 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue CatKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cat Forum / Health and Behavior / June 2005Note From An Admirer
Got the following lovely little email this morning. Headers follow for those of you who are interested and also know how to use a command line to "ping", "tracert", and "finger". Odd how so many people here forget to use apostrophes in their contractions - LOL! -----Original Message----- From: Nomen Nescio [mailto:nobody@dizum.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 5:40 AM To: xxx@xxx..com Subject: nasty bitch You are one nasty self absorbed c.nt. For someone who is such a c.nt, you are also exceptionally dumb. You shouldnt post your full name work address and so much personal information about yourself. Someone could easily look you up and f.ck you up big time. Stupid c.nt. HEADERS: Return-path: <remailer@dizum.com> Received: from ms-mta-02 (ms-mta-02-smtp [10.93.38.12]) by ms-mss-03.texas.rr.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.04 (built Feb 8 2005)) with ESMTP id <0IIF00IECKBSBI@ms-mss-03.texas.rr.com> for xxx@xxx.com; Tue, 21 Jun 2005 05:40:40 -0500 (CDT) Received: from hrndva-mx-03.mgw.rr.com (hrndva-mx-03.mgw.rr.com [24.28.204.22]) by ms-mta-02.texas.rr.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.04 (built Feb 8 2005)) with ESMTP id <0IIF00IHZKBPTI@ms-mta-02.texas.rr.com> for xxx@xxx.com (ORCPT xxx@xxx.com); Tue, 21 Jun 2005 06:40:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from outpost.zedz.net (194.109.206.210) by hrndva-mx-03.mgw.rr.com with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Jun 2005 06:40:40 -0400 Received: from localhost (outpost [127.0.0.1]) by outpost.zedz.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 297FB4F4CF for <xxx@xxx.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:40:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: by outpost.zedz.net (Postfix, from userid 1009) id A6E494F4B4; Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:40:05 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:40:05 +0200 (CEST) From: Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> Subject: nasty bitch To: xxx@xxx.com Message-id: <ad44a3a9b81a11ffe9be2aaf5991307b@dizum.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by outpost.zedz.net (amavis-20020300) Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address above. It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software. Please report problems or inappropriate use to the remailer administrator at <abuse@dizum.com>. Original-recipient: rfc822;xxx@xxx.com X-Antivirus: AVG for E-mail 7.0.323 [267.7.8] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Got the following lovely little email this morning. Headers follow for > those of you who are interested and also know how to use a command line to > "ping", "tracert", and "finger". Odd how so many people here forget to use > apostrophes in their contractions - LOL! Alright noboby needs to be fingering anything, or tracert or dns lookups and all that jizz. -----Original Message----- From: Nomen Nescio [mailto:nob...@dizum.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 5:40 AM To: xxx@xxx..com Subject: nasty bitch What is this doing in the header. CN got an email, why would this be in the header, looks kinda jiggy to me. > > Got the following lovely little email this morning. Headers follow for > > those of you who are interested and also know how to use a command line to > > "ping", "tracert", and "finger". Odd how so many people here forget to use > > apostrophes in their contractions - LOL! Ok, I feel bright. dut dt daaah! Well, NippyCat, it was in the "Other house rules", don't fence your words, just say what you mean. lol > Got the following lovely little email this morning. Headers follow for > those of you who are interested and also know how to use a command line to > "ping", "tracert", and "finger". Odd how so many people here forget to use > apostrophes in their contractions - LOL! You're not going to find anything. dizum is an anonymzing remailer and while all the headers are valid, they're also not useful. Sorry you're gettng harassed like that. You might want to filter anything from dizum or if possible filter on the comments: string. bisky Biskybabe <biskybabe@hotmail.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: >> Got the following lovely little email this morning. Headers >> follow for those of you who are interested and also know how to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > bisky Send it to the dizum abuse department, that's the best you can do. They will either block the user or in some cases the whole IP (ruining it for everyone).  SignatureBrandy Alexandre® http://www.swydm.com/?refer=BrandyAlx Well, would you? > Biskybabe <biskybabe@hotmail.com> wrote in > rec.pets.cats.health+behav: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > They will either block the user or in some cases the whole IP (ruining > it for everyone). "Ruining it" how? And for whom? The cowards out there who are afraid to own up to their own filth? If you're too ashamed of what you have to say to use your own name, then should you be saying it at all? And if you are a coward, and low enough to spew anonymous hatred, why should those of us who aren't be subjected to your psychosis? As the note implied, yes, I'm exactly who I say I am, I don't feel the need to "hide" behind pseudonyms, false identities, or anonymous remailers. I'm not ashamed of who I am, what I say, or what I do - I take full responsibility for and accept the consequences of my actions. If I have something to say to someone I say it to their face. Dizum puts forth bullshit about it being the only recourse for people who want to express their political opinions without fear of reprisals. Bullshit - the signers of the declaration of independence had the courage of their convictions and signed their *real* names. If you're not willing to own up to your beliefs, why should I even want to hear them? Besides, I know exactly who sent the email, so they didn't accomplish a thing in their cowardice. Grammatical and spelling errors, phrasing, and content tell much more about a person than their return email address. Brandy wrote: >> Send it to the dizum abuse department, that's the best you can do. >> They will either block the user or in some cases the whole IP (ruining >> it for everyone). Catnipped wrote: > "Ruining it" how? And for whom? The cowards out there who are afraid to > own up to their own filth? If you're too ashamed of what you have to say [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > who > aren't be subjected to your psychosis? Uh, she meant if an entire IP is blocked, then it is "ruining it" for all users of that IP, not just the offender. > Dizum puts forth bullshit about it being the only recourse for people who > want to express their political opinions without fear of reprisals. > Bullshit - the signers of the declaration of independence had the courage > of > their convictions and signed their *real* names. If you're not willing to > own up to your beliefs, why should I even want to hear them? Some people don't want their email address and other info out there. I see nothing wrong with that. Doesn't meant they are a coward. -Kelly > Brandy wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Uh, she meant if an entire IP is blocked, then it is "ruining it" for all > users of that IP, not just the offender. So that all users of that IP address are unable to use an anonymous remail? So what? So some people are unable to send anonymous email or post anonymously - too bad, maybe then people would start taking responsibility for what they write and quit being so quick to act like a.sholes without fear of retribution. > > Dizum puts forth bullshit about it being the only recourse for people who > > want to express their political opinions without fear of reprisals. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > -Kelly And I didn't mean to imply that all those who hide their identities are cowards, just those who hide their identities in order to anonymously spew filth without fear of reaping what they sow are cowards. Who do you have the most respect for, the assassin hiding in the bushes or the man who'll stand face-to-face with another in a duel? I quite like Mary's cite - if you can dish it out but can't take it then hand in your spoon. KellyH <kelly at farringtons dot net> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: > Some people don't want their email address and other info out > there. I see nothing wrong with that. Doesn't meant they are a > coward. As one who acquired a serious stalker and cost me a job and subjected me to ID theft, you can be as confident with yourself and your beliefs as you like, but it's not going to protect you from internet psychotics. The less info made available, the better. There are still people who like to use my real name when they're losing arguments trying to grab a little of that real life harm for themselves, and still those who like to repost my full address and phone that someone else acquired from someone who acquired it from someone who acquired it illegally. Info gets around. On that issue, little do they know that I don't live there anymore. And do you think I would *ever* at this point even reveal my state? No a chance. Call me a coward, but that would be for a different reason. SignatureBrandy Alexandre® http://www.swydm.com/?refer=BrandyAlx Well, would you? > KellyH <kelly at farringtons dot net> wrote in > rec.pets.cats.health+behav: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Call me a coward, but that would be for a different reason. After even what I experienced, I can understand that. Like I replied to Kelly, it's not the anonymity that I see as cowardice - it's hiding behind that anonymity to spew filthy attacks so you don't have to face retribution for what you do. > > KellyH <kelly at farringtons dot net> wrote in > > rec.pets.cats.health+behav: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > that anonymity to spew filthy attacks so you don't have to face retribution > for what you do. You know, CN, as much crap as I have gotten, I have never received an email like this. I think maybe it is because everyone knows I would not give a rat's patootie. I think there might be something in the notion that whoever is doing knows they can upset you. Just my 2 cents. Do you have IP sniffer software, by the way? > > > KellyH <kelly at farringtons dot net> wrote in > > > rec.pets.cats.health+behav: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > something in the notion that whoever is doing knows they can > upset you. Just my 2 cents. Oh, but it doesn't upset me in the least. However, I won't just let it go un-noted, either. The best way to get rid of the nasty things that live under rocks is to remove the rock, shine the light on them, and them squash them with the truth. I won't post a person's name without positive proof (even though I know who it is), but I will post their piece of sh.t in a public forum for all to smell and *they* will know that lovely little mess came from them. I'm sure at *some* level they know they've diminished themselves by such a nasty act. > Do you have IP sniffer software, by the way? DH does, I just forwarded it to him and let him handle it. Hugs, CatNipped >> > > KellyH <kelly at farringtons dot net> wrote in >> > > rec.pets.cats.health+behav: [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > CatNipped Frankly, I think the best way to end this type of mail is to ignore it (not "shine a light" on it). This type of person lives for attention -- just like trolls on the Internet -- and the more attention you give it, the more it will continue. MaryL CatNipped <lcrews@houston.rr.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: > "Ruining it" how? And for whom? The cowards out there who are > afraid to own up to their own filth? If you're too ashamed of > what you have to say to use your own name, then should you be > saying it at all? And if you are a coward, and low enough to spew > anonymous hatred, why should those of us who aren't be subjected > to your psychosis? For others who share an IP that providers eventually block. Please read my comment carefully. SignatureBrandy Alexandre® http://www.swydm.com/?refer=BrandyAlx Well, would you? > CatNipped <lcrews@houston.rr.com> wrote in > rec.pets.cats.health+behav: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > For others who share an IP that providers eventually block. Please > read my comment carefully. I did. What I'm asking is, will it prevent people on that IP address from receiving anonymous email or prevent people on that IP address from sending anonymous email. My contention is that anonymous email is conducive to sending and recieving nasty filth like the note I posted starting this thread, so what's the beef? > I did. What I'm asking is, will it prevent people on that IP address from > receiving anonymous email or prevent people on that IP address from > sending > anonymous email. My contention is that anonymous email is conducive to > sending and recieving nasty filth like the note I posted starting this > thread, so what's the beef? The point is, an anonymous remailer is used both by people who legitimately want to protect their privacy and those who wish to spew filth. I don't think the innocent should be punished just because of a few bad apples. I wish I had used one. I'm not ashamed of anything I have posted, but now that I am having children, my thinking is a little bit different. You can look up the domain of my email and get my home address for instance. That's a little scary. I have posted on the alt.infertility.* support newsgroups while going through treatment and my pregnancy. I'm not sure if I want my kids reading about all the problems we went through and all that stuff. Or anyone else, for that matter. A future employer could find out that I post frequently to the soap opera ng and think less of me. I should have been smarter in my posting, but like you CN, I went by that "I have nothing to hide" philosophy. I guess I'm lucky that I post in a pretty innocuous manner and have not attracted any psychos. Signature-Kelly > > I did. What I'm asking is, will it prevent people on that IP address from > > receiving anonymous email or prevent people on that IP address from [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > have nothing to hide" philosophy. I guess I'm lucky that I post in a pretty > innocuous manner and have not attracted any psychos. Oh, I definitely understand wanting to protect your children. Even though mine are grown with children of their own I still want to protect them. But as far as protecting them from information about me, well, I don't. My life is pretty much an open book, good things and bad, and I can only hope they'll learn from the bad (of course, again, they are adults so it's not like they're going to be traumatized by learning their mom "dropped the F bomb" as Cherly so delicately puts it). One thing that helped in that aspect is that someone once told me that whenever you write anything down pretend your mother, your pastor, your spouse, and your boss are reading over your shoulder - if you're ashamed to have any of them read it, then maybe you'd better not write it. You could really get your address from your domain??! Are you running your own server? That is scary! With Roadrunner, you don't get a static IP address, so searches just resolve to them (and they'd better *not* give out my address). But, I'm sure there are other ways to get my address if someone is really determined. However, living in Texas I have a right to carry a concealed weapon both on my person and to have in my home, so anyone wishing to cause me harm in person would be introduced to Mr. Magnum! As far as someone just "tattling" to cause me trouble, well, see above! ;> Hugs, CatNipped > Oh, I definitely understand wanting to protect your children. Even though > mine are grown with children of their own I still want to protect them. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > over your shoulder - if you're ashamed to have any of them read it, then > maybe you'd better not write it. It's not that I'm ashamed, I would just rather not have my kids 10, 15 whatever years from now read online about everything we went through with testing and IVF, but hey, I should have thought of that sooner. I'm sure we'll tell them eventually how they were made. I don't regret posting that stuff as the newsgroups were a great source of info and support. > You could really get your address from your domain??! Are you running > your > own server? That is scary! Yeah, it's our own email/webserver. > With Roadrunner, you don't get a static IP address, so searches just > resolve [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > me > trouble, well, see above! ;> I think we have a dynamic IP. DH handles most of that stuff. I think once the babies are here I'll post a bit more anonymously, get a Yahoo email or something. Signature-Kelly > CatNipped <lcrews@houston.rr.com> wrote in > rec.pets.cats.health+behav: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > For others who share an IP that providers eventually block. Please > read my comment carefully. Pffft!! hahaha! Lost some tea ... ...> Besides, I know exactly who sent the email, so they didn't accomplish a > thing in their cowardice. Grammatical and spelling errors, phrasing, and > content tell much more about a person than their return email address. Hi CatNipped, Since you know who is harassing you and threatening you, why don't you take it to the authorities? I don't understand what good it does to post it here. Annie > ...> Besides, I know exactly who sent the email, so they didn't > accomplish a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Annie Good idea, Annie. SignatureCheryl "The clever cat eats cheese and breathes down rat holes with baited breath." - W.C. Fields > ...> Besides, I know exactly who sent the email, so they didn't accomplish a > > thing in their cowardice. Grammatical and spelling errors, phrasing, and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Annie Because there's a big difference between knowing who's doing it and *proving* who's doing it. And why do I post it here? I guess because I'm an eternal optimist, I have to believe that even someone who does something like this has enough decency left somewhere inside of them that displaying their filth in a public forum will shame them enough to quit. > Because there's a big difference between knowing who's doing it and > *proving* who's doing it. And why do I post it here? I guess because I'm > an eternal optimist, I have to believe that even someone who does something > like this has enough decency left somewhere inside of them that displaying > their filth in a public forum will shame them enough to quit. You don't shame anyone anonymously. You're giving them a thrill. If I were you, I'd be very careful. You've posted enough personal information about yourself that you'd be very easy to find. IMO I would not stir the pot further. Sherry > > Because there's a big difference between knowing who's doing it and > > *proving* who's doing it. And why do I post it here? I guess because I'm [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Sherry I just don't get that. I would be shamed even if I weren't named for doing it, had I done something like that. I can't wrap my mind around the fact that another wouldn't be. Can someone truly have been reared with no sense of decency??! I really *don't* try to stir anything, but some people here object to even my most innocuous posts just because they "loathe" me for no valid reasons. I don't understand what prompted this email. When you piss someone off simply by breathing, you can't stop breathing just to not piss them off! > I just don't get that. I would be shamed even if I weren't > named for doing it, had I done something like that. I can't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > prompted this email. When you piss someone off simply by > breathing, you can't stop breathing just to not piss them off! Uh, since you are using my word about you in this rant can't possibly mean that you're accusing ME of writing that email. If you are ACCUSING me of writing that email, you better be prepared to back it up. SignatureCheryl "The clever cat eats cheese and breathes down rat holes with baited breath." - W.C. Fields > > I just don't get that. I would be shamed even if I weren't > > named for doing it, had I done something like that. I can't [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > are ACCUSING me of writing that email, you better be prepared to > back it up. lol!!! Or what? Are you going to DEMAND AN APOLOGY? wahhh ha ha > lol!!! Or what? Are you going to DEMAND AN > APOLOGY? wahhh ha ha Whinging about making enemies doesn't do a thing. If she's being threatened, bring in the authorities. They take that seriously these days. Even Dizum would have to surrender logs if asked. If I'm proven to be the culprit, then let people take her seriously. But I don't "play" that way. Again I say, prove what you're accusing or STFU. SignatureCheryl "The clever cat eats cheese and breathes down rat holes with baited breath." - W.C. Fields -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- From: Cheryl <jlhshadow@hotmail.com> >Even Dizum would have to surrender logs if asked. I've known the remop at Dizum for almost 10 years so I think I can speak with knowledge of the system. There are NO logs kept at Dizum. Alex (the remop) has assured people of this many times. Dizum is also based in the Netherlands and is, more or less, outside the reach of US authorities. But even if there were logs, and even if US authorities could obtain them, most people chain a message through several remailers. Since the remailers in the middle of the chain get an encrypted message in and send an encrypted message out, the trail grows cold very quickly. Add in "null padding"(throwing extra characters into the message that are dumped at processing), randomized sending (messages don't go out in the same order they come in), and latent time (a message can be set to sit in the cue for hours before being sent on), there is no way that the origin will ever be traced unless the author does something really careless. Oh, and each step of 1024 bit PGP encryption could take over 100 years to be cracked by the fastest known computers. And with a 4 remailer chain, the message is encrypted 4 times. Since the message does not even appear to be threatening, I don't think the authorities will even care. Or they might just caution someone that : "You shouldnt post your full name work address and so much personal information about yourself. Someone could easily look you up and f.ck you up big time. Stupid c.nt." (It's a joke - no offense intended) > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Since the message does not even appear to be threatening, > I don't think the authorities will even care. All true. > I've known the remop at Dizum for almost 10 years so I > think I can speak with knowledge of the system. There > are NO logs kept at Dizum. Whatever. I don't know how these remailer operations work and don't care. Besides, she can accuse me all she wants. The time stamp (Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:40:05 +0200 (CEST)) shows me that I'd have had to have sent it from my Blackberry at that hour (8:40 am EDT?) since I've been in training all week without Internet access. f.ck her. I shouldn't have expected anything different. SignatureCheryl "The clever cat eats cheese and breathes down rat holes with baited breath." - W.C. Fields > > I've known the remop at Dizum for almost 10 years so I > > think I can speak with knowledge of the system. There [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > since I've been in training all week without Internet access. f.ck > her. I shouldn't have expected anything different. Nobody accused you of anything! Try a little reading comprehension - my first paragraph was about the email, my second paragraph was about posting here (in response to Sherry's comment about stirring things up by posting here). In fact the first sentence of my second paragraph read "some people here" - not "the person who sent the email". Get over yourself, you paraoid nut job! > Nobody accused you of anything! Try a little reading > comprehension - my first paragraph was about the email, my > second paragraph was about posting here (in response to Sherry's > comment about stirring things up by posting here). In fact the > first sentence of my second paragraph read "some people here" - > not "the person who sent the email". You implicated me and you know it. You swore you "know who it is". Your *carefully* worded reply to Sherry was intentional. I won't let you accuse me of these things, even through an implied response. Isn't it a little scary that you've pissed off more people than you even know about? Who else can it be, besides me, CN? > Get over yourself, you paraoid nut job! Nice. SignatureCheryl "The clever cat eats cheese and breathes down rat holes with baited breath." - W.C. Fields > > Nobody accused you of anything! Try a little reading > > comprehension - my first paragraph was about the email, my [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > You implicated me and you know it. You swore you "know who it is". Whoa! Paranoia check! > Your *carefully* worded reply to Sherry was intentional. I won't let you accuse me of these things, even through an implied response. Isn't it a little scary that you've pissed off more people than you even know about? Who else can it be, besides me, > CN? The sad thing is, she has not done a damned thing. You're nuts, Cheryl. Don't expect CN to be intimidated by your bullshit. Don't even try it. When you do you fall flat on your face, even when you have ol' Buzzard from alt.hackers.malicious help you. It ought to be about as scary for Lori to know that there are a.sholes out there who are jealous of her as it was for me to know that there are aggressively stupid, lockstep predators like Lynnie usenetlyn@yahoo.com aka gentleboa@peacemail.com aka Jonathan's mom out there. CN is way too smart to be afraid of the intimidation tactics of the intellectually underendowed cowards who take Usenet too seriously. A clue for you, for free: the best defense is not always a good offense. You can learn. I just know that you can. >>> Nobody accused you of anything! Try a little reading >>> comprehension - my first paragraph was about the email, my [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > You can learn. I just know that you can. Mary, how is it that you have so much insight? <snip> as it was for > me to know that there are aggressively stupid, lockstep predators like > Lynnie usenetlyn@yahoo.com aka gentleboa@peacemail.com > aka Jonathan's mom out there. Oh for f.cks' sake. I haven't responded to you in *months* and I quit posting in here weeks ago and you still invoke my child's name. When I log in a do a search on my username to reply to those who have replied to me and here I find *this*, yet again. I don't expect you to have any respect for me, but for Christ's sake, quit using my son's name. You KNOW I have posted on numerous occasions that I don't use his name in order to protect his privacy. There are legal reasons why I do not - he's adopted. I don't know how you even found it. At least have ONE iota of decency and accord him his privacy. He's 17 months old. He doesn't deserve your harassment. And if anyone is a PREDATOR, it's you. Get some therapy and GET ME OUT OF YOUR HEAD. -L. "-L." <gentleboa@peacemail.com> wrote... > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > And if anyone is a PREDATOR, it's you. Get some therapy and GET ME OUT > OF YOUR HEAD. You may have quit posting, but you never quit reading this group, and you obviously read Mary incessantly or you wouldn't have found her single reference to you (the first she's made in weeks if not months). You need to get Mary out of your head as much as she needs to get you out of hers. Yeah, right, "Fred". We all know who you are. Moron. -L. Lyn whined: > Yeah, right, "Fred". We all know who you are. Moron. Who am I? How does that have anything to do with your seizing upon Mary's mention of you? Don't even try to say that was just a coincidence or some happy accident of you browsing at the right time. You lurk here regularly and you check Mary's posts for mention of you. You're mutually obsessed. > Lyn whined: > > Yeah, right, "Fred". We all know who you are. Moron. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You're mutually obsessed. What difference does it make TO YOU whether she reads the group once a day, once a year, whatever? Sherry sriddles@aol.com wrote... > What difference does it make TO YOU whether she reads the group once a > day, once a year, whatever? Just that she picked a choice day or year to read, when Mary just happened to make a comment about her. They are infinitely more interesting when they have each other to play off of. > sriddles@aol.com wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > They are infinitely more interesting when they have each other to play off > of. Whereas you are not interesting at all. Fuckhead. > sriddles@aol.com wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Just that she picked a choice day or year to read, when Mary just happened > to make a comment about her. No dumbass. Let me explain it again. I plug my username into the Google search engine to find replies to my posts and up popped Mary mentioning my kid again. I left weeks ago thinking it might stop her, but it didn't. So I directly asked her to stop. Why don't you do a Google search of my kid's name in this ng and in rpca and see whom has posted it where. > They are infinitely more interesting when they have each other to play off > of. Whatever. Get your thrills elsewhere, freak. -L. > > sriddles@aol.com wrote... > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > mentioning my kid again. I left weeks ago thinking it might stop her, > but it didn't. So I directly asked her to stop. lol! Okay, genius. Here is the situation: you placed your child's name and photo in the public domain by sending a link to a photo site. Therefore you made this information part of the public domain. Now for some reason, you do not want it mentioned. And it seems that you think that harassing me will get you what you want. Now that is funny. Really funny. How many more times are you going to make an utter a.s of yourself. Lynnie? You are stupid. You are very stupid. Not only that, but you have posted your child's name and photo to Usenet--for all to see, not just for me, someone you have harassed, to see. It is an archived post, time and date stamped. You posted it for all to see, not just harmless cat lovers How else have you endangered Jonathan? I have a suggestion for you. Use that little pointy head of yours for more than just attempting to censor those whose Usenet posts you do not like. Use it to take better care of your child, who will undoubtedly read all of this one day. You can't win here, or anywhere. You are far too stupid. Too loudly stupid. Too laughably stupid. Try as you might, that is not my fault. Why not try being quietly and unobtrusively stupid? I think that would be a good start. > Okay, genius. Here is the situation: you placed your child's name > and photo in the public domain by sending a link to a photo site. Nope. His name was not attached to any photo. You dug that up elsewhere. > Therefore you made this information part of the public domain. So you finding this information makes it ok for you to plaster it all over the internet, invading his privacy time and time again, even though I have asked you to stop? Nice. You have proven once again what a slimeball you really are. There is no valid reason for you to use his name. Not one valid reason. Except for the fact that you like to relish in exploiting a 17 month old little boy. A sweet, innocent, happy little guy who doesn't deserve your wrath. You are truly scum. But I really didn't expect any more of you. I had only hoped. -L. > > Okay, genius. Here is the situation: you placed your child's name > > and photo in the public domain by sending a link to a photo site. > > Nope. His name was not attached to any photo. You dug that up > elsewhere. I'm afraid not. Beginning in February 2005 I received emails all about you from people who apparently are not fond of you. How many people have you harassed? Does Will know what you do online? > > > Okay, genius. Here is the situation: you placed your child's name > > > and photo in the public domain by sending a link to a photo site. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you from people who apparently are not fond of you. How many people > have you harassed? Does Will know what you do online? Yeah, right. "Lurkers support me in email!" That's Twit Trolling 101 - the piss-poor answer spewed out by idjits who have no better response. What an a.s you are, on top of being a child abuser. Pooor widdle May-wheey! She's such a victim! You know what, you *are* a victim. It's blatantly apparent. You're a victim of abuse. That's why you are so filled with hate and why you have lashed out at just about everyone on this newsgroup. That's why you trolled in the infertility newsgroups when you didn't get response from me here. And that's why you relish in abusing a 17 month old baby. You simply cannot help yourself. On top of that, you're probably the one who's sending "c.nt mail" to CatNipped - you're obviously the only one hateful enough to do so. I pity you. I truly do. It must really, really suck to have lived your life. Who was it Mary? Who turned you into an old, bitter, hate-filled shrew? Mommy Dearest? The one who belittled you for weight gain? Or was it Daddy? Or perhaps old, perverted "Uncle Bill". Whomever it was, you need help. Serious help. And you need it yesterday. You still haven't responded to my revelation that I played you like a violin. I know you didn't miss the post, but I'll repost it below just to rub it in - just like salt, into your gaping maw. My, how it must *sting* to know you have been bellowing for months about nothing! HA HA HA HA HA!! I laughed everytime you used the phrase "reported me to my ISP". I laughed a lot. You're *such* a fool. And don't expect any more responses from me. You're not just a bore, you're a boor as well. And a waste of time. And DNA. But, again, you already know that. And *you* are the one who has to live with that fact. Ta-ta! -L. ***repost*** > Or someone whose posting style is perfectly fine, but who is being > harrassed by a.sholes like Lyn usenet...@yahoo.com aka > gentle...@peacemail.com who actually lied to my ISP and said > I sent her a trojan just to get me booted from my ISP. First, you're lying. The truth is, I didn't ever report you to your ISP - I just said I did to yank your chain. And I said it was for TOS violations - abusive language - not anything having to do with a trojan or whatever else you have conjured up. The history of what you claimed has changed over time - first it was that I hacked your account and sent out trojans, and now, it is that *I* claimed you sent me a trojan. That's all bullshit. Maybe someone claimed that, but I never did. I never even sent a report to your ISP. I was just trolling you, and you took the bait, hook, line and sinker. If I *truly* reported you, publish my last name. You would have my full name if I had reported you. The truth is, you can't, because I didn't. I have ignored you far and long because I'm not interested in what you have to say. You bore me. But now, I am responding to you to ask that you keep my son's name out of Usenet. > Think what > this enraged censor could have done had I actually violated my > TOS-- You violate your TOS everyday with abusive language. >or if she could find my actual RL information. Don't flatter yourself. >Remailers > serve a noble purpose against those who would persecute [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > name and photographs of her son Jonathan in rec.pets.cats. > anecdotes Nope. Never did. I posted pictures of my cats at a website. Elsewhere on the website there was *one* picture of him on Valentine's Day. You had to dig to find it. And it did not have his name attached to it. I have never published a picture of him with his name attached. Why would I? He's adopted. The last thing I want is for his Birthmom to see pictures of him on the internet. >and is now apparently behaving as though there is > something downright evil about my mentioning him. There is, and you know it. I have repeatedly said that I do not use his real name to protect his privacy. If I refer to him, I use his nickname "Juicy J" or most commonly, DS, or his initial. You know this - I specifically stated so in rpca. >I did not > even seek the information out. I was just reading my cat > groups as usual and there he was--name, photos, all of it. Bullshit. I have never pubished his name. I have, in fact, repeatedly said that I do not do so to protect his privacy. You know that and purposely publish his name to harass me - which in fact, hurts him - it invades his privacy. I am asking you to stop. Stop using his name. If you have any amount of decency in your body, you will do as I ask. For his sake. > Adorable child. Thank you. We think so as well. >To suggest that I am in any way threatening > him or saying anything remotely negative is repugnant to me. Good. Then quit using his name. Afford him his privacy. That's all I ask. You can say anything you want about me - I don't care. Just leave my son out of it. -L. > > > > Okay, genius. Here is the situation: you placed your child's name > > > > and photo in the public domain by sending a link to a photo site. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Yeah, right. "Lurkers support me in email!" That's Twit Trolling 101 [Snip perfectly brilliant amateur pych analysis ... all too true. Lynnie is a genius!!] So, your husband's name, Lyn aka usenetlyn@yahoo.com, aka gentleboa@peacemail.com, is Will and your son's name is Jonathan. And what is even better is that YOU posted this information so it is in the public domain. There is more, too. Shall I choose the topic, or would you like to? :) > Okay, genius. Oh, and as for your "harassed" comment. Why don't you Google "Lynnie" and then Google "Typhoid Mary". It is all too apparent whom is harassing whom. In fact, I have been complimented by more than one poster on my restraint. HTH, and HAND, -L. >> No dumbass. Let me explain it again. I plug my username into the >> Google search engine to find replies to my posts and up popped Mary >> mentioning my kid again. I left weeks ago thinking it might stop her, >> but it didn't. So I directly asked her to stop. snip > How many more times are you going to make an utter > a.s of yourself. Lynnie? You are stupid. You are very [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > archived post, time and date stamped. You posted it for > all to see, not just harmless cat lovers A resounding admonishment by Mary is really an endorsement of the admonishee's character. LOL But Lyn ... it *is* foolish to reveal too much of your personals on the Internet. > No dumbass. Yes, there is a dumbass here. That would be you. > Let me explain it again. I plug my username into the > Google search engine to find replies to my posts and up popped Mary > mentioning my kid again. Of course you did. That isn't in doubt. You probably Google yourself daily to see what Mary is saying about you. You've never really "left" the newsgroup, you just quit posting for a while. > Why don't you do a > Google search of my kid's name in this ng and in rpca and see whom has > posted it where. I don't give a sh.t who posted your kid's name where. Not my problem. Not anyone else's problem either. The world doesn't stop just because somebody mentioned your kid's name and you don't want them to. The world doesn't revolve around you or your child. > Whatever. Get your thrills elsewhere, freak. Shouldn't you be taking care of precious Jonathan right now, you bad mum, you? > > Lyn whined: > > > Yeah, right, "Fred". We all know who you are. Moron. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > day, once a year, whatever? > Sherry This is rather a good point. But on the other hand, "Fred" is not the first person here to comment on things like "frequency of posting," "TOPIC of posting," etc. I say, f.ck 'em all. >>> Lyn whined: >>>> Yeah, right, "Fred". We all know who you are. Moron. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > I say, f.ck 'em all. If only you had a way with words. > Lyn whined: > > Yeah, right, "Fred". We all know who you are. Moron. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You're mutually obsessed. Let me help you out here, "Fred." Anyone who agrees with me is ME. HTH. HAND. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > -L. Lyn. Welcome back. There are some new guidelines: 1) Always agree with the craziest loon in the thread. If you don't, you will have a bulls eye on your back. 2) Always couch your responses to the emotionally volatile as if she were a menopausal Islamic terrorist. Wooden stakes and silver bullets don't work here. Try offering scripts for free Premarin or free Valium. 3) Make liberal use of that kill file filter in your news reader! It's your best defense. 4) Resist responding to any personal remarks that typically pepper emotionally charged posts. When you quote text that has personal jabs in it, take license to edit out that verbiage as a matter of promoting good Forum Decorum. > Lyn. Welcome back. I'm not back. I have no intention of returning. Cheryl and Sherry both can attest to that. I just blew a gasket because Typhoid Mary published my child's name, yet again. It was stupid for me to ask her to quit using it, but hey, I figured maybe she does have a decent bone in her body. That remains to be seen. -L. >> Lyn. Welcome back. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > -L. You *are* back. Do the right thing by "womankind" by ceasing your part of the petty female backbiting. Set an example. I have said as much to Mary. The whole forum suffers toxicity when you females cannot keep a civil tongue in your head. > You *are* back. Do the right thing by "womankind" by ceasing your part of > the petty female backbiting. Set an example. You know goddamn well I haven't participated in their sh.t-slinging parties for months. All I asked is that she quit publishing my kid's name. That's not unreasonable, and you know it. -L. >> You *are* back. Do the right thing by "womankind" by ceasing >> your part of the petty female backbiting. Set an example. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > -L. Tut tut tut ... temper temper. You have control over how *you* choose to react ... if at all. ;^) I did put a nice word in about you in the past few days. To wit: Sunday, June 19, 2005 1:30 AM Re: Conan Cliff Notes "If there were any indication that you people had any "pull" with the OC shelter, I still would not have trusted anyone here except for one lady who you all chased off. Lyn. In the 2-3 weeks prior to returning Conan, the coarseness and vindictiveness that is sooo pervasive between you people is hardly engenders trust. None of the most vocal here has shown even a modicum of professionalism. Try denying that. " > Tut tut tut ... temper temper. You read me wrong. It takes far more than some nut on the ng to make me mad. > You have control over how *you* choose to react ... if at all. ;^) > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the most vocal here has shown even a modicum of professionalism. Try > denying that. " I don't know the Conan story but I am sorry you found it necessary to return him - I am assuming this is the big red cat. He's not unlike hundreds of thousands of other cats in shelters all over the US. They all need our help - not just Conan. I have multiple contacts in the LA area. I will ask around and see if anyone would be interested in him. -L. >> Tut tut tut ... temper temper. > > You read me wrong. It takes far more than some nut on the ng to make > me mad. Of course it does, Lyn. I did fail to put an emoticon on the end. ;^) >> You have control over how *you* choose to react ... if at all. ;^) >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > -L. Great! :^) > > Nobody accused you of anything! Try a little reading > > comprehension - my first paragraph was about the email, my [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > people than you even know about? Who else can it be, besides me, > CN? She doesn't know who sent it. It wasn't signed, and it apparently isn't traceable. Without several samples it's impossible to make a guess based on writing style or consistent turns of phrase. The contraction error could be deliberate. Sherry > > > I've known the remop at Dizum for almost 10 years so I > > > think I can speak with knowledge of the system. There [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Get over yourself, you paraoid nut job! Overall, excellent advice. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- From: Cheryl <jlhshadow@hotmail.com> >Whatever. I don't know how these remailer operations work and don't >care. Well then, Don't mention "logs" and nobody will clue you in that there aren't any, >Besides, she can accuse me all she wants. I have no idea who sent it. Wasn't me, though. >The time stamp >(Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:40:05 +0200 (CEST)) shows me that I'd have >had to have sent it from my Blackberry at that hour (8:40 am EDT?) >since I've been in training all week without Internet access. The time stamp is put on it as it leaves the last remailer. Whoever sent it could have sent it hours, or even days, before before the time stamp indicates. >f.ck >her. I appreciate the offer, but shouldn't you clear it with CatNipped and her husband, first. :) <getting off> Your really getting off on this ain't you. Look at you. The big anon authority, now you made a niche for yourself temporarily. You brag to Charlie, and I quote "I just see it as the ultimate munged header" <gloating> You did say that didn't you Now your, rattling Cheryl's cagge, and your full of sarcasm. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > I appreciate the offer, but shouldn't you clear it with CatNipped > and her husband, first. :) Nobody thinks it is you, "Nomen!" :) > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Whoever sent it could have sent it hours, or even days, before > before the time stamp indicates. Not to mention the fact that you could be on your blackberry and still sitting at your home computer sending an email. I thought both points were pretty obvious. ;> But since I didn't accuse her in the first place, I just dropped it so I wouldn't be fanning her flames. > >f.ck > >her. > > I appreciate the offer, but shouldn't you clear it with CatNipped > and her husband, first. :) Well, if I had to choose between you and Cheryl, you'd be having a cigarette by now and DH would be looking for his shotgun! ;> Hubby might pick Cheryl (that *is* supposed to be all men's fantasy according to the porn industry), but I'm sure my vomiting wouldn't be conducive to eroticism. LOL I do wish she'd get over her obsession over me! > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: N/A [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > =DQlk > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- From: "CatNipped" <lcrews@houston.rr.com> >Well, if I had to choose between you and Cheryl, you'd be having a cigarette >by now and DH would be looking for his shotgun! ;> You've got some awfully strict rules about smoking in the house. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You've got some awfully strict rules about smoking in the house. LOL! Yep, especially since DH and I quitting smoking is pabying for *HALF* our house note each month! ;> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: N/A [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > =2OQ2 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > you up and f.ck you up big time. Stupid c.nt." > (It's a joke - no offense intended) you sure got your trax covered don't you yure so full of poopee (It's a joke - no offense intended) where'd this line come from? Why even say it. So, you get a rush from having control for a moment? And you've been doing this for what 10 years? And you've been all over this thread like a cheap suit. Sure, maybe you started it out as "friendly warning", but then you rememered your ananonanimities....and just could not resist the kicker "stupid c.nt?" was that it? How did you even know that her personal info was "easy" to find, what was you thinking when you looked it up? Like I say, you don't even have a cat, your just bored and want some friends, but then there is this RAGE you supress inside perfect contempt for anyone that reminds you of yourself. It rears it's ugly head up in little sh.t-a.s deeds like this one. tcht thct thct -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- From: "biggerbadderbarry" <bigbadbarry@adelphia.net> >(It's a joke - no offense intended) where'd this line come from? >but then you rememered your ananonanimities....and just could not >resist >the kicker "stupid c.nt?" was that it? Barry, You sure are a stupid c.nt! (not a joke - offense intended) What do you do, switch your brain to "standby" when you post? I'm gonna repost the message that Catnipped got and see if your pea sized brain can figure it out. "You are one nasty self absorbed c.nt. For someone who is such a c.nt, you are also exceptionally dumb. You shouldnt post your full name work address and so much personal information about yourself. Someone could easily look you up and f.ck you up big time. Stupid c.nt." Got it yet, Einstein! Damn, If stupidity were a virtue, you'd be a fuckin' saint. I think you're breathing too many fumes from the Fry-a-lator at work. Milk dud Wrote: <wooooo! wooooo!> Real scary hairy legs! You quintessential basement dweller! ------------------------------------- You big dumb a.s, it ws never a ?, if it was Our Nomen or not, of course your the coward that sent the email. ------------------------------------- The question was who is Nomen - dipshit There ain't but one person on here that loves me like you do. Big dumb a.s! sh.t-licker wooooo! wooooo! Get in the shower,and wash that milk dud out the crack of your a.s damn! closet queens > I just don't get that. I would be shamed even if I weren't named for > doing > it, had I done something like that. I can't wrap my mind around the fact > that another wouldn't be. Can someone truly have been reared with no sense > of decency??! A person who would send a nasty email anonymously already has a bit of a screw loose. Why do you think they sent you the email? To get you all riled up. By posting it here, you are showing the sender that they accomplished this. Signature-Kelly > Got the following lovely little email this morning. Headers > follow for those of you who are interested and also know how to > use a command line to "ping", "tracert", and "finger". Odd how > so many people here forget to use apostrophes in their > contractions - LOL! Good lord, there she goes again. > -----Original Message----- > From: Nomen Nescio [mailto:nobody@dizum.com] This is a remailer. You can't resolve it to anyone. Get a grip woman. It isn't all about YOU. Either grow a thicker skin, or if you really care (which you seem to do) change how you post so it doesn't attract the kind of attention that you're getting. Simple. SignatureCheryl "The clever cat eats cheese and breathes down rat holes with baited breath." - W.C. Fields -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- From: "CatNipped" <lcrews@houston.rr.com> >Got the following lovely little email this morning. Damn, out of 20 possible remailers, someone has to use the one I've been using. It's probably meaningless, but I just have to wonder who might want to harass you and make you wonder if it could be me. > Got the following lovely little email this morning. Headers follow for > those of you who are interested and also know how to use a command line to > "ping", "tracert", and "finger". Odd how so many people here forget to use > apostrophes in their contractions - LOL! Pfft. The worst thing you can do, is exactly what you're doing. Making a big deal out of it. The sender is probably laughing their a.s off because now they know it's bugging you. Next time, hit delete and forget about it. Sherry >> Got the following lovely little email this morning. Headers follow for >> those of you who are interested and also know how to use a command line [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Sherry You may have noticed by now that I do not use contractions. In print, it is not such a big deal but in speech, particularly in the ears of those becoming a little hard of hearing, using contractions is just asking for misunderstanding. > You may have noticed by now that I do not use contractions. In print, it is > not such a big deal but in speech, particularly in the ears of those > becoming a little hard of hearing, using contractions is just asking for > misunderstanding. They used contractions, but forgot the apostrophe' So who did it S#$%, I'd confront them. straight up. Tellem it ain't but a short walk to your house, to bring it the #$^% on. > Got the following lovely little email this morning. Headers follow for > those of you who are interested and also know how to use a command line to > "ping", "tracert", and "finger". Odd how so many people here forget to use > apostrophes in their contractions - LOL! Nemo used an anonymous remailer and the trail will go cold there. Just tell your mail software to throw away anything from dizum and let that be that. There are a lot of childish people in cyber land. Don't become one of them. Signaturee-Harmony.com called the cops after I sent in my personality profile. > > Got the following lovely little email this morning. Headers follow for > > those of you who are interested and also know how to use a command line to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > let that be that. There are a lot of childish people in cyber land. > Don't become one of them. Have done - and set up a "block destination" command on Dizum. But thanks, you're right! Hugs, CatNipped |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.