peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (11/26/89)
In article <8911210433.AA00399@uunet.uu.net>, peter%ficc@uunet.UU.NET (Peter da Silva) writes: > This is a call for votes on the name of an aquarium newsgroup. The vote will > be held by the Single Transferrable Vote system: Sigh. Another forgery. Not only is it a stupid idea, but it violates the guideline that states once a vote has failed, it cannot be brought up again for six months. Then again, maybe it does not violate that guideline, because the vote is being brought up again when in fact the vote passed. This is another of those things that have caused me to decide to chuck it all in. My duties at work require me to keep news and mail running; they *do not* require me to post to the net. This is the last posting you will see from peter@ficc.uu.net. Anything else you see from this account will also be a forgery. `-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "The basic notion underlying USENET is the flame." -- Chuq Von Rospach, chuq@Apple.COM
ptgarvin@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Patrick T. Garvin) (11/27/89)
In article <8023@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: {In article <8911210433.AA00399@uunet.uu.net>, peter%ficc@uunet.UU.NET (Peter da Silva) writes: {{ This is a call for votes on the name of an aquarium newsgroup. The vote will {{ be held by the Single Transferrable Vote system: { {Sigh. Another forgery. Yes, but I think the forgery is the message that claims that the first message is a forgery. Two reasons: 1) Where is the "Have you hugged your wolf" saying that we all know (and some of us dislike slightly, as if one could say that one owned a wolf!). 2) The above forgery says to disregard all future postings. This is a classic trick of the crypto-Illuminati (who are not to be confused with Illuminati. The latter are a hoax. 8)) {`-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net{ <peter@sugar.lonestar.org{. { 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. {"The basic notion underlying USENET is the flame." { -- Chuq Von Rospach, chuq@Apple.COM -- "Sometimes, even a blind pig finds an acorn." -- stolen from STella ptgarvin@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu / ptgarvin@uokmax.UUCP | Eris loves you. in the Society: Padraig Cosfhota o Ulad / Barony of Namron, Ansteorra Disclaimer: Fragile. Contents inflammable. Do not use near open flame.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (11/27/89)
The subject says it all, I think. The call for votes on *.aquaria is real.
I'm beginning to feel some slight interest in who might be perpetrating this.
But given the lack of security in usenet, I don't think it's likely I'll
ever find out.
When I get in to work in the morning, I'll check on what the *real* message
<8023@ficc.uu.net> is.
--
Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>
`-_-'
'U` "Really, a video game is nothing more than a Skinner box."
-- Peter Merel <pete@basser.oz>peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (11/27/89)
If there's any question as to whether <8023@ficc.uu.net> is a forgery, consider
that it's posted to groups that are not in the active file at ficc.uu.net.
To verify this, call Ferranti and ask to speak to me. It's in the phone book.
--
Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>
`-_-'
'U` "Really, a video game is nothing more than a Skinner box."
-- Peter Merel <pete@basser.oz>amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker) (11/27/89)
In article <1989Nov26.220624.28057@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu>, ptgarvin@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Patrick T. Garvin) writes: > Yes, but I think the forgery is the message that claims that the first > message is a forgery. > > Two reasons: > > 1) Where is the "Have you hugged your wolf" saying that we all know > (and some of us dislike slightly, as if one could say that one owned a wolf!). > > 2) The above forgery says to disregard all future postings. Time will tell. From the evidence I can see (the articles themselves, coming from only two hops away, as news flies), either there have been two people posting from FICC as "peter", someone is forging articles on UUNET, or Peter has devloped Multiple Personality Disorder. I'd lay my money on the first of these three, and I can see how it could piss him off (or anyone, for that matter) enough to just leave. We'll see what happens, but I smell Richard Sexton in here somewhere :-). On the other hand, breaking into FICC doesn't seem quite his style (?). Bleah. Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation amanda@intercon.com --
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (11/28/89)
Actually, it's probably someone on the Internet, or a customer of uunet. It's
not anyone at FICC, because FICC doesn't get several of the groups this was
posted to. And there's no need for it to have been anyone on uunet itself.
It's probably easier to do the fakery from outside.
It's awfully easy to forge an article through NNTP or UUCP.
Oh, and my wife is unhappy with this activity. She wants me to tell you that
(a) she's a computer nerd too, and (b) she's pissed off at being cast as the
heavy. She doesn't read usenet... too many flames... but you can mail her at
73767.2044@compuserve.com.
--
Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>
`-_-'
'U` "Really, a video game is nothing more than a Skinner box."
-- Peter Merel <pete@basser.oz>" Maynard) (11/29/89)
In article <8023@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: }In article <8911210433.AA00399@uunet.uu.net>, peter%ficc@uunet.UU.NET (Peter da Silva) writes: }> This is a call for votes on the name of an aquarium newsgroup. The vote will }> be held by the Single Transferrable Vote system: } }Sigh. Another forgery. } }Not only is it a stupid idea, but it violates the guideline that states }once a vote has failed, it cannot be brought up again for six months. } }Then again, maybe it does not violate that guideline, because the vote }is being brought up again when in fact the vote passed. } }This is another of those things that have caused me to decide to chuck it }all in. My duties at work require me to keep news and mail running; they }*do not* require me to post to the net. } }This is the last posting you will see from peter@ficc.uu.net. Anything }else you see from this account will also be a forgery. } }`-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. } 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. }"The basic notion underlying USENET is the flame." } -- Chuq Von Rospach, chuq@Apple.COM The message quoted above is a forgery. I spoke to Peter on the phone a few minutes ago, and he assured me that: 1) The STV vote for an aquaria group is legitimate, votes are coming in, and he is counting them. 2) He has no intention of leaving the net any time soon, and will continue to post from both ficc and sugar. 3) Current message-IDs at ficc.uu.net are in the 7100 range. It says something about the Richard Sexton Sycophants that they have to stoop to this level to discredit Peter; that must mean that they have given up on their feeble arguments. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- "...when hasn't gibberish been legal C?" -- Tom Horsley, tom@ssd.harris.com
amolitor@eagle.wesleyan.edu (11/29/89)
These forgeries are coming in at uunet (unless they are from ficc, which seems a little far fetched, uunet is so much more well connected). They are absolutely perfect, except for the sequence number in the message ID field. The first posting I noticed got this almost right too (the time of day did not quite jive), but in doing so bumped a legitimate ficc posting from the net. The forger has since changed his/her ways, and seems not to be doing this anymore, the sequence numbers being used now ought not to show up at ficc until the forged postings are long gone. Probably, to be quite sure, the forger should be using SMALLER sequence numbers, say around 1000 or so, since these have been used at ficc, and won't ever appear again. The technical skill required is not very great however, and the joke is no longer very amusing. Andrew
jimm@amiga.UUCP (Jim Mackraz) (11/30/89)
)}Sigh. Another forgery. Please keep this crap and the subsequent investigative journalism out of comp.sys.amiga.tech. Nobody in their right mind would ever make an important decision based on the validity of a posting's source anyway, now would they? The only danger is that you might get picked up by the wrong line in someone's kill file. jimm -- -------------------------------------------------- - opinions by me "This voice console is a *must*. I press Execute. `Hello, I know that you've been feeling tired. I bring you love and deeper understanding.' " -lyrics by Kate Bush
dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) (12/01/89)
In article <4V.ZZG@splut.conmicro.com>, jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: > > It says something about the Richard Sexton Sycophants that they have to > stoop to this level to discredit Peter; that must mean that they have > given up on their feeble arguments. Oh do shut up. Your vote is illegitimate and in extremely poor taste, although I do find it humorous that the two biggest net.purists, in their rightous zeal to maintain NET.PURITY, are violating every guideline for group creation. You knuckleheads have wasted more time resource and energy screaming about this issue than the group will probably EVER use. One doesn't have to be a 'Richard Sexton Sycophant' to be sick and tired of you two whining about .aquaria. The vote was taken and the vote passed. End of story. Except the story seems to be 'you have to play by the rules but WE don't because WE KNOW BETTER'. Dave
tale@cs.rpi.edu (Dave Lawrence) (12/01/89)
In <4V.ZZG@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay Maynard) writes:
It says something about the Richard Sexton Sycophants that they have to
stoop to this level to discredit Peter; that must mean that they have
given up on their feeble arguments.
I certainly don't approve of the forgery, but I don't think this is
right either. There is no evidence that this was done by any Richard
Sexton Sycophant. It could just have easily been done by a Richard
Sexton Basher in an attempt to further discredit the proponents of
sci.aquaria by causing people to leap to the above cited conclusion.
Dave
--
(setq mail '("tale@cs.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))
"... the broader subject of usenet customs and other bizarre social phenomena."
-- Phil Agre <agre@gargoyle.uchicago.edu>jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) (12/02/89)
In article <25762E3C.622@rpi.edu>, tale@cs.rpi.edu (Dave Lawrence) writes: > In <4V.ZZG@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay Maynard) writes: > >> It says something about the Richard Sexton Sycophants ... > > ... There is no evidence that this was done by any Richard > Sexton Sycophant. It could just have easily been done by a Richard > Sexton Basher in an attempt to further discredit the proponents of > sci.aquaria by causing people to leap to the above cited conclusion. Or, it could have been done by Peter to get sympathy. Or by his wife to remind him to spend more time at home. Or by someone who voted no on comp.unix.i386 to divert him from his work on that group. Or by a leftwinger who dislikes Peter's pro- market comments. Or by a rightwinger who dislikes foreigners. The fact is, we don't know who did it, and posting speculation is not constructive ... it's likely only to generate more ill will. I gently request that we drop this thread, and go on to more important matters. For instance, the holidays are coming, and I bet some of you still haven't decided whether to buy me a personal computer, a copier, a fax machine, or several dozen rolls of first-class postage stamps. {|8^)] Jeff Daiell
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/02/89)
Another entry in my kill file. Please, folks. If you're discussing the aquaria situation put "aquaria" in the title. If you're not, don't. To make this vote as above-board as possible I'm refraining from any campaigning, electioneering, and other vaguely unethical behaviour we know so well from the last vote. To make this easier on me I'm killing all discussion of it. I realise that this is slightly lazy, but kill files are easier than the N key. My proposal is clear and open with no hidden agenda. It's as balanced as I could make it -- if anything it's slanted towards sci.aquaria because the rec.aquaria vote is split. Jay Maynard responded to a forged posting, ostensibly from me, with a flame. Dave Hill flamed back: > Your vote is illegitimate and in extremely poor taste,... Jay's vote? He's not running a vote. I am. > Except the story seems to be 'you have to play by the rules > but WE don't because WE KNOW BETTER'. What is the purpose of a vote? To establish that a proposal is solid and has the broad support of the net. Richard's vote was so flawed that it failed in this purpose, and the resulting group is crippled. I'm trying to remedy that. I can understand your frustration over the poor distribution of the aquaria group as it currently exists. Please don't take your frustrations out on innocent bystanders. Jay isn't on the backbone. I'm not on the backbone. Sugar.hackercorp.com carries and forwards all groups, including sci.aquaria. We're not blocking you. If the backbone doesn't believe that Richard's vote was fair and above-board, then work on that. That's what I'm doing. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "The basic notion underlying USENET is the flame." -- Chuq Von Rospach, chuq@Apple.COM
dveditz@dbase.UUCP (Dan Veditz) (12/02/89)
In article <8023@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: }In article <8911210433.AA00399@uunet.uu.net>, peter%ficc@uunet.UU.NET (Peter da Silva) writes: }> This is a call for votes on the name of an aquarium newsgroup. The vote will }> be held by the Single Transferrable Vote system: } }Sigh. Another forgery. No, it wasn't. I thought I'd add my confirmation to Jay's message: I missed the original call, and a mail message to Peter got me a response confirming that he is indeed running an STV vote on the aquaria name. Therefore 8023@ficc.uu.net is the *real* forgery. }This is the last posting you will see from peter@ficc.uu.net. Anything }else you see from this account will also be a forgery. Not true. Someone is trying to discredit any future postings from Peter. In article <4V.ZZG@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >It says something about the Richard Sexton Sycophants that they have to >stoop to this level to discredit Peter; that must mean that they have >given up on their feeble arguments. >-- >Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can >jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. Hard to explain this by stupidity; I'll go with malice this time, Jay. Does anyone know what will happen when the *real* 8023 from ficc tries to propagate in a few weeks? -Dan Veditz uunet!ashtate!dveditz dveditz@ashtate.A-T.COM
dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) (12/02/89)
In article <7184@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > > Jay Maynard responded to a forged posting, ostensibly from me, with a > flame. Dave Hill flamed back: > > Your vote is illegitimate and in extremely poor taste,... > > Jay's vote? He's not running a vote. I am. Yes of course you are. But Jay's running point for you, slamming anything and everything that comes along. And perhaps 'running' is a poor choice of words, no? How about 'ramming'? > What is the purpose of a vote? That's a darn good question. Dave
tale@cs.rpi.edu (Dave Lawrence) (12/03/89)
In article <312@dbase.UUCP> dveditz@dbase.UUCP (Dan Veditz) writes:
Does anyone know what will happen when the *real* 8023 from ficc tries
to propagate in a few weeks?
It will likely reache a smaller percentage of sites than it would
otherwise reach. This depends on a number of factors, including how
long it takes ficc to get to that sequence number, how long its feed
sites keep around history, and how long the rest of the sites are
keeping history.
For example: ficc hits 8023 tomorrow and all of the ficc feed sites
keep around news history information for two weeks. That article will
not leave ficc.
Another: ficc hits 8023 about three weeks after the forgery, but the
ficc feeds only keep the above mentioned two weeks of history. The
article will get off ficc, but it will not hit any site that keeps
three weeks or more worth of history, or any site that is fed entirely
by sites like this. While the two weeks of history is pretty common,
many sites, especially larger ones, keep history information longer.
Last example: ficc hits 8023 in ninety days or more from now (not to
be expected with Peter and Jeff both there :-). It will probably get
the same distribution it would otherwise get.
Dave
--
(setq mail '("tale@cs.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))" Maynard) (12/05/89)
In article <49850@ccicpg.UUCP> dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) writes: >Yes of course you are. But Jay's running point for you, >slamming anything and everything that comes along. Not anything and everything; only that which is especially deserving. Of course, lots of folks have been especially deserving during the whole aquaria flamewar... -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- "...when hasn't gibberish been legal C?" -- Tom Horsley, tom@ssd.harris.com
davidsen@sungod.crd.ge.com (William Davidsen) (12/05/89)
In article <7182@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) writes: | The fact is, we don't know who did it, and posting speculation | is not constructive ... it's likely only to generate more ill will. | I gently request that we drop this thread, and go on to more | important matters. Right! Even if the posting was a forgery, the vote is still binding. Peter should spend more time with his wife. Seriously, that's a fine idea for all of us over the holidays, to take some time off to be with those close to us. Maybe we could all get into the holiday spirit and say less and be nicer about what we say. It's only three weeks. bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM) {uunet | philabs}!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me