I want to build the most EVIL plane EVER !!!

Posted by rkey on web from powerbook laptop
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Path:
g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!z14g2000cwz .googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "RKey"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: (Mini-500)I want to build the most EVIL plane EVER !!!
Date: 6 Dec 2005 04:55:35 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 3
Message-ID: .com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.203.6.11
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1133873740 25338 127.0.0.1 (6 Dec 2005
12:55:40 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 12:55:40 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O;
en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 Firefox/1.0.7,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=216.203.6.11;
posting-account=dsV8YQ0AAACKXf8oFSmrcSh_Rvu1LQlN

Again by rkey on web from powerbook laptop
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Path:
g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g47g2000cwa .googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From:
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: (Mini-500)I want to build the most EVIL plane EVER !!!
Date: 7 Dec 2005 11:49:47 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 4
Message-ID: .com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.162.101.116
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1133984993 15322 127.0.0.1 (7 Dec 2005
19:49:53 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 19:49:53 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To:
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=70.162.101.116;
posting-account=An4-4w0AAADToU769co3UbEZvnNdsQB2

Both post are still me, both post are done from OS X on Powerbook.
Accounts are differrent and NNTP-Posting-Host is different. I guess
this proves NNTP-Posting-Host may or may not be proof

Too lazy to see how to modify message ID, of course FireFox makes
browser spoofing easy

Since I'm using a web front end NNTP-Posting-Host means nothing as
proof of ID.

To get a different NNTP posting is very easy, but to get the same is
hard. I challenge you to 'spoof' MY NNTP with your name and see if you
can show that you are posting from MY NNTP. That will be the test. I
can get a new NNTP all day long, but this one is unigue to my computer.

To proove that Planeman spoofed Denise, You must spoof me with same
NNTP. IF you can't than I rest my case.

Flyingmonk wrote:

To get a different NNTP posting is very easy, but to get the same is
hard. I challenge you to 'spoof' MY NNTP with your name and see if you
can show that you are posting from MY NNTP. That will be the test. I
can get a new NNTP all day long, but this one is unigue to my computer.

To proove that Planeman spoofed Denise, You must spoof me with same
NNTP. IF you can't than I rest my case.


Well, I'm not questioning is hacking ability, but saying that because
one person can't do this implies that it can't be done is just
ridiculous. I can't perform open heart surgery either, so I guess that
means to you that it can't be done, right?

I'm beginning to appreciate Dennis' frustration now.


Matt

Matt wrote:
Well, I'm not questioning is hacking ability, but saying that because
one person can't do this implies that it can't be done is just
ridiculous. I can't perform open heart surgery either, so I guess that
means to you that it can't be done, right?

No, not at all. My question is WHY would someone named Planeman,
posting from a DIFFERENT email address, would spoof Denise's NNTP and
post with a diferent name to support Denise's arguments? If Planeman
wanted to support Denise, he can just go right ahead and support him.
Why would he need to spoof denise's NNTP? Why would Planeman go
through the trouble of spoofing and yet posted under a different name?

I'm beginning to appreciate Dennis' frustration now.

Sorry that I frustate you Matt, but I never meant to frustrate YOU in
particular. Normally I'm very docile, He is probably one of very VERY
few people that gets me worked up.

Flyingmonk wrote:
Matt wrote:

Well, I'm not questioning is hacking ability, but saying that because
one person can't do this implies that it can't be done is just
ridiculous. I can't perform open heart surgery either, so I guess that
means to you that it can't be done, right?


No, not at all. My question is WHY would someone named Planeman,
posting from a DIFFERENT email address, would spoof Denise's NNTP and
post with a diferent name to support Denise's arguments? If Planeman
wanted to support Denise, he can just go right ahead and support him.
Why would he need to spoof denise's NNTP? Why would Planeman go
through the trouble of spoofing and yet posted under a different name?

So that someone could claim that Denise is impersonating someone else to
support his cause. That was just too easy. :-)


I'm beginning to appreciate Dennis' frustration now.


Sorry that I frustate you Matt, but I never meant to frustrate YOU in
particular. Normally I'm very docile, He is probably one of very VERY
few people that gets me worked up.

And I wasn't suggesting that you were. I just like to see logical
arguments and your argument in this case (I'm not saying this is true in
general) simply wasn't logical.


Matt

Matt wrote:
I just like to see logical arguments and your argument in this case (I'm not saying this is true in general) simply wasn't logical.

I'm just not good at arguing. Anywho, so what you are saying now is
that the one and only person that supported Denise is actually not
supporting him, but instead set him up? The one and only friend he had
in RAH was his enemy? LOL

Flyingmonk wrote:
Matt wrote:

I just like to see logical arguments and your argument in this case (I'm not saying this is true in general) simply wasn't logical.


I'm just not good at arguing. Anywho, so what you are saying now is
that the one and only person that supported Denise is actually not
supporting him, but instead set him up? The one and only friend he had
in RAH was his enemy? LOL

No, I didn't say that at all and putting words in people's mouths isn't
a great way to make friends and influence people. It really takes away
from your credibility.

I don't know Dennis or the history of his helicopter to comment on
whether he had one supporter, 1000, or none, and I don't have any reason
to find out.

I'm going to exit this discussion now as I've confirmed to my
satisfaction what I suspected all along.


Cheers,
Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
Flyingmonk wrote:
Matt wrote:

Well, I'm not questioning is hacking ability, but saying that because
one person can't do this implies that it can't be done is just
ridiculous. I can't perform open heart surgery either, so I guess that
means to you that it can't be done, right?

No, not at all. My question is WHY would someone named Planeman,
posting from a DIFFERENT email address, would spoof Denise's NNTP and
post with a diferent name to support Denise's arguments? If Planeman
wanted to support Denise, he can just go right ahead and support him.
Why would he need to spoof denise's NNTP? Why would Planeman go
through the trouble of spoofing and yet posted under a different name?

So that someone could claim that Denise is impersonating someone else to
support his cause. That was just too easy. :-)

Except that "planeman" was lashing out at everyone, for no reason, until
Dennis made his timed entrance. Planned and executed by Dennis, a
spoofer couldn't have set it up that way.

I'm beginning to appreciate Dennis' frustration now.

Oh, I don't think you really are. You're rejecting the simple and
obvious, and instead coming up with ridiculously convoluted scenarios.

Sorry that I frustate you Matt, but I never meant to frustrate YOU in
particular. Normally I'm very docile, He is probably one of very VERY
few people that gets me worked up.


And I wasn't suggesting that you were. I just like to see logical
arguments and your argument in this case (I'm not saying this is true in
general) simply wasn't logical.

It's simply the only argument that *is* logical. The spoofing argument
is absurd.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Occam's%20razor