This was sent to me, and my ISP who has never contacted me with any
complaint or other email they have had from Richard Katz. Considering that
rk works with computers as part of his job and that he's also one of the
moderators of several newsgroups (including sci.space.mod), you would
_think_ knowing how to contact an ISP would be very basic knowledge.
He emailed it to his best buddy OM. He also emailed it back to himself. If
you make a complaint to an ISP, why email the complaint to a 'friend' or the
person you are complaining about?
I feel that the attacks, if they are from Richard Katz, may be due to my
raising the
issue of his association with Scott Grissom on several occasions, including
deleting posts from sci.space.mod which were related to Scott Grissom.
For those not on the sci.space groups Scott is the son of Gus Grissom who
died in the Apollo 1 fire. Scott has made accusations about NASA
involvement in the fire with the intention of preventing Gus from being the
first person to land
on the Moon.
An interesting point is that Richard Katz works for NASA (or did a few
months ago when I started asking questions on the sci.space groups about
Grissom) and such involvement may compromise such a position.
The following is the full, unabridged, unedited (no spelling corrections,
removed or modified words or sentences etc) email with the exception of
the references to various posts which are at the end of his email (read and
that last bit will be explained, but the references were my suggestions
[accusations] of rk's involvement). It was received on July 16 and I just
found out about it today (21 July) as it was on my ISP's server and didn't
make it to my computer's inbox.
In reference to the references, none of the groups that Richard Katz
mentions are sci.space groups (he mentions alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer,
alt.fan.harry-potter, rec.sport.soccer,aus.bicycle, misc.survivalism,
alt.survival, misc.kids).
--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au
Did John Howard lie to the Australian people?
<begin copy of email>
Hi,
Unfortunately your customer has been on an extended campaign attacking me in
various newsgroups with "charges" of performing acts that at best are wrong
and at worst may be illegal. A few posts of his are included below and make
reference to some quite obscene posts. While I understand that he may be
angry and frustrated at the situation he is in in Usenet, but this does not
excuse his abuse of others.
I do not wish to make a complaint at this time but do not know what other
e-mail address to use for optusnet so I am using this one. I am writing to
his ISP since his many public outbursts appear to be uncontrolled and an
intermediary seems to be a good idea at this time.
I would suggest that your user:
* Stop the harrassment
* Clean up the mess he made
I don't particularly care if he apologizes or not, publicly or privately as
I don't know him, don't recall ever writing to him or in response to him,
and don't bother to read his posts in the newsgroups for the most part.
He should write a letter explaining what he did was incorrect, sent via the
physical mail system, for my records.
Thanks,
Richard B. Katz
9558 Many Mile Mews
Columbia, MD USA
----------------------------------------------
Steve Day - 20 Jul 2003 18:24 GMT
"Alan Erskine" <Knowing you to be an honourable guy , I would guess this Mr
Katz fellow has just blown his cover???
Henry Spencer - 21 Jul 2003 00:09 GMT
>...Considering that
>rk works with computers as part of his job and that he's also one of the
>moderators of several newsgroups (including sci.space.mod), you would
>_think_ knowing how to contact an ISP would be very basic knowledge.
Actually, it's neither particularly well standardized nor particularly
well documented. Some ISPs make it easy, some don't. And expertise in
one area of computing, or even one area of networking, doesn't
automatically translate to expertise in all.
>He emailed it to his best buddy OM. He also emailed it back to himself. If
>you make a complaint to an ISP, why email the complaint to a 'friend' or the
>person you are complaining about?
Cc'ing a third party just indicates that he thought the third party might
be interested. Cc'ing himself just means he wants to keep a copy, and
perhaps advertise that he is doing so; this is more usually done in ways
that don't show up in message headers, but some people do explicitly cc
themselves.
You're making the same mistake the Apollo-was-faked loons do: reading
deep sinister meanings into any minor oddity in how things are done.

Signature
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! | henry@spsystems.net
Alan Erskine - 21 Jul 2003 21:38 GMT
> >...Considering that
> >rk works with computers as part of his job and that he's also one of the
> >moderators of several newsgroups (including sci.space.mod), you would
> >_think_ knowing how to contact an ISP would be very basic knowledge.
Henry, seeing you seem to be explaining rk's behaviour, why did rk delete
reference to the sci.space groups and only mention
groups (with one exception - aus.bicycle, I also used to post to
misc.survivalism, but haven't been there in ~ 2 years) I don't go to
(alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer,alt.fan.harry-potter, rec.sport.soccer,aus.bicycle,
misc.survivalism, alt.survival, misc.kids)?
Henry Spencer - 22 Jul 2003 04:22 GMT
>Henry, seeing you seem to be explaining rk's behaviour, why did rk delete
>reference to the sci.space groups and only mention
>groups (with one exception - aus.bicycle, I also used to post to
>misc.survivalism, but haven't been there in ~ 2 years) I don't go to...
No idea. Perhaps your nemesis, or someone else using your name, has been
posting there. Or perhaps rk simply goofed when setting up a search -- I
doubt he reads all those groups.
I haven't even seen the list of groups, never mind taking the time to go
see if your name has shown up on each one.
I feel no need to attempt to explain every little detail of someone else's
behavior. Hell, sometimes I'd have trouble explaining every little detail
of my *own*. Nor do I think such details are at all *significant*; as I
said before, it's the obsessed conspiracy theorists who see hidden meaning
in every hiccup, and are unwilling to ascribe any of it to honest mistakes
and random accidents.

Signature
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! | henry@spsystems.net
George William Herbert - 21 Jul 2003 03:44 GMT
>This was sent to me, and my ISP who has never contacted me with any
>complaint or other email they have had from Richard Katz.
>[...]
You *are* accusing him, without any clear evidence that I
can see, of being behind a fairly annoying net abuse problem.
A large number of people have behaved from mildly badly to very
badly, in these associated groups in the related flame and
now forgery threads. You included. However, I don't personally
see much if any evidence that the forger is any 'respectable'
sci.space.* regular, and RK is a well known space industry professional,
not someone hanging out for the purpose of causing problems.
In terms of technical capabilities of being behind a set
of news forgeries... Henry and myself are actually probably
far ahead of anybody else. That said, the effort and
knowledge required aren't anywhere near that high anymore.
I had to figure it out alone, the hard way from the RFCs
and a Bnews server more than 15 years ago; script kiddies
have automated the process nowadays, and instructions
are posted all over, and anon mail to news gateways make
it even easier.
Whoever the forger is, they are trying to stir up trouble
and anger in the groups. To the extent that the anger is
focused on them it's fine; to the extent that you are
accusing others who are most likely not involved at all,
you've become a tool of the troll and are amplifying their
harmful intent.
-george william herbert
gherbert@retro.com
Pooh Bear - 22 Jul 2003 01:38 GMT
> >This was sent to me, and my ISP who has never contacted me with any
> >complaint or other email they have had from Richard Katz.
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> -george william herbert
> gherbert@retro.com
Just popping in here to comment. I'm not esp. familiar with the case in
question but George is quite right in saying in effect that 'fanning the
flames' will have no useful effect.
'Feeding the trolls' is what they want. I have learnt this lesson myself in
the past, partly the hard way.
Funnily enough there are actually some 'nice trolls' - depends on your
understanding of the term. Some do it to deliberately annoy ( bad troll -
down boy ), some just do it for fun and are happy to 'play'.
Basically if you're using Usenet you need a sense of humour to survive.
Never take it too seriously.
Best regds, Graham