Roger Maynard, posting as anon@anon.com wrote:

>Actually, [deleted1] makes a post, without pgp, and using a
>false name, attacking [deleted2].

>[deleted1] says, "It can't be my posting!  I didn't sign it
>with my pgp signature!

Nobody who understands PGP would make such a claim.  What PGP
signatures do is to interfere with known forgers such as yourself.
They don't apply at all to the non-forged and non-signed posts
that you describe above.  Try to keep up, OK?

Because you have once again decided to attempt to use childish
insults instead of using logic and evidence, I will now remove
the whitelist exception that allowed you to communicate with
me. My Roger Maynard filter is quite effective, and blocks
just about anything you post, including most posts through
anonymous remailers, using a Bayesian filter.  Feel free to
whine about the filters or to even claim that they don't work;
youknow that they do.  Either way, it doesn't matter to me;
I won't see any of your whining.

Alas, I had to whitlist the remailers in alt.privacy.anon-server,
so as to see posts from the regulars, so I am stuck with more
traditional killfiles such as "anon@anon.com" in the from line,
"cordially, as always" in the body, "Guy Macon" in the subject
line, "easynews.com" in the Message-ID., etc -- in this newsgroup
only. You could try nymshifting so we can see how Easynews likes
that behavior...

Also keep in mind that I can selectively killfile some or all
posts that contain the reference-ID of one of the killfiled
posts in the references line, thus keeping me from seeing
replies to your posts.  I am working on a filter that examines
the body of the replies, compares them with the body of the
killfiled post, and attempts to determine if they quoted
anything you wrote.  That would allow me to apply my "reply
to Roger Maynard" filter to more people without missing
anything good.

That's about the limit of what I can do with WinVN.  Adding PGP
functionality is too much work, so I will be porting my filters
over to another platform soon.  The good news is that I should
be able to clean them up, rewrite them in Python, and publish
the code for others to use.  Bayesian filtering is the wave of
the future, and it has close to 100% sucess in identifying your
posts.


Your final score:

1----------3----------5----------7----------10
^                     ^                   ^  ^
|                     |                   |  |
Casablanca            Gigli                | Battlefield Earth
|
Roger Maynard

Buh-bye, troll.

*PLONK*....*PLONK*...*PLONK*..*PLONK*.*PLONK*PLONKPLONKLONKOnknkk...

Hey! That one bounced!  Must have been *really* ripe!!


--
Remailer Operators: Please feel free to filter out any posts
with "Guy Macon" or "guymacon" in the Subject or From lines.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 00:08:52 +0000, Guy Macon wrote:

> Roger Maynard, posting as anon@anon.com wrote:
> 
> 
>
> Nobody who understands PGP would make such a claim.  What PGP
> signatures do is to interfere with known forgers such as yourself.
> They don't apply at all to the non-forged and non-signed posts
> that you describe above.  Try to keep up, OK?
>
> Because you have once again decided to attempt to use childish
> insults instead of using logic and evidence, I will now remove
> the whitelist exception that allowed you to communicate with
> me. My Roger Maynard filter is quite effective, and blocks
> just about anything you post, including most posts through
> anonymous remailers, using a Bayesian filter.  Feel free to
> whine about the filters or to even claim that they don't work;
> youknow that they do.  Either way, it doesn't matter to me;
> I won't see any of your whining.
>
> Alas, I had to whitlist the remailers in alt.privacy.anon-server,
> so as to see posts from the regulars, so I am stuck with more
> traditional killfiles such as "anon@anon.com" in the from line,
> "cordially, as always" in the body, "Guy Macon" in the subject
> line, "easynews.com" in the Message-ID., etc -- in this newsgroup
> only. You could try nymshifting so we can see how Easynews likes
> that behavior...
>
> Also keep in mind that I can selectively killfile some or all
> posts that contain the reference-ID of one of the killfiled
> posts in the references line, thus keeping me from seeing
> replies to your posts.  I am working on a filter that examines
> the body of the replies, compares them with the body of the
> killfiled post, and attempts to determine if they quoted
> anything you wrote.  That would allow me to apply my "reply
> to Roger Maynard" filter to more people without missing
> anything good.
>
> That's about the limit of what I can do with WinVN.  Adding PGP
> functionality is too much work, so I will be porting my filters
> over to another platform soon.  The good news is that I should
> be able to clean them up, rewrite them in Python, and publish
> the code for others to use.  Bayesian filtering is the wave of
> the future, and it has close to 100% sucess in identifying your
> posts.
>
>
> Your final score:
>
>   1----------3----------5----------7----------10
>   ^                     ^                   ^  ^
>   |                     |                   |  |
>  Casablanca            Gigli                | Battlefield Earth
>                                             |
>                                            Roger Maynard
>
> Buh-bye, troll.
>
> *PLONK*....*PLONK*...*PLONK*..*PLONK*.*PLONK*PLONKPLONKLONKOnknkk...
>
> Hey! That one bounced!  Must have been *really* ripe!!
>
>

How do I know that you are really Guy, and not rm pretending to be Guy?

sf

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Guy Macon <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> says:
>Roger Maynard, posting as anon@anon.com wrote:
 
[vbcol=seagreen] 
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Nobody who understands PGP would make such a claim.  What PGP
>signatures do is to interfere with known forgers such as yourself.
>They don't apply at all to the non-forged and non-signed posts that
>you describe above.  Try to keep up, OK?

But after all the nasty things you say about us, you then go ahead
and state that it wasn't you who said them. And the fact that the
posting did not have your pgp proves it!

The only thing we have said is that you cannot prove, one way or the
other, whether a posting without pgp is authentic or a forgery.

Now do you think you can keep up with us?  After all, we were the
one who started this discussion as to the weakness of pgp, although
others, such as yourself, have tried to turn the discussion into
something that you can almost defend.

You are deluded enough to post something, using your own name, and
then accuse us of writing the post and forging your name.  And you
are then deluded enough to to claim "proof" that the posting you
made, without pgp, was actually a forgery by us, because we cannot
produce your pgp key after you demand it.  This is the level you
operate on.  Everybody knows this.

The fact remains that you cannot prove that a posting without pgp is
authentic or a forgery.  And from this it follows, if you can "keep
up", that pgp does not protect you from forged postings.  It is
nothing more than a silly affectation and the fact that pgp trash
trolls do not bury their pgp in their headers proves that, for some
strange reason, they want others to see that they are using pgp.

And it makes sense, since all of them are almost as stupid as you.

cordially, as always,

rm

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

jellybean stonerfish wrote:

>How do I know that you are really Guy, and not rm pretending to be Guy?

You don't -- yet.  Once I start PGP-signing my posts and establish
a web of trust associating that key with me, then you will know.

--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 02:07:23 +0000, Guy Macon wrote:

> jellybean stonerfish wrote:
> 
>
> You don't -- yet.  Once I start PGP-signing my posts and establish
> a web of trust associating that key with me, then you will know.
>

Well then, ignore my post asking why you don't.  I guess we will wait.

ps.  I may take you up on your offer, and knock on your door to verify
your key. I will call first and get permission.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

anon@anon.com wrote:

> Guy Macon <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> says: 
> 
> 
> 
>
> But after all the nasty things you say about us, you then go ahead
> and state that it wasn't you who said them. And the fact that the
> posting did not have your pgp proves it!

You're confused. Nobody said it proved anything of the sort.

>
> The only thing we have said is that you cannot prove, one way or the
> other, whether a posting without pgp is authentic or a forgery.

You're mistaken, and endless repetition won't change that. Once again,
typing really slow this time... the inability of a forger to produce a
valid digital signature, proved the document a forgery.

You'll of course amuse us with another round of "if moonbeams and
unicorns were  real" stupidity. Go ahead, you know you have to. <sigh>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

jellybean stonerfish wrote:

>ps.  I may take you up on your offer, and knock on your door
>to verify your key. I will call first and get permission.

That would be seriously cool!  I think that would be worth
buying you lunch or dinner at _The Old Ship_ in Fullerton.


--
Remailer Operators: Please feel free to filter out any posts
with "Guy Macon" or "guymacon" in the Subject or From lines.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 06:28:27 +0000, Guy Macon wrote:

> jellybean stonerfish wrote:
> 
>
> That would be seriously cool!  I think that would be worth
> buying you lunch or dinner at _The Old Ship_ in Fullerton.

Ok it is a deal.  But you don't have to buy me food.  Now I have a
project.  I need to figure out how to check a pgp message so I can even
verify.  I am sure it will not be too difficult.

stonerfish

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

anon@anon.com schreef:
[snip]
> You are deluded enough to post something, using your own name, and
> then accuse us of writing the post and forging your name.  And you
> are then deluded enough to to claim "proof" that the posting you
> made, without pgp, was actually a forgery by us, because we cannot
> produce your pgp key after you demand it.  This is the level you
> operate on.  Everybody knows this.

We call them 'sock-puppets' in this group. And we are very much used to
having them. It comes with the privilege of complete privacy and what it
does to some people's minds.

The way to deal with them is to draw fire and examine the bullets. But
even then you can be fooled by a really clever sock-puppet who then in
turn becomes the puppeteer of you! My thesis however is that people this
smart have better things to do then troll about on usenet :-)

Thomas (signed to proof having access to the RSA factors of the 800 bit
modulus on http://home.hccnet.nl/t.j.boschloo )
- --
I am the M-1
I kill for fun
I kill
for Thrill
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQB5AwUBRq3/ UgEP2l8iXKAJAQGZ0QMdGgYx9WqYgOvQBTIVg4jJ
1cGFijcNwxCt
 RySJpnHjvBa1pTtJs4F9kYY5tCBVLBharSz2ebup
3UtHSzpZktf0EwiEIWURrEQE
hJIKqp3BjmznL201iEuoxLfx3+hPOX3M2Qg/6w==
=gGaR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]