Re: Happy St Patrick's Day, Boss!

On Mar 17, 8:05=A0pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> Peter Wieck wrote:
> > flipper <flip...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > =A0"Iain Churches" <Iai...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > >"Peter Wieck" <p...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> > > >> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us)
> > > >> AppleWebKit/523.15.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0.4 Safari/
> > > >> 523.15,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
>
> > > >From where do you get this info, Peter?
>
> > > In Outlook Express, right click on the message in the preview pane
and=

> > > select properties, then the details tab.
>
> > Yep. That's the way. Each reader has its own very similar system, but
> > the end-results are the same.
>
> > Every machine has a unique signature which cannot be disguised by the
> > "typical" anonymous remailer - at least not since 9/11. One cannot get
> > (easily) to a location or an original e-mail address, but one can
> > determine whether the same machine sent various messages.
>
> > What set me onto it was that there were two message within eight
> > minutes of each other at 2:46am and 2:54am both Irish time. One
> > through a South African remailer, one through a Pacific Rim remailer.
> > Go figure. And, South Africa is two hours different from Ireland such
> > that the time-stamps could not work anyway - nor a Pacific Rim time-
> > stamp of course.
>
> > It is really too bad. Andre could have made a much more credible
> > effort simply by going to a local internet cafe or computer seller and
> > ask for a demonstration or some such. He must have been drinking (more
> > than usual, that is) to be caught in so transparent a lie. Or he could
> > have messed with the time-stamp on his computer making the lie less
> > obvious.
>
> > Equally too bad that the Italian Sock-Puppet e-mails are so far back -
> > it might have been possible to discern the origin of them as well very
> > likely putting Andre into another lie.
>
> I recall seing the same activity months ago. Might have been the
glassgray=

> sock-puppet again, I don't recall now.
>
> Joot is a worthless turd anyway. If anyone had any doubts, hopefully
this =
will
> clear that up. I mean .... just how LOW is he prepared to go ?
>
> Graham

Holy ****! And you call yourself a computer expert? Don't you have any
shame? When I've finished putting down Worthless Wiecky, I shall hold
each of his errors and lies up to your nose, Poopie, and remind you
that you, a self-declared "computer expert", gave him a blanket
confirmation for his errors and lies. Ooh, this is going to be a
lovely little bonfire of undesirables. LOL.

Peter Wieck <pfjw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> On Mar 17, 3:19=A0pm, flipper <flip...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 20:29:33 +0200, "Iain Churches"
> >
> > <Iai...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> > >"Peter Wieck" <p...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >
>news:b2884b82-ee97-487a-a319-095efdd2f0e2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > >> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us)
> > >> AppleWebKit/523.15.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0.4 Safari/
> > >> 523.15,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
> >
> > >From where do you get this info, Peter?
> >
> > In Outlook Express, right click on the message in the preview pane and
> > select properties, then the details tab.
>
> Yep. That's the way. Each reader has its own very similar system, but
> the end-results are the same.
>
> Every machine has a unique signature which cannot be disguised by the
> "typical" anonymous remailer - at least not since 9/11.

LOL. Hey, you poor dumb ****, show us what is unique about the
information you claim identifies a particular computer.

And explain to us why you're such a parochial know-nothing that you
think the Finns, for instance, or the Russians, or the Chinese, care
**** about American rules made since 9/11, rules incidentally that no
one else has heard about but you.

>One cannot get
> (easily) to a location or an original e-mail address, but one can
> determine whether the same machine sent various messages.

Oh, one machine sent those messages. It belongs to the proxy server.
But I have already found seven machines with the same supposedly
"unique signature" in just two minutes. You're stupid or you're lying,
Worthless Wiecky. Which is it?

> What set me onto it was that there were two message within eight
> minutes of each other at 2:46am and 2:54am both Irish time. One
> through a South African remailer, one through a Pacific Rim remailer.
> Go figure. And, South Africa is two hours different from Ireland such
> that the time-stamps could not work anyway - nor a Pacific Rim time-
> stamp of course.
>
> It is really too bad. Andre could have made a much more credible
> effort simply by going to a local internet cafe or computer seller and
> ask for a demonstration or some such. He must have been drinking (more
> than usual, that is) to be caught in so transparent a lie.

Oh, I haven't been caught in a lie. You've been caught in a little
joke I set up specifically for you to take a pratfall.

>Or he could
> have messed with the time-stamp on his computer making the lie less
> obvious.

Why? All I had to do was wait until the post I requested from Gray to
set you up arrived in my reader, and then to answer it.

> Equally too bad that the Italian Sock-Puppet e-mails are so far back -
> it might have been possible to discern the origin of them as well very
> likely putting Andre into another lie.

Who is this "Italian Sock-Puppet" and what were his "e-mails" about?
And why should Google have lost his e-mails in particular when it
keeps everything else?

> Ah, well...
>
> Peter Wieck
> Wyncote, PA