Re: Happy St Patrick's Day, Boss!

On Mar 17, 11:25=A0pm, John Byrns <byr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In article
> <7e146691-3e55-4efa-9630-a2108c0f7...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> =A0Peter Wieck <p...@[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. 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.
>
> > Ah, well...
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "Italian Sock-Puppet", but Google Groups
> has most all the old messages archived, why can't you just check there?
>
> Regards,
>
> John Byrns
>
> --
> Surf my web pages at, =A0http://fmamradios.com/

Poor little Worthless Wiecky dove face-first into the pit I staked for
him for my annual St Pat's Day practical joke. Even Anonymous Keithr
now says there is nothing about the information poor Worthless
supplied to tie it to any machine. So Worthless is casting around for
another lie, and calling into the wilderness for help. I suspect his
Italian reference is to the father of the two little girls to whom
Henry Pasternack sent homo***ual ****ographic images. Worthless
probably imagines ****o Pas will storm in here and save Worthless
Wiecky's slack ass. It is a delusion Creepy Mike LaFevre first had in
1997/8, and others had since; I wonder if ****o Pas has the brains
after his recent experiences on RAT to abandon his meat-puppet
Worthless Wiecky.

Just for the record, below I reprint my reply to Worthless Wiecky's
letter that you quote.

Andre Jute
Advance on a 360 degree perimeter, show no mercy, take no prisoners

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