proof you ask?

these announcemnets are just TOO co-incidental.


Message-ID: <pan.2006.01.16.17.00.05.613048@eelbash.org>:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Eelbash was down for 6 hours today, from about 0600-1200 GMT, due to my
being asleep when an 'OK' button had to be clicked on.

No mail was lost, and the backup has been written out.

Sorry for any inconvenience caused by the delay.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDy9ClEC+g9Qawm6QRAm3BAJ9yjWp/Goxz3ukAyd0QFUmtL7Tr/QCfVVng
+SxRDQYMnmUheaVFm5EYV/I=
=387Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Message-ID: <1137429787.498052.248210@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dear all:

pyradic was down for approximately 6.5 hours today due to a hardware
failure located at the local infrastructure provider.  Typically, no
mail would have been lost, but there is no assurance of that since
pyradic uses addresses from a dynamic IP pool.  After the faulty
component was replaced, pyradic resumed operation immediately.
Traffic levels have since returned to normal.

Regards,
mas

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFDy8xua0XYbu+ESwsRAk1OAKCR/4JoYQjSZR6MPD2ZWB6y64ayBQCgl/Dy
B1ajYIAtK8eHv9YqtfuwvT8=
=+XfO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Thrasher Remailer wrote:

> proof you ask?
>
> these announcemnets are just TOO co-incidental.

we already knew pyradic and eelbash were the same junk

>
>
> Message-ID: <pan.2006.01.16.17.00.05.613048@eelbash.org>: -----BEGIN PGP
> SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Eelbash was down for 6 hours today, from about 0600-1200 GMT, due to my
> being asleep when an 'OK' button had to be clicked on.
>
> No mail was lost, and the backup has been written out.
>
> Sorry for any inconvenience caused by the delay. -----BEGIN PGP
> SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFDy9ClEC+g9Qawm6QRAm3BAJ9yjWp/Goxz3ukAyd0QFUmtL7Tr/QCfVVng
> +SxRDQYMnmUheaVFm5EYV/I=
> =387Y
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
> Message-ID: <1137429787.498052.248210@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Dear all:
>
> pyradic was down for approximately 6.5 hours today due to a hardware
> failure located at the local infrastructure provider.  Typically, no mail
> would have been lost, but there is no assurance of that since pyradic uses
> addresses from a dynamic IP pool.  After the faulty component was
> replaced, pyradic resumed operation immediately. Traffic levels have since
> returned to normal.
>
> Regards,
> mas
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
>
> iD8DBQFDy8xua0XYbu+ESwsRAk1OAKCR/4JoYQjSZR6MPD2ZWB6y64ayBQCgl/Dy
> B1ajYIAtK8eHv9YqtfuwvT8=
> =+XfO
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

>we already knew pyradic and eelbash were the same junk
but the question is why the deliberate difference in stories for why the
two were off line (ie one hardware and one the OK button)... He's really
starting  to smell like a lying little piece of shit (in addition to his
many other failings).

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In <002ed1c78d33c3b33f81007b18109515@pseudo.borked.net>, nobody@pseudo.borked.net wrote:[vbc
ol=seagreen]
>Thrasher Remailer wrote:
> 
>
>we already knew pyradic and eelbash were the same junk[/vbcol]

Well I guess I was asleep that day.  (good thing I'm not a remop)   and miss
ed the postings about it.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I'm thankfull pyradic is middlman and will nev
er be chosen as an exit.


 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

TwistyCreek wrote:
 
> but the question is why the deliberate difference in stories for why the
> two were off line (ie one hardware and one the OK button)... He's really

ROTFL!

You're trying to reason the unreasonable... apply logic to the actions of
an insane person.

But what the hell!

I'd wager Helen was just coherent enough for a few seconds that she
realized she busted herself on some sort of little "secret spy kitty"
program she wrote to monitor and filter traffic when she posted the OK
button stupidity.

Coherency being a fleeting state for Helen, she quickly forgot we already
knew about pyradic being her evil spawn too, and decided it would be a
brilliant thing to make up some other stupid story to cover her wide XXX
on that remailer.

I loved the 30 minute time difference by the way, what a hoot! 

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article <c72a46726a5a02cd95b7fc5e82406039@pseudo.borked.net>
Borked Pseudo Mailed <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>
> I'd wager Helen was just coherent enough for a few seconds that she
> realized she busted herself on some sort of little "secret spy kitty"
> program she wrote to monitor and filter traffic when she posted the OK
> button stupidity.
>
> Coherency being a fleeting state for Helen, she quickly forgot we already
> knew about pyradic being her evil spawn too, and decided it would be a
> brilliant thing to make up some other stupid story to cover her wide XXX
> on that remailer.

What is with all of this calling him Helen?

Helen was the name of the person at the company that registered the
domain. He is not Helen. Go read your whois again.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Anonymous wrote:

> In article <c72a46726a5a02cd95b7fc5e82406039@pseudo.borked.net> Borked
> Pseudo Mailed <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote: 
>
> What is with all of this calling him Helen?
>
> Helen was the name of the person at the company that registered the
> domain. He is not Helen. Go read your whois again.

Now Helen, your identity was put together nicely for us. There was even
links to the pictures of your cats ferChristsakes. The treadles.ca web
site, the business name, your phone number, everything points directly at
you. You ARE the wife you were lying about when you claimed someone was
complaining about your web site. You even registered one of your remailer
accounts in a fake name that was partially yours. Not very bright.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]