Re: Happy St Patrick's Day, Boss!

In article 
<4b0add0c-33a1-4044-91ca-d46867b9e198@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 Andre Jute <fiultra@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> Peter Wieck <pfjw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
> > On Mar 17, 3:19 pm, 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 on a private bulletin board for
> Mac experts. 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, Worthless Wiecky, been caught
> in a little joke I set up specifically for you to take a pratfall on
> St Patrick's Day. He was notoriuously short with fools like you.
> 
> >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?

If the "Italian Sock-Puppet" were "flipper" Google wouldn't have kept 
the messages because "flipper" includes the "X-No-Archive: yes" header 
line.  Whoever the "Italian Sock-Puppet" is, they may have used the 
"X-No-Archive: yes" header line.  Since you never use that header it 
would seem to let you out.


Regards,

John Byrns

-- 
Surf my web pages at,  http://fmamradios.com/