Re: Reality and the mind numbed in the UK BBC bull****

In article <TgDrd.3020$M57.1759@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, "krp" <web2457k@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
wrote:

> "T N Nurse" <tnnurseNOUCE99@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:tnnurseNOUCE99-C1FB9E.09524602122004@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> >> >> >> Of course you would believe that piece of FICTION is "WELL 
> >> >> >> RESEARCHED."
> >> >> >> Because you want to believe it..
> 
> >> >> > I have no opinion either way but, as it appears to back up its 
> >> >> > claims
> >> >> > with primary sources, and, until you produce something to show
that
> >> >> > it is fiction as you claim, it stands.
> 
> >> >> The primary sources do NOT back up the claims on that site. There
is a
> >> >> reason it was thrown off almost a dozen ISP's in the US before it
HAD 
> >> >> to  be
> >> >> put off shore where libel laws don't apply!
> 
> >> > So no rebuttal, huh?
> 
> >>     Gee I thought that WAS a rebuttal moron.
> 
> > Nope. Thyat was just empty rhetoric. Want to try again?
> 
>     AH the FACT that the host ISP conducted an INVESTIGATION - and at
the 
> end of their investigation threw it off for being FABRICATED is NNOT a 
> rebuttal?  It's only RHETORIC?????

Which host ISP? When was it conducted? What was the outcome? Where
can it be read? Still nothing but rhetoric. You're loud on rhetoric but
short on facts.

> 
> 
> >> >So what about the claim that you were sock puppeting as Judge Dredd?
> 
> >>     Bull**** it was a friend of mine who has since moved with his
wife to
> >> Costa Rica and retired.
> 
> > Oh right. So you let your friend use your computer and network
connection
> > to act as a sock puppet? Now he's vanished and can't be contacted?
Uhuh..
> 
>     I sm SOOOOOOOOOOOOO dorry that you have NO close friends. Yes he
used 
> mine and I used HIS , HOWEVER DIMBULB.. Do you REALLY think that My 
> computer's name is KENPANGBO????? Are you THAT thick???? Anybody can
FAKE a 
> message complete with headers.

Really? How do they do that? - perfect forgeries, I mean.

> JESUS CHRIST, that's what ANONYMOUS REMAILERS 
> ARE FOR!!!!!! 

Um no. That's not what anonymous remailers are for. That's why
the headers from articles from anonymous remailers contain
warnings that the author cannot be verified. There's none on any
of the sample headers.

> That is the ONLY reason they exist to permit people to hide 
> and make forgeries.

Except that they are remarkably poor forgeries trivially checkable
by anyone with knowledge of headers and Path: data


> were for ANYTHING ELSE... ANYTHING honest then they would just FIX it so
all 
> things showed "ANONYMOUS" in the from field 

But they do, although not in the from: field.

> and would not allow you to 
> insert false names. NOW - - most of them insert warnings saying they did
NOT 
> come from the address above (that was not always true).

Most of them? All of them do this, and that is your clue. The other
is the Path: audit trail which cannot be faked as it is stamped after
the message leaves the mail server. But none of this is of any relevance
as the sample messages were not sent from anonymous remailers as is
obvious to anyone reading the headers. It contains no disclaimer
of author verification, and the Path: audit trail is the same.

> HOWEVER... now see IF you can understand this, thinsg like that can be 
> removed from a file you store on your website.

Oh right. My goodness, the story changes yet again. So how do
you explain away their presence on Google. Did someone miraculously 
gain access to the Google archive and alter them? Or are Google in
on this plot too?


> You COULD as some people have 
> done including the Investigators for Sky****t

So you claim. I've yet to see you produce any evidence for this.
Indeed I found a few in Google in which you claimed to print
the disclaimer from Sky****t, only to find that the article had
been removed, presumably for some legal reason.

[silly petty feud stuff about another]

> business because my then MINOR daughter rode horses there. MUCH of your 
> HERO'S 

He's not my hero. I've already told you, I have no opinion either way, 
but right now you're doing yourself no favours here and seem to be
digging an even deeper hole for yourself with dubious 'explanations'
that are trivially checkable and found to be wanting..

communications with these people included the most vulgar and violent 
> ***ual threats.  You can believe whatever you wish.
> 
> > A lot more so that your explanation above..
> 
>     I am NOT going to try to explain obvious bull**** to a mongoloid!]

Can't hack it, eh?