User2User - question with no answer given.

[~BD~]

On 01/09/2010 17:34, Dustin wrote:
> ~BD~<BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
> news:gJednfqPu7nL6OPRnZ2dnUVZ7oednZ2d@bt.com:
>
>> On 01/09/2010 16:26, Peter Foldes wrote:
>>> Li.
>>>
>>> I am taking care of this idiot Troll who deserves everything
>>> that comes his way shortly.
>>
>> Ah! Yet *another* message to be printed and held on your 'threat' file.
>>
>> You really shouldn't put such things in writing! ;-)
>
> BD,
>
> When is the best time of year to visit your locale? I'm not much into
> real snowy/coldarse damp weather.
>
>

Is your Go0gle borken?

[~BD~]

On 01/09/2010 17:34, Dustin wrote:

> BD,
>
> When is the best time of year to visit your locale? I'm not much into
> real snowy/coldarse damp weather.

My initial response wasn't extending a hand of friendship, was it? That
was probably because it reminded me of the email messages I received
when I was repaid stolen funds by PayPal. Remember - when I ended up
reporting matters to the Police and thereafter to what was then our
High-Tech Crime Unit?

My favourite time of the year is late Spring - with summer just around
the corner. Sometimes late September/early October are magical, but
cannot be relied upon. The nights are much longer too.

HTH

--
Dave - the guy we met waiting table in Sedona, Arizona, came to see us
in June IIRC. He just *loved* it here! He's now a financial adviser!

[Aardvark]

On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 16:46:29 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:

> On 01/09/2010 16:26, Peter Foldes wrote:
>> Li.
> >
>> I am taking care of this idiot Troll who deserves everything that comes
>> his way shortly.
>
> Ah! Yet *another* message to be printed and held on your 'threat' file.
>
> You really shouldn't put such things in writing! ;-)

What? Like an explicit threat to kill someone?



--
"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle.
Then I realised God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and
prayed for forgiveness." - Emo Phillips

[~BD~]

On 01/09/2010 19:32, Aardvark wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 16:46:29 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> On 01/09/2010 16:26, Peter Foldes wrote:
>>> Li.
>> >
>>> I am taking care of this idiot Troll who deserves everything that comes
>>> his way shortly.
>>
>> Ah! Yet *another* message to be printed and held on your 'threat' file.
>>
>> You really shouldn't put such things in writing! ;-)
>
> What? Like an explicit threat to kill someone?


I wanted there to be *no doubt* as to what I will do.

First, though, I'll show him the grave of the son I had, which *he* says
didn't die.

His reaction to that will determine the next event.

[Dustin]

~BD~ <BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
news:tM6dnR7bKaeWE-PRnZ2dnUVZ8qqdnZ2d@bt.com:

> On 01/09/2010 17:34, Dustin wrote:
>> ~BD~<BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:gJednfqPu7nL6OPRnZ2dnUVZ7oednZ2d@bt.com:
>>
>>> On 01/09/2010 16:26, Peter Foldes wrote:
>>>> Li.
>>>>
>>>> I am taking care of this idiot Troll who deserves everything
>>>> that comes his way shortly.
>>>
>>> Ah! Yet *another* message to be printed and held on your 'threat'
>>> file.
>>>
>>> You really shouldn't put such things in writing! ;-)
>>
>> BD,
>>
>> When is the best time of year to visit your locale? I'm not much
>> into real snowy/coldarse damp weather.
>>
>>
>
> Is your Go0gle borken?
>

No. I was simply asking you as a local instead of a search engine.

--
"I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
your Christ." - author unknown.

[Anne Onime]

In article <rJmdnZ0aQ9RQt-PRnZ2dnUVZ7vudnZ2d@bt.com>
~BD~ <BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Maybe they are more wary than me and will not be too happy to connect
> their computer to a private server.

God, you're an idiot. *All* servers are private servers. The only one
you can absolutely trust is one you run yourself. Some mid-level web
admin at google or Cnet is just as likely to be one of those internet
"bad guys" you rave about as Joe Schmoe who runs a server out of his
home, probably moreso because he might have the training and expertise to
do things well on the sly.

> Doing so would breach a firewall - wouldn't it?

</me rolls eyes>

[FromTheRafters]

"~BD~" <BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1Lqdnb8ATMwnwOPRnZ2dnUVZ8gCdnZ2d@bt.com...
> On 01/09/2010 14:28, FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>> Define "breach".
>>
>> ...one of my pet peeves since Katrina caused levees to "fail" *after*
>> having been breached. The terminology was causing real problems (as
>> was
>> the term "refugees" which doesn't mean what those afflicted thought
>> it
>> meant)
>
> Best choose your own FTR http://www.thefreedictionary.com/breach

Not really, There are many meanings (but they're all irrelevent). What
*is* relevent is what *you* mean by breach (since it was you that said
it). I've read many technical papers, and they often start out with
definitions like "For the purposes of this paper we define breach as
blah blah blah..." - so my question was what *you* meant as opposed to
what I might infer from your statement given my own perhaps unique
definition.

>> I tend to think of 'breach of purpose'
>
> I think along the lines of:- a. An opening, a tear, or a rupture.

So, in a levee, is overtopping a breach? A failure? To me, a 27 foot
tall levee is designed to 'hold back' a maximum of 27 feet of water.
Overtopping does not tear a hole, rupture or cause a gap and the levee
is still performing up to specs. The purpose of the levee (maybe to keep
your feet dry) has indeed been breached - but the purpose of the levee
(hold back 27 feet of water) has not. One purpose may have been breached
while another has not.

>> and the purpose of a firewall is *not* to protect you from things
>> that you invite in.
>
> So if I 'invite' a connection from a private server you feel there is
> no 'breach' per se? I'm sure that's correct and I do not disagree.

Do you remember what SPI means? Initial packets are dropped if incoming.
Outgoing initial packets aren't affected. Subsequent packets are allowed
in both directions. Connecting with a server involves your outgoing
intitial packets and all subsequent packets. The only time you might
have to be concerned with incoming initial packets is when *you* are
running a server. In that case you'll want to allow incoming initial
packets destined to *your* server so that you can serve something to
your client.

*None* of these are breaches (my definition, because its "purpose" is
still being served) although some firewall guru's refer to "holes" in
the firewall whenever someting is "allowed". I don't like the use of
"holes" for this because people often infer a failure of some kind even
though nothing was broken.

> However, is one's PC then more vulnerable to an attack from that
> private server as compared to simply visiting any URL with a browser?

No, *any* additional communication channel gives you greater threat
exposure. IMO an evil web server is far more dangerous than an evil NNTP
server. Even if it is true that there are serious bugs in NNTP
implementations (as Dustin alluded to) you have to realize that evil web
servers would be a far more lucrative endeavor (everybody uses the web).

> I've been wondering about that for a very long time!

I would say no to *more* vulnerable, in fact if you gave up web servers
and used only NNTP servers you would be *much* safer online.

Especially if you forego HTML and extensions.

[SeaNymph]

"Aardvark" <aardvark@youllnever.know> wrote in message
news:i5m67b$sua$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 16:46:29 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> On 01/09/2010 16:26, Peter Foldes wrote:
>>> Li.
>> >
>>> I am taking care of this idiot Troll who deserves everything that comes
>>> his way shortly.
>>
>> Ah! Yet *another* message to be printed and held on your 'threat' file.
>>
>> You really shouldn't put such things in writing! ;-)
>
> What? Like an explicit threat to kill someone?

Not only that, he verifies the threat in answering this question.
Unbelievable.

[Peter Foldes]

> I wanted there to be *no doubt* as to what I will do.
>
> First, though, I'll show him the grave of the son I had, which *he* says didn't
> die.
>
> His reaction to that will determine the next event.

From the Top Posting ****wit who is not instigating further but answering straight

ROFLMAO. David you are really a dumb person. You think you will get a chance to do
what you posted? I doubt it very much. You are all mouth and no action as always.
Well,we will see then when I come and visit you shortly. As far as the cemetery
where your supposedly son resides,is non existent as you have said a numerous times
5 years ago. So you are telling us that since then a headstone with your living son
Nick appeared out of the blue.? I am just going with the facts as you have posted
and verified by Malcomb and all the others in the uk.devon newsgroup.
BTW: In that newsgroup,EVERYONE and I mean everyone has the lowest opinion of you
and they all claim that you are a Troll and one that likes to make up stories for
attention. Honestly DAVE that is what they said exactly.
See you shortly.

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

[Aardvark]

On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 10:36:23 -0400, Peter Foldes wrote:

>> SNIP

You can take the top-poster out of the ****wit, but you can't take the
****wit out of the top-poster.

--
"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle.
Then I realised God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and
prayed for forgiveness." - Emo Phillips