perhaps they're your wife's animals, as she's the one that need the
companionship due to your obsessions taking up most of your time.
I have to wonder if this wife exists, does she know about what you're
doing here? What a joke you've made of yourself? The potential attacks
you've opened yourself up to by behaving the way you behave?
Do you monitor and censor her email too, Eelbash? ;-)
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2006-02-17, 11:08 pm |
| George Orwell wrote:
>
> You still can't seem to grasp the "free speech" analogy. Opinions are
<snip>
You're wasting your time. Eelbash is obsessed and uneducable. Common sense
and logic are wasted, the only thing the miscreant understands is a big
stick.
But your arguments are the way a lot of us think about things like SPAM
and abuse. They simply aren't real content, and nobody cares if you filter
them or whatever.
| |
| Anonymous 2006-02-17, 11:08 pm |
| Anonyma <anon-bounces@deuxpi.ca> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Anonymous <nobody@invalid.org> wrote:
>
> Shut the XXXX up, eeltrash. You grow tiresome.
How many times do I have to tell you that there are more in this discussion
than you and eelbash?
| |
| Thrasher Remailer 2006-02-17, 11:08 pm |
| In <9ff3006db78e107c769d6d633f9d1e1d@anon.bananasplit.info>, nobody@invalid.org wrote:
>Anonyma <anon-bounces@deuxpi.ca> wrote:
>
>
>How many times do I have to tell you that there are more in this discussion
>than you and eelbash?
SHUT UP EELBASH!
| |
| Fritz Wuehler 2006-02-17, 11:08 pm |
| On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 06:15:05 +0100, George Orwell wrote:
>...Sticking your dick in a 5 year old could...
>...juxtaposed over...
juxtaposed with
>
> sodomizing...raping...paedophile..
>
> ...deep seeded...
deep-seated
What a combination - an illiterate, obsessed paedophile pretending to
discuss remailing matters. Talk about being in the wrong newsgroup.
I'm surprised you haven't used the 'hair brained' epithet, just to make
the illiteracy joke complete.
For God's sake see your rabbi. He probably won't be able to help
you, but can at least refer you to a good psychiatrist, and maybe get you
a sentence reduction when you start acting out your fantasies and get
thrown in jail.
>From the compulsive way you are spewing, my guess is that the
pressure to act out your fantasies has gotten close to being unendurable,
so time is getting short for you.
And please stay out of our newsgroup.
| |
| Anonymous 2006-02-17, 11:08 pm |
| On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Fritz Wuehler
<fritz@spamexpire-200602.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 06:15:05 +0100, George Orwell wrote:
>
>
>
>juxtaposed with
>
>deep-seated
>
>What a combination - an illiterate, obsessed paedophile pretending to
>discuss remailing matters. Talk about being in the wrong newsgroup.
>
>I'm surprised you haven't used the 'hair brained' epithet, just to make
>the illiteracy joke complete.
This is too funny. It's not HAIR brained, it's HARE brained, as in "with no
more sense than a hare."
If you're going to be a pompous XXX, at least wipe first.
| |
| George Orwell 2006-02-17, 11:08 pm |
| Fritz Wuehler wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 06:15:05 +0100, George Orwell wrote:
>
>
>
> juxtaposed with
Sorry but no. Juxtaposed means placed "side by side". Since this was a
case of one thing being "overlaid" with another, it was essential that it
be expressed as "juxtaposed OVER".
>
> deep-seated
Either one is commonly used.
> And please stay out of our newsgroup.
Delusions of importance? Amusing, but irrelevant.
I see you've been spanked into using your sock puppet routine again Helen.
That's pretty amusing too.
| |
| Fritz Wuehler 2006-02-17, 11:08 pm |
| On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 00:59:06 -0700, Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>
> But your arguments are the way a lot of us think about things like SPAM
> and abuse. They simply aren't real content, and nobody cares if you filter
> them or whatever.
Why confuse things with the word 'real'? Why not clarify things in these
'discussions' by distinguishing, say, 'valid content' and 'invalid content'?
That at least is a sane division, and we can all understand, that either
way, we are talking about content.
So far, mostly what we hear is things like 'content filtering is bad'.
That makes normal users of English think that filtering *anything* is bad,
since normal users of English think of the content of posts as, well,
content, whether it is good or bad, valid or invalid.
You have done it a little differently by saying: filtering of real content
is bad. But that is just as confusing; people think: what is 'un-real'
content like? Some kind of ghostly content that you can't see?
But if you say: filtering of valid content is bad, then everything becomes
clearer.
The next step would be to say that spam and abuse (or whatever) are
invalid content and can be filtered legitimately. And there would be many
interesting discussions about what could be filtered legitimately, based
on the valid/invalid distinction.
However, if you really believe that there should be no filtering of
anything, then skip the bullshit about 'real' or 'unreal' and just say so.
Which reminds me: if R really thought that there should be no filtering of
anything, what was he thinking? Did he really mean that or had he not
thought it through?
Did he really believe that a post publishing somebody's credit card
information, for example, should not be filtered out?
Or did he have an unspoken reservation in mind that anything criminal
should be filtered, i.e, it is ok to filter invalid content?
| |
| Anonymous 2006-02-17, 11:08 pm |
| In article <4de1409637eaf2ecd8daff0b28e22fd9@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>
Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-200602.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote:
>
> And please stay out of our newsgroup.
Yet another eelbash sock puppet. Don't you get tired of pretending
to be other people?
| |
| George Orwell 2006-02-17, 11:08 pm |
| Fritz Wuehler wrote:
>
> Why confuse things with the word 'real'? Why not clarify things in these
<snip>
WTF are you prattling on about? You think paragraphs of semantics bullshit
interests any of us?
Nope.
Filtering criminal type crap... good.
Filtering [BADWORDS]... not good.
Simple as that.
| |
| Anonymous 2006-02-17, 11:08 pm |
| On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Fritz Wuehler
<fritz@spamexpire-200602.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 06:15:05 +0100, George Orwell wrote:
>
>
>
>juxtaposed with
>
>deep-seated
>
>What a combination - an illiterate, obsessed paedophile pretending to
>discuss remailing matters. Talk about being in the wrong newsgroup.
>
>I'm surprised you haven't used the 'hair brained' epithet, just to make
>the illiteracy joke complete.
This is too funny. It's not HAIR brained, it's HARE brained, as in "with no
more sense than a hare."
If you're going to be a pompous XXX, at least wipe first.
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2006-02-17, 11:08 pm |
| Anonymous wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Fritz Wuehler
> <fritz@spamexpire-200602.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote:
>
> This is too funny. It's not HAIR brained, it's HARE brained, as in "with
> no more sense than a hare."
>
> If you're going to be a pompous XXX, at least wipe first.
ROTFLMAO!
Dontcha just love it when grammar cops slop their drippers? ;)
|
|
|
|
|