From [email protected] Wed Oct 22 02:00:43 2003
Newsgroups: alt.lifestyle.earth-based
From: Alan Connor 
Subject: test
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 02:00:43 -0700
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)


Don't ask

-- 
Alan C


From [email protected] Wed Oct 22 02:41:56 2003
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.slackware
From: Alan Connor 
Subject: PGP is GREAT!
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 02:41:56 -0700
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)


It would just be really nice if you all would make the only reference to
your use of it, in the body of your posts, part of a legal sig.

Many PGP users already do that.

Now here's a way to validate posts that takes nothing but a website (free)
and an ftp client (comes with every distro) and a very simple shell script.

I'll be happy to post the script for anyone that's interested.

Note that this method is quite superior to PGP in that the only software
a person needs to use it is a browser. Textmode would work just fine, and
is fast as lighting.

-- 
Alan C   
Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y


From [email protected] Wed Oct 22 03:21:18 2003
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.slackware
From: Alan Connor 
Subject: Re: PGP is GREAT!
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 03:21:18 -0700
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:40:21 GMT, Alan Connor  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> It would just be really nice if you all would make the only reference to
> your use of it, in the body of your posts, part of a legal sig.
> 
> Many PGP users already do that.
> 
> Now here's a way to validate posts that takes nothing but a website (free)
> and an ftp client (comes with every distro) and a very simple shell script.
> 
> I'll be happy to post the script for anyone that's interested.
> 
> Note that this method is quite superior to PGP in that the only software
> a person needs to use it is a browser. Textmode would work just fine, and
> is fast as lighting.
> 

I just thought of another reason that this method is superior to PGP:


You don't have to trust some arcane piece of high-brow software, always
wondering whether those geeks REALLY know what they are doing.

Is the breaking of PGP really 10-20 years in the future? 
And if the EXPERTS can't pin it down any better than that, well....??????
Who knows what sort of computers the highest levels of government/military
/industry/academia have?

If someone HAS broken PGP, are they going to advertise the fact?

Yep. All you have to do with THIS method is to look at the posts and the
headers and go "Hey! They're JUST like each other." (or not)

Leave it to a bunch of geeks with paranoid inclinations and time on their
hands to find the long way around the barn, and to come up with an application
that's very complexity creates a security risk, that's based on the assumption
that no one has a computer better than any that they know about.

Who knew about the Atom Bomb until AFTER  they it was used on Japan?

-- 
Alan C
Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y


From [email protected] Wed Oct 22 13:45:12 2003
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.slackware
From: Alan Connor 
Subject: Re: THE TUI Restaurant vs. the GUI Restaurant
References:    <1itlb.608717$cF.278863@rwcrnsc53>
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:45:12 -0700
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:50:37 GMT, notbob  wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2003-10-22, Alan Connor  wrote:
> 
>> ing (very little), how to use screen, and how to use mc.
> 
> mc IS a gui.
> 

Perhaps there are other versions of mc, but the one I use is a textmode
application and is simply a directory tree browser and common file operations
tool. No mouse, no graphical interface. Uses ncurses.

-- 
Alan C
Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y


From [email protected] Wed Oct 22 13:52:11 2003
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.slackware
From: Alan Connor 
Subject: Re: THE TUI Restaurant vs. the GUI Restaurant
References:           
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:52:11 -0700
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)

On 22 Oct 2003 18:00:21 GMT, Joost Kremers  wrote:
> 
> 
> Blumf wrote:
>> Joost Kremers wrote:
>> 
>>> but do you think it will go much beyond that? at least for the average
>>> user? i feel that the reason why GUI's are so popular is that you don't
>>> need to learn syntax and semantics for them. once you get GUI's that do
>>> require that, a lot of people will not be willing to use them.
>> 
>> Not unless you scare them off with fancy words like 'semantics' :)
> 
>:-)
> 
>> If it's presented in a common sense way it should quickly become second 
>> nature with little or no training. No need to tell the user they're 
>> manipulating symbols whilst adhering to a syntax. But thats the hard part, 
>> making it easy to use and finding the right metaphors to visualise it.
> 
> i dunno. if the things you want to do with the GUI start becoming more
> complicated, the interface will become more complicated as well. suppose
> you have something that requires dragging icon A to icon B, and something
> else that requires dragging icon B to icon A. can you imagine how confusing
> that would be to many people?
> 
> i mean, anybody can type 'WP' to start a word processor, but i've seen
> people freak out as soon as they had to type 'WP MYLETTER.WP5'...

Much enjoyed this conversation. A bit rough before the day's first coffee,
but worth the effort....:-)

-- 
Alan C
Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y


From [email protected] Wed Oct 22 13:59:45 2003
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.slackware
From: Alan Connor 
Subject: Re: PGP is GREAT!
References: <[email protected]> <%[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:59:45 -0700
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:02:47 +0100, del <$/$new$/[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Alan Connor "allegedly" wrote:
>
> Can't trust these posts at all!
> None of the URLs go to your posting domain!
> The web page is on a public server that anyone can setup with a name.
> There are plenty in the UK where I could set up accounts with addresses
> such as alanconner.isp.com or isp.com/~alanconnor. I could do a
> subdomain alanconnor.foodel.org.uk and claim to be the real, or at
> least another, Alan Connor.
> It would be more trustworthy if the link was to alanconnor.com/net/org
> etc etc.... and you posted from that domain.
> A good and worthy try, but it just doesn't work AFAICS.
> -- 
> del 8-)

That's nice. I wonder what all those people below that are in my temporary
killfile are saying.

Do I care? Nope. I mean I didn't killfile them because they were intelligent
and civil conversationalists, did I?

All things considered, this approach is every bit as good as PGP.


-- 
Alan C
Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y


From [email protected] Wed Oct 22 14:46:00 2003
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Alan Connor 
Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence
References: <389.3f80546e.329ea@voltaire>  <[email protected]>    <[email protected]>              <[email protected]>    <[email protected]>    <[email protected]>  <[email protected]>  <[email protected]>  <[email protected]>  <[email protected]>    <[email protected]>   <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 14:46:00 -0700
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:13:22 +0200, Stefaan A Eeckels  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 08:29:06 GMT
> Alan Connor  wrote:
> 
>> Well, I believe that we can understand the observable world around us,
>> and I don't accept the basic assumptions of Science, which you claim
>> don't exist.
>> 
>> How can that be?
> 
> You haven't mentioned what you consider the "basic assumptions"
> of science. All I have is your unsubstantiated affirmation:
> 

If I want to know what a Christian believes, I read their writings and
listen to them talk and observe their actions.

If I want to know what a Scientist believes, I read their writings and
listen to them talk and observe their actions.

I *don't* let religious fanatics of either persuasion confuse me with
silly word games.

If you are oblivious to the fact that you subscribe to a systematized
collection of unprovable basic assumptions about the nature of reality,
then the problem is yours, not mine.

At least the Christians are honest: Ask them what they believe and they
will tell you.

With most Scientists you get nothing but evasive bullshit, as in here.

"Oh, we are objective here. Beliefs have nothing to do with it."

Well, those happen to be beliefs.  Not all belief systems even recognize
the concept of objectivity.

Please define "deterministic" carefully.

I am curious about this belief of yours.

-- 
Alan C
Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y


From [email protected] Wed Oct 22 14:51:21 2003
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Alan Connor 
Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence
References: <389.3f80546e.329ea@voltaire>             <[email protected]>    <[email protected]>    <[email protected]>  <[email protected]>  <[email protected]>  <[email protected]> <[email protected]>   <[email protected]>    <[email protected]>   <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 14:51:21 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 14:49:58 +0200, Bj�rn Lindstr�m  wrote:
> 
> 
> Alan Connor  writes:
> 
>> Let's go over these "inspired 'miracles'", shall we?
> 
> I thought you were talking about inventions.
> 
>> Are we talking about the 10's of millions of people that die of starvation 
>> every year?
> ---
>> If Science cannot do something about THOSE problems, then it isn't
>> worth much.
> 
> Again, science is a method of thought, it is not a religion, and it
> isn't a political ideology is 
> 

Again, Science is an organized set of assumptions about the nature of reality.

And because those assumptions cannot be proven, Science is a religion.

I base this conclusion on years of observation.

If Science were an orange, I would say "Science is an orange."

The fact that you were standing there telling me that Science was an apple
would not change anything it all.

-- 
Alan C
Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y


From [email protected] Wed Oct 22 14:52:32 2003
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Alan Connor 
Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence
References: <389.3f80546e.329ea@voltaire> <[email protected]>      <[email protected]>      <[email protected]>                                   <[email protected]>          <[email protected]>          <[email protected]>     <[email protected]>     <[email protected]>     <[email protected]>     <[email protected]>          <[email protected]>      <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 14:52:32 -0700
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 20:37:37 GMT, Wayne Throop  wrote:
> 

Shut the fuck up and get lost.

Done (90 days)

-- 
Alan C
Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y


From [email protected] Wed Oct 22 15:00:30 2003
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.slackware
From: Alan Connor 
Subject: Re: PGP is GREAT!
References: <[email protected]> <%[email protected]> <[email protected]>  
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:00:30 -0700
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)

On 22 Oct 2003 21:21:08 GMT, Joost Kremers  wrote:
> 
> 
> Alan Connor wrote:
>> All things considered, this approach is every bit as good as PGP.
> 
> no it's not. as AthlonRob already explained to you in
><[email protected]>. but since he uses GPG you
> probably didn't read that message...

So I am supposed to accept the stance of a PGP cultist, someone manifestly
totally prejudiced in favor of PGP as the final word on the subject?

You are either a blinking idiot or think I am.

Despite its shortcomings, this system of post validation is
as good as a PGP sig for one very obvious reason:

No one needs any special software to utiliize it. They don't need to install
it and they don't need to learn how use it.

Nor do they need to trust software they don't understand at all.

-- 
Alan C
Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y
From [email protected] Wed Oct 22 15:31:04 2003
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup
From: Alan Connor 
Subject: Re: Compiling my first kernel...
References:   
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:31:04 -0700
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:45:00 +0100, Timothy Murphy  wrote:
> 
> 
> Alan Connor wrote:
> 
>> The best way to add or subtract some feature from the kernel is to
>> open your old .config (usually found as /boot/config-2....) and
>> open it in a text editor.
> 
> I don't agree.
> This may be good advice for an expert.
> But otherwise it is much simpler to "make xconfig" or "make menuconfig".
> Then load an old config file if you have one,
> as a starting point,
> and look carefully at the Sound options, or whatever.
> 


On the contrary, this is a very simple approach, perfect for beginners.
It may be you are misunderstanding me.

Say you want to include support for IP_PNP, which, as you can see below
in my /boot/config-2.4.19 file was not selected when the kernel was
compiled.

#
# Networking options
#
CONFIG_PACKET=m
# CONFIG_PACKET_MMAP is not set
CONFIG_NETLINK_DEV=m
CONFIG_NETFILTER=y
CONFIG_NETFILTER_DEBUG=y
CONFIG_FILTER=y
CONFIG_UNIX=m
CONFIG_INET=y
CONFIG_IP_MULTICAST=y
# CONFIG_IP_ADVANCED_ROUTER is not set
# CONFIG_IP_PNP is not set
CONFIG_NET_IPIP=m
CONFIG_NET_IPGRE=m
# CONFIG_NET_IPGRE_BROADCAST is not set
# CONFIG_IP_MROUTE is not set
# CONFIG_INET_ECN is not set
CONFIG_SYN_COOKIES=y

All you do is delete the line

# CONFIG_IP_PNP is not set

and run make oldconfig

The new kernel will be compiled with stunning speed, with just a pause
where make asks you whether you want to include IP_PNP support. You then
choose whether to compile it as a module or to have it integrated in the
kernel, and the compilation zooms onwards to conclusion.

All the necessary information is in kernel_sources/Documentation, particularly
Configure.help.

Now just proceed with the directions in the kernel_sources/README and you are 
done, with minimal chances of screwing anything up.

-- 
Alan C
Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y


From [email protected] Wed Oct 22 15:39:25 2003
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.hardware
From: Alan Connor 
Subject: Re: Good Linux distro for 'old' computer
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>  <[email protected]> 
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:39:25 -0700
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:09:20 -0500, Mark Cudworth  wrote:

Where do all these PUNKS come from?

90 days. And YOU are the one that misses out, but losers can never see
that, can they?

-- 
Alan C
Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y


From [email protected] Wed Oct 22 16:30:28 2003
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.slackware
From: Alan Connor 
Subject: Re: PGP is GREAT!
References: <[email protected]> <%[email protected]> <[email protected]>    
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:30:28 -0700
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)

On 22 Oct 2003 22:35:59 GMT, Joost Kremers  wrote:
> 
> 
> Alan Connor wrote:
>>>> All things considered, this approach is every bit as good as PGP.
>>> 
>>> no it's not. as AthlonRob already explained to you in
>>><[email protected]>. but since he uses GPG you
>>> probably didn't read that message...
>> 
>> So I am supposed to accept the stance of a PGP cultist, someone manifestly
>> totally prejudiced in favor of PGP as the final word on the subject?
>> 
>> You are either a blinking idiot or think I am.
> 
> so, when someone points out a flaw in your thinking, you start calling
> names? that's nice.

When someone says something stupid, I say "hey, you said something stupid."

>> Despite its shortcomings, this system of post validation is
>> as good as a PGP sig for one very obvious reason:
>> 
>> No one needs any special software to utiliize it. They don't need to install
>> it and they don't need to learn how use it.
> 
> you are completely missing the point. or you didn't read AthlonRob's
> post.


Once again: AlthlonRob is a PGP devotee. His opinion on the subject is
highly biased and anything but objective.


 he makes it very clear that your method can much easier be cracked
> than pgp. *that* is why your method is not as good as pgp.
> 

Ibid. You REALLY need to find an impartial source of information.

At least ask the man how he would go about corrupting my system.

I mean, sure he might be able to break into my server, but I run md5sums
on the files and would notice immediately if they had been  tampered with.
(and keep backups here)

AND he would have to crack every single individual server belonging to
anyone who used this system.

NOW are you getting it? 

-- 
Alan C
Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y


From [email protected] Wed Oct 22 16:43:06 2003
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Alan Connor 
Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence
References: <389.3f80546e.329ea@voltaire>             <[email protected]>    <[email protected]>    <[email protected]>  <[email protected]>  <[email protected]>  <[email protected]> <[email protected]>   <[email protected]>    <[email protected]>   <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:43:06 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 00:52:10 +0200, Bj�rn Lindstr�m  wrote:
> 
> 
> Alan Connor  writes:
> 
>> Shut the fuck up and get lost.
>>
>> Done (90 days)
> 
> Oh, scary.

Okay. I didn't read your other post here, after reading this. Pretty obvious
where you have decided to go with this.

Killfiled for 90 days, and I don't care whether you are scared or not.

I just want you to shut the fuck up and go bother someone else with your
juvenile word games.

Done.

Alan C
Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y


From [email protected] Wed Oct 22 17:56:30 2003
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.slackware
From: Alan Connor 
Subject: Re: PGP is GREAT!
References: <[email protected]> <%[email protected]> <[email protected]>     <[email protected]> 
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:56:30 -0700
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)

On 22 Oct 2003 23:38:54 GMT, Joost Kremers  wrote:
> 


Okay Joost. 

Since my post verification system is so terrible, why don't you bust it?

All you have to do is crack that server and insert a forged post into
a file there.

What are you waiting for? 

:-)

But here's where your argument seriously fails:

EVERYONE can validate my posts.

Almost NO ONE can validate PGP sigs.

Now tell us all, please, how a system that almost no one can use
is superior to one that everyone can use?

Let's compare a program to a house, shall we:

My program:


"I've got a pretty nice house that anyone can enter."

PGP:


"I've got this incredible house, but almost no one can enter it."


:-/

Which house would YOU rather have?


-- 
Alan C
Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y


From [email protected] Wed Oct 22 18:11:14 2003
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.slackware
From: Alan Connor 
Subject: Re: PGP is GREAT!
References: <[email protected]> <%[email protected]> <[email protected]>     
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:11:14 -0700
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 00:59:15 GMT, Kurt  wrote:
> 
> 
> Joost Kremers  wrote:
>> 
>> but you have already shown that you are either not willing or not able to
>> understand this, so let this be my last post in this thread.
>> 
> 
> Probably a good idea.  Alan is the same guy who says he's using Tiny Linux
> and calls it Slackware, right?  It's like trying to reason with GP.
> 
> - Kurt

What do you think you are accomplishing with this cowardly sniping, Kurt?

I hate to tell you this, but neither myself nor anyone whose judgement I
value cares one whit for the opinion of someone who would post the above.

If you want me to killfile you, then just keep on boring me to death and
I will grant your wish.

-- 
Alan C
Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y


From [email protected] Wed Oct 22 18:30:37 2003
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Alan Connor 
Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence
References: <389.3f80546e.329ea@voltaire>              <[email protected]>    <[email protected]>    <[email protected]>  <[email protected]>  <[email protected]>  <[email protected]>  <[email protected]>    <[email protected]>    <[email protected]>   <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:30:37 -0700
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 01:52:33 +0200, Stefaan A Eeckels  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:59:06 GMT
> Alan Connor  wrote:
> 
>> If I want to know what a Christian believes, I read their writings and
>> listen to them talk and observe their actions.
>> 
>> If I want to know what a Scientist believes, I read their writings and
>> listen to them talk and observe their actions.
> 
> OK. Please tell me what you've observed about scientists' beliefs. 
> Notice that you haven't _explained_ anything. You've merely asserted
> that science is a religion. If you want me to believe you,

I don't care whether you believe me or not. 
I don't control your mind. You can believe anything you want. 

> you'll
> have to offer me the proof you've accumulated for this assertion. 
> You're not a recognised authority on the matter, and even if you were,
> I'd still like to see the proof. 
> 

The problem here is pinning you down. So far I feel like I am talking
to a politician or a lawyer....

Since you claim to be knowledgable about Science, why don't you outline
the Scientific Method below:

















-- 
Alan C
Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y


From [email protected] Wed Oct 22 18:34:20 2003
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Alan Connor 
Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence
References: <389.3f80546e.329ea@voltaire>  <[email protected]>       <[email protected]>  <[email protected]>  <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>  <[email protected]>  <[email protected]>  
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:34:20 -0700
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:59:13 -0500, Kenneth P. Turvey  wrote:
> 
> 
> In article Alan Connor wrote:
>> 
>> Done (90 days)
> 
> Do you really think that people are so concerned with your opinion of
> them that threatening them with a killfile really has any effect?  
> 

One of the reasons I killfile people is that they bore me.

Continue to bore me with childish sniping like this, and I will killfile
you.

Your other post ignored, based on the quality of this one.

-- 
Alan C
Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y


From [email protected] Wed Oct 22 18:38:51 2003
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.campus-crusade
From: Alan Connor 
Subject: Re: Just wondering: Does anybody actually read all of the Willie Moron posts?
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:38:51 -0700
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:00:52 -0400, Mart  wrote:
> 
> 

I read about 30 lines of one of them.

Then I posted an argument to one of the points he made, and he
attacked me for it.

That was the end of that. Herr Martin does not like to discuss, but merely
to dictate.

-- 
Alan C
Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y


From [email protected] Wed Oct 22 19:22:26 2003
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.slackware
From: Alan Connor 
Subject: PGP Problems
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:22:26 -0700
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)

Besides the fact that almost no one HAS the PGP software installed,
there is nothing preventing someone that has a PGP sig from just
leaving the sig out, posting whatever they want, and then saying:

"Hey! That post doesn't have my PGP sig, and so it isn't from ME!
I didn't say all those nasty things about Frank, it was an imposter!"

(I'm dying to see how the PGP cultists dodge this one :-)

-- 
Alan C
Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y


From [email protected] Wed Oct 22 19:45:24 2003
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.slackware
From: Alan Connor 
Subject: Re: PGP Problems
References: 
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:45:24 -0700
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 02:29:05 GMT, Alan Connor  wrote:
> 
> 
> Besides the fact that almost no one HAS the PGP software installed,
> there is nothing preventing someone that has a PGP sig from just
> leaving the PGPsig out, altering a couple of headers, posting whatever they 
> want, and then saying:
> 
> "Hey! That post doesn't have my PGP sig, and so it isn't from ME!
> I didn't say all those nasty things about Frank, it was an imposter!"
> 
> (I'm dying to see how the PGP folks dodge this one :-)
> 

If only PGP could prevent its users from inpersonating other people,
(including themselves) I'd be a lot more impressed.

But what they are expecting me to believe is that THEY are completely
virtuous people, and its everyone ELSE that does bad things on the
Usenet.

Sorry, I have seen nothing from the users of PGP to indicate that they
are more virtuous than the average person on the Usenet.

On-the-contrary: The average person on the Usenet does not violate the
spirit of the 4-line sig rule and demand that other people get special
software to deal with THEIR pet program.

-- 
Alan C
Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y


From [email protected] Wed Oct 22 20:09:41 2003
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup
From: Alan Connor 
Subject: Re: Multiple boot
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 20:09:41 -0700
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:42:29 +1000, Doug Laidlaw  wrote:
> 
> 
> I am running Mandrake Linux 9.0 and 9.1 on two separate HDs.  I have set up 
> /mnt directories in each so that all the partitions in one are accessible 
> in the other.  With this setup, dual-booting from one LILO is no problem.
> 
> My question - out of interest, in the circumstances - is, referring to the 
> one with LILO as system 1, how much of System 2 do I have to mount to make 
> dual-booting work?  Is it just enough to give me /boot and /root, or the 
> whole system?
> 
> Doug.


/boot
/lib
/dev
/bin
/etc

It would depend on how you were setup. Maybe everything needed is in
those directories, maybe you need /sbin or something else...

I hope you know how to use ed(1) :-)

-- 
Alan C
Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y


From [email protected] Wed Oct 22 20:40:06 2003
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.slackware
From: Alan Connor 
Subject: Re: What to do about "pgp trash troll delete" posts
References:    <[email protected]>  <[email protected]>     <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 20:40:06 -0700
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 03:09:52 GMT, Jurgen Philippaerts  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 12:00:43AM PDT,  wrote
> in article :
> 
>> -- 
>
>> :)
> 
> HAHA 
> catching up on a week worth of AOLS posts...
> now THAT was funny :)
> 
> 
> Jurgen, still posting with a 0 line(s) signature.


No. You were posting a couple of days ago. You just left off the PGP
stuff and put a different name on the From: line.  Changed the header
that reveals what newsreader you use (or is supposed to).

And now you come prancing in with the right name and the PGP sig, and all
the morons fall for it hook, line, and sinker.

PGP actually means:

Pathetically Gullible Person

=====================================

killfiled for 30 days for using an un-concealed PGP sig

-- 
Alan C
Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y


From [email protected] Wed Oct 22 21:22:03 2003
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup
From: Alan Connor 
Subject: Re: Compiling my first kernel...
References:    <[email protected]> 
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:22:03 -0700
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:49:23 -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> "Alan Connor"  wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:45:00 +0100, Timothy Murphy
> wrote:
> 
> 
>> All you do is delete the line
>>
>> # CONFIG_IP_PNP is not set
>>
>> and run make oldconfig
>>
>> The new kernel will be compiled with stunning speed, with just a pause
>> where make asks you whether you want to include IP_PNP support. You then
>> choose whether to compile it as a module or to have it integrated in the
>> kernel, and the compilation zooms onwards to conclusion.
> 
> Unfortunately, in many cases, other options are enabled or disabled that you
> may not have been aware of. Turning off "experimental" features, for
> example, may disable dozens of other capabilities you may not have realized
> you need.

I did not tell him to randomly remove features he didn't know anything about.

And I don't think he's stupid enough to do that.

And you also snipped the part of my post where  I refer him to the specific
document in the kernel source package that covers those very issues.

> And does turning off SCSI disable the ide-scsi driver you need for
> writable CD drives? It takes some poking around and testing to find this
> out,

No. It takes reading the docs I referred him to.

> and the menuconfig and xconfig tools come with some very nice "help"
> options for examining specific features.

So what? So does make config and make oldconfig. You type ?

And if you have any sense at all, you have Config.help open in a pager
with search tools in another window.

> 
> 

Yes. And that's all covered in kernel_sources/Documentation/Configure.help.

Which I referred him to.

-- 
Alan C
Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y


From [email protected] Wed Oct 22 22:56:13 2003
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Alan Connor 
Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence
References: <389.3f80546e.329ea@voltaire>       <[email protected]>  <[email protected]>  <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>  <[email protected]>  <[email protected]>    
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:56:13 -0700
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:42:07 -0500, Kenneth P. Turvey  wrote:
> 
> 
> Alan Connor wrote:
>> One of the reasons I killfile people is that they bore me.
> 
> Ok.  Fair enough. 
> 
>> Continue to bore me with childish sniping like this, and I will killfile
>> you.
> 
> It wasn't meant as a snipe.  I was trying to rectify your behavior.  
> 
>> Your other post ignored, based on the quality of this one.
> 
> Your loss.  It does make it somewhat pointless to have a discussion with
> you when you decide to quit listening any time people disagree with you.
> You probably miss out on quite a bit of interesting conversation because
> people decide it just isn't worth the bother.  
> 
> I'm inclined to think so. 
> 

You were warned.

killfiled for 90 days.

-- 
Alan C
Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y


From [email protected] Wed Oct 22 23:51:23 2003
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
From: Alan Connor 
Subject: The PGP Signed Posts Farce
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:51:23 -0700
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)

1. Anyone can get a PGPsig/key in any name they want.

2. PGP offers no guarantee that a person with a PGPsig/key will use it.
  
   a) They can just leave it off, troll at will with modified headers
      (or even impersonate someone impersonating them) and show up with
      the PGP sig again and say "Those posts aren't mine, they lack my
      PGP sig."

      And we are supposed to buy it.


We are supposed to imagine that a person with a PGP sig is ethically
superior to the average person on Usenet, when there is no evidence to
support that implicit claim.

In fact, the opposite is true: The average person on Usenet does not
break the spirit of the 4-line-sig rule and does not demand that others
get special software to deal with THEIR pet program.

When PGP becomes a two-way street, when its use guarantees the honesty
of the person using it, rather than just preventing other people from
being dishonest with their name, then and only then will PGP sigs be
worth anything.

Oh, and the geniuses who wrote the program REALLY need to reduce the
visible evidence of it to a single line in a legal sig and forget about
anyone having to get any software at all to deal with their program if
they aren't a user.

I'm using a post validation strategy that ANYONE can access with just
a browser, and anyone can use with just ftp and a free website.

And you don't have to trust any weird geeky software, you just have to
look with your eyes: Those are my posts on that website, and if a
post with my name on it isn't there, then it isn't my post.

Yes, it has the same flaws as PGP, but has the advantages described
above, which makes it a superior way to go about this.

-- 
Alan C
Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y


From [email protected] Thu Oct 23 01:47:50 2003
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup
From: Alan Connor 
Subject: Re: Multiple boot
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> 
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 01:47:50 -0700
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 17:46:22 +1000, Doug Laidlaw  wrote:
> 
> 
> Alan Connor wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:42:29 +1000, Doug Laidlaw
>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I am running Mandrake Linux 9.0 and 9.1 on two separate HDs.  I have set
>>> up /mnt directories in each so that all the partitions in one are
>>> accessible
>>> in the other.  With this setup, dual-booting from one LILO is no problem.
>>> 
>>> My question - out of interest, in the circumstances - is, referring to
>>> the one with LILO as system 1, how much of System 2 do I have to mount to
>>> make
>>> dual-booting work?  Is it just enough to give me /boot and /root, or the
>>> whole system?
>>> 
>>> Doug.
>> 
>> 
>> /boot
>> /lib
>> /dev
>> /bin
>> /etc
>> 
>> It would depend on how you were setup. Maybe everything needed is in
>> those directories, maybe you need /sbin or something else...
>> 
>> I hope you know how to use ed(1) :-)
>> 
> Thanks Alan.  I just looked at man ed.  It looks worse than vi, but at 
> times even vi isn't available.  I didn't know about ed.
> 

Ed is the original UNIX editor and isn't bad once you get the hang of it.
You can also use it in scripts: Unlike sed, it operates on the original
file. It's a line editor.

$ed file

,p   # to print the file

a     # to add a line to the file

text here

.     # to return to command mode

w    # include the new line in the file

,p    # print it out again

,n    # number the lines

d31    #assuming that that's the number of the line you added, delete it.

w      write the change to the file

and so forth.


Well worth learning the basics (much like vi and sed....errr vice-versa :-)

in case you find yourself with only /bin.

The name "grep" comes from ed:  global/regex/print  g/re/p

It would be quite possible to get along with just ed. It does just about
everything vanilla vi does, and is very small (40kb) and fast and tight.

-- 
Alan C
Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y


From [email protected] Thu Oct 23 01:56:34 2003
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell
From: Alan Connor 
Subject: Re: /bin/sh - flow control expresions
References: 
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 01:56:34 -0700
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 08:13:27 +0000 (UTC), Maciej Nadolski  wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi!
> I`m writing a simple shell script and I`ve read manual to sh and some pages found 
> on google and I still have some doubghts. I can`t understand when I have to use 
> ";' at end of expression and when not. Diffrent pages on google say diffrent 
> things and I haven`t found this in manual at all. Secound thing is how while loop 
> should look like.
> I have loop which look like that:
> while [ $i < $j ]
> do
> ..
> done
> 
> Offcourse i and j wariables are set earlier and so on. Could someone explain this 
> to me or give a link where I can find certain information? 
> TIA :)
> 
> P.S. OS is FreeBSD 4.8 so /bin/sh isn`t linked to /bin/bash
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Maciej Nadolski

The ; is often used as a substitute for a newline (Enter/Return).

You can do:

a=foo; echo $a

or:

a=foo

echo $a

-------------------------------

the correct syntax for the test part of your script would be:

[ $i -lt $j ]     but if you are using sh or ash, this might be the way

to do it:

while  test $i -lt $j 
do

-- 
Alan C
Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y


From [email protected] Thu Oct 23 02:02:44 2003
Newsgroups: comp.editors
From: Alan Connor 
Subject: Re: [OT] Modal Editors and Such
References:            <[email protected]>          <[email protected]>   <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 02:02:44 -0700
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 08:21:05 GMT, Brian Masinick  wrote:
> 
> 
> Alan Connor  writes:
> 
>>> assert that the Viper package found in Emacs does just that, and the
>>> Emacs package that someone wrote for Vim does many of the
>>> corresponding things, too.
>>> 
>>> Are you familiar with either of these projects?  I'd be interested in
>>> your thoughts on them.
>>> mailto:[email protected]
> 
>> More-or-less, and I avoid them both for the same reason: I just want
>> an editor.
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
>> I saw a reference to a "micro-Emacs", or something like that, a
>> while back, and if it was JUST an editor and one could use the Viper
>> patch with it, I'd give it a shot.
> 
> MicroEmacs is an interesting editor, significantly smaller and faster
> than either GNU Emacs or XEmacs, but the implementation code is
> completely different, and as such, modes such as viper-mode or the
> other Elisp packages written for GNU Emacs or XEmacs won't work with
> it.  MicroEmacs has its own macro language, and it's unique to
> MicroEmacs.
> 
> My guess is that if you're interested in mostly in a modal editor,
> MicroEmacs probably wouldn't be of much interest, but if you're
> interested in a chordal editor or a combination chordal and GUI
> editor, it might be worth a look.
> 
> Jed and Joe are two other editors that have interesting macro
> languages.  The developers of each of these editors have implemented
> multiple editing environments that emulate the basic keyboard actions
> of other editors.
> 
> If you're an editor geek, these might also be worth looking at.  If
> you're more interested in just getting the job done, I'm less certain
> that you'll be interested in them.  Like MicroEmacs, both Jed and Joe
> are lightweight editors, moderate in size, fast in operation, and
> quite stable for every day use.
> 

Interesting. But I'm not so much an editor geek as I am an editor
fundamentalist :-)

(don't tell anyone, but I use ed all the time: there's an editor that
does what you went when you want it to and right NOW.)


-- 
Alan C
Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y


From [email protected] Thu Oct 23 02:35:19 2003
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
From: Alan Connor 
Subject: Re: Maildir with procmail
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 02:35:19 -0700
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)

On 23 Oct 2003 02:19:13 -0700, binaya  wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear all,
> 
>      I am using procmail 3.22 in my linux box along with sendmail.
> My /etc/procmailrc is as below:
> 
> DEFAULT=$HOME/Maildir/
> 
>       The mail gets delivered to ~user/Maildir/new directory . But
> still I see that a file of 0 bytes with that username is being created
> in /var/mail.
> 
>     How do I avoid it ?
> 
>   Suggestions will be highly appreciated.
> 
> Thanking you in advance

Perhaps you need to set or reset your MAIL environmental variable.

echo $MAIL

It's done in your .bashrc or .bash_profile 

export MAIL=whatever

-- 
Alan C
Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y


From [email protected] Thu Oct 23 10:18:24 2003
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
From: Alan Connor 
Subject: Re: Verisign's land grab
References:  <[email protected]>    <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:18:24 -0700
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:48:17 +0100, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard  wrote:
> 
> 
> MC> Anarchy doesn't work.
> 
> JdeBP> No-one is advocating anarchy. [...]
> 
> RJS> Why not? Usenet is the worlds largest functioning anarchy.
> 
> YA> alt.* is (almost) [...]
> 
> RJS> Thanks [...] But that doesn't change the model unwhich usenet
> RJS> operates: anarchy. 
> 
> The model upon which Usenet operates is irrelevant.  No-one is advocating
> anarchy here.   
> 
> The augmented root server organizations, and many others, are advocating
> _democracy_, in the best traditions of the notion that the source of the power
> to govern is the people.  Verisign's authority over "com." and "net.", and
> their subdomains, comes from the root server organizations, and the authority
> of the root server organizations in turn comes from the people who choose to
> delegate authority to them (by configuring their resolving proxy DNS servers
> with the list of the delegate organization's servers) in the first place.
> 
> RJS> the dns could have been administered like this [...]
> 
> No, it couldn't.  DNS has built into it a notion of the delegation of
> authority.  That rules out an anarchic governance model.

This post seems to be a contrivance.

Where is the line like mine above that gives the date and identity of
the whoever you are allegedly responding too?

And why the cross-posting to all those groups with a follow-up to
one that seems to be irrelevant?

Why can't I retrieve the parent article?

-- 
Alan C
Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y


From [email protected] Thu Oct 23 10:20:34 2003
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
From: Alan Connor 
Subject: Re: [OT] The PGP Signed Posts Farce
References:  
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:20:34 -0700
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:13:56 GMT, Steffen Kluge  wrote:
> 
> 
> According to Alan Connor  :
> [sad display of cluelessness snipped]

If you begin your posts with a childish insult, do not be surprised
if people do not read them.

Grow up, you punk, and go troll somewhere else.

-- 
Alan C
Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y


From [email protected] Thu Oct 23 10:43:43 2003
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
From: Alan Connor 
Subject: Re: [OT] The PGP Signed Posts Farce
References:  
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:43:43 -0700
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:48:19 GMT, Nils Petter Vaskinn  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 06:59:04 +0000, Alan Connor wrote:
> 
>> 1. Anyone can get a PGPsig/key in any name they want.
> 
> true
> 
>> 2. PGP offers no guarantee that a person with a PGPsig/key will use it.
> 
> true
> 
>> We are supposed to imagine that a person with a PGP sig is ethically
>> superior to the average person on Usenet, when there is no evidence to
>> support that implicit claim.
> 
> Where did you get that idea? 
> 

Well, PGP does nothing to assure the correct behaviour of it users, but only
that of OTHER people.

>> In fact, the opposite is true: The average person on Usenet does not
>> break the spirit of the 4-line-sig rule and does not demand that others
>> get special software to deal with THEIR pet program.
> 
> The general consensus (as I percieve it) is that gpg/pgp signature is not
> part of the 4 lines allowed. I believe there is also an rfc detailing
> pgp/gpg signatures.
> 

A signature is anything beyond the post itself.


>> and does not demand that others
>> get special software to deal with THEIR pet program.
> 
> Noone (with any sense) demands anything,

Sure they do: get a newsreader that hides (most of) the PGP sig or just
put up with all that garbage.

 you can read the message without
> doing anything special, but you're given an opportunity to verify that
> this "John Doe" is the same one that wrote that post last week.
> 

Unless they gave or sold that sig to someone else.

And because they don't HAVE to use the sig, who knows what other posts are
theirs, or how many of those sigs they have.


> Since the format of the signature is specified in an rfc any newsreader
> can be modified to detect and hide those signatures.
> 

Not all newsreaders. Not all builds.


>> (they must be required by the newsservers to use their sig with every
>> post after using it once....nothing else will work)
> 
> I think we missed that bus a long time ago. Anything like that would
> probably require a rewrite of nntp protocols and software. The way news
> works I think it's basically impossible to verify the source of every
> message out there, all it would take was one compromised newsserver.
> 

Then PGP sigs are basically worthless.


>> Oh, and the geniuses who wrote the program REALLY need to reduce the
>> visible evidence of it to a single line in a legal sig and forget about
>> anyone having to get any software at all to deal with their program if
>> they aren't a user.
> 
> I don't think the key would fit in a single line in a legal sig.
> 

Lot's of people put the key in their headers and refer to that
in their legal sig.


>> I'm using a post validation strategy that ANYONE can access with just
>> a browser, and anyone can use with just ftp and a free website.
> 




> 
>> And you don't have to trust any weird geeky software, you just have to
>> look with your eyes: Those are my posts on that website, and if a
>> post with my name on it isn't there, then it isn't my post.
> 
> I don't think you should be talking to loudly about "weird geeky" software
> with your custom telnet security and challenge response email system.
> Those strike me as far more weird and geeky that pgp/gpg
> 

Then you are quite ignorant of computers and both the programs involved.

My little system is a collection of shellscripts.


Please do your HOMEWORK


>> Yes, it has the same flaws as PGP, but has the advantages described
>> above, which makes it a superior way to go about this.
> 
> Seems we have different opinions on which solution is superior. Also your
> solution requires everyone to have access to a website where they can
> publish their posts. And either manually put their posts there or set up
> some way to automate it.

A two-line shell script.

And websites are free.....Don't you know ANYTHING?

> 
> BTW here's a hint for improving your solution:
> Automatically make the link in a post go to a page that contains only that
> post, and a link to the main page with the explanation. Saves the reader
> having to search for a post that matches the one he's trying to verify.
> 
> PS:
> I don't think alt.lifestyle.earth-based is the appropriate place for test
> messages. It surprises me that someone as serious about signature lengths
> would break usenet etiquette that way. (though for all I know it is
> acceptable in the group, I've never read it)
> 
> regards
> 

The group is abandoned. Why don't you open your eyes and look before you
run your mouth?

> -- 
> NPV
> 
> "the large print giveth, and the small print taketh away"
>                                 Tom Waits - Step right up
> 


You conveniently snipped the most important part of my post , which I am now
re-posting below, so that anyone who reads this post won't fall for whatever
twisted game you seem to be TRYING to play.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. PGP offers no guarantee that a person with a PGPsig/key will use it.

   a) They can just leave it off, troll at will with modified headers
      (or even impersonate someone impersonating them) and show up with
      the PGP sig again and say "Those posts aren't mine, they lack my
      PGP sig."

      And we are supposed to buy it.


We are supposed to imagine that a person with a PGP sig is ethically
superior to the average person on Usenet, when there is no evidence to
support that implicit claim.

In fact, the opposite is true: The average person on Usenet does not
break the spirit of the 4-line-sig rule and does not demand that others
get special software to deal with THEIR pet program.

When PGP becomes a two-way street, when its use guarantees the honesty
of the person using it, rather than just preventing other people from
being dishonest with their name, then and only then will PGP sigs be
worth anything.




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for your response. Don't bother with another because I won't
read it.

You either stupid or a troll, and I have no time for either sort of
person.

-- 
Alan C
Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y


From [email protected] Thu Oct 23 11:03:36 2003
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
From: Alan Connor 
Subject: Re: [OT] The PGP Signed Posts Farce
References:    
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:03:36 -0700
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 18:38:24 +0100, Andy Baxter  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 17:29:09 +0000, Alan Connor wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:13:56 GMT, Steffen Kluge  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> According to Alan Connor  :
>>> [sad display of cluelessness snipped]
>> 
>> If you begin your posts with a childish insult, do not be surprised
>> if people do not read them.
>> 
>> Grow up, you punk, and go troll somewhere else.
> 
> Hey don't be hard on punks - a friend of mine's a punk and he's a good
> bloke.
> 
> andy.
> 

  I am NOT referring to Punks (notice the capital letter).

I know several fine Punks myself. 

-- 
Alan C
Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y


From [email protected] Thu Oct 23 11:09:30 2003
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.slackware
From: Alan Connor 
Subject: Re: PGP Problems
References:     
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:09:30 -0700
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)

On 23 Oct 2003 16:18:17 GMT, Joost Kremers  wrote:
> 
> 
> anthony wrote:
>> I think Alan has some sort of a tourette's disorder. 
> 
> i doubt it... people with tourette's are people with normal social skills,
> usually keenly aware of their problem and of the impact it has on their
> surroundings. they *know* that they blurt out obscenities. i don't think
> alan is aware of his megalomania. he really does believe he knows
> everything better than the rest of the world.
> 
> -- 
> Joost Kremers
> since when is vi an editor? a discussion on vi belongs in
> comp.tools.unusable or something... ;-)
> 
> just lengthening my sig so i won't be sucked into another argument with a
> guy who's just not able to listen to another person's arguments, who thinks
> he knows everything better and who keeps on telling the world about this,
> even when it is already painfully obvious that no-one is listening anymore.
> 
> will this be long enough?

Yes Joost, you cannot bully me into seeing things your way.

Isn't that just too bad? Poor baby.

Please continue to take cheap shots at me from cover, you pathetic coward.

-- 
Alan C
Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y


From [email protected] Thu Oct 23 11:13:47 2003
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.slackware
From: Alan Connor 
Subject: Re: PGP Problems
References:   <[email protected]>  
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:13:47 -0700
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:08:58 -0700, Jeffrey Denton  wrote:
> 

Before I killfile you for using the stupid PGP sig, would you mind offering
proof that your name is actually Jeffrey Benton, and that you don't ever
post without using this PGP sig?

Oh? You can't do that? 

Then what good is the PGP sig?

Now shut up and go away, little boy.

Done.

-- 
Alan C
Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y


From [email protected] Thu Oct 23 11:23:41 2003
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.slackware
From: Alan Connor 
Subject: Re: PGP is GREAT!
References: <[email protected]> <%[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:23:41 -0700
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)


PGP is great for trolls.

They just leave out the PGP sig, modify their headers, and troll at will.

Then they show up again with the right name (which may or may not be their
real name: PGP offers no way to validate the name) and point to those other
posts and say:

"Those aren't MINE. Look! There's no PGP sig."

Or, trolls can get a half-dozen PGP sigs in different names if they want to.

-- 
Alan C
Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y