View Single Post
  #9  
Old December 16th 03, 07:57 PM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Help Eliminate an Instrument of Child Torture

On 16 Dec 2003 01:04:23 -0800, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

Who alerted every state's attorneys general
and every state's CPS to this brutal child
beating device.

By BUYING one??


I can hardly take a stand against something
if I do not know what it is.


Sure. You do that constantly.


Examples?

But you've given up the argument, apparently, that there was something
unseemly in my buying The Rod to get it and the instruction flyer as
an example to show others what you and your cronies are up to.

Why did you give up so easily?

I also used it as an example when
discussing discipline with parents.


extremist. demogoguery.


Doan? Is that you?

It's spelled "demagoguery."

Naw, only you could minimize and deny a 22 inch nylon whip that comes
with instructions on how to strike children with it for "discipline."

How am I an extremist again?

But you are dead on target with the accusation of "demagoguery."

You just don't know that it's not an accusatory word. It just means
passionately appealing to the prejudices and emotions of a group.

And of course I do that. I care about children being injured and
stopping the practices that lead to it. Instruments of torture would
then fall well within my appeal range.

I think it important for people to know the
truth about what some parents do to their children.


You pretend it's the norm for spanking.


No I don't. I point out the extremes that parents go to.

By the way, possibly YOU would like to answer .... from the "norm for
spanking" to abuse....where is the line that one must not cross to
avoid injury?

That's a lie.


That "SOME parents" torture their children with instruments such as
this?

I think there are enough that do use such things on children that we
need to be concerned...why aren't you?

If it is a lie I would think they'd go out of production, don't you?
Who would by if no one used?

As I recall it was five years ago when I first ran across the ad in
Christian homeschooling magazine.

Profits mean users, users mean children hit with this ugly "tool."

Many homeschoolers, and many Christians are sick and disgusted over
this.

But I'm not surprised you'd defend it as acceptable.

Do you approve of The Rod?


Nope. That's what criminal laws are for.


Then what's your beef that I posted about it?

After all I notified state's AG's and CPS, the two most likely to
respond to criminal laws regarding child abuse.

I make the public that comes here, such as they are, aware of The Rod,
I point to websites that are trying to get this stopped.

In what way is that "extremist?"

(I'll own the "demagoguery," proudly.)

You probably doubled their profits.


At $6.95 per I get the feeling my purchase
isn't taking them to the Bahamas.

a nobody with the mind of a petulent 16 year old.

You couldn't have described a nasty minded
little child abuser better Greegor. One that
thinks 6 year old girls need to be punished
with cold showers, naked, while you watch.

You're "unburdening yourself" Kane??


I don't remember saying that.
Are you sure you are quoting me?


Search your own posts.


Obscure reference going nowhere.

Chinese tactic.


Another one? I'm unfamiliar with the "Chinese tactic." Is that a
debating ploy or just more of your bigotry.

Personally I know many "Chinese" tactics, as in diplomacy, business
negotiations, the infamous tactic of dangerously close fly-bys of
fighter jets to American reconnaissance planes, but I am completely
unfamiliar with a "Chinese tactic" in debate.

Should I ask Doan. Maybe he knows what you mean.

I'll match your "mind" against mine anytime.

Of course you would.


Give us a happy idiot smile.



Thanks.

This is even more stupid than your bogus
public warning to somebody who you claim
to have sleuthed out. If you had their
number you wouldn't have needed the bogus
public warning. What a giant WUSSIE.

Dummy. If you know anything about such
issues, and recent rulings in computer
security crime, you'd know that sans
warning there was a counter charge of
entrapment that beat a prosecution.

I should know. I told YOU about the
problem with entrapment.


R R R R... so then you played dumb and
called me a "giant WUSSIE" for posting a warning?

Good one Greegor. Excellent.

You just can't keep up can you now.

Judging from
your indignant answer at the time,
it appeared that I was the first to
inform you of that.


You'd be mistaken. Associates had informed
me before you did. I was indignant then,
and now, and will be in the future.
Crackers should have one digit removed
for each offense and the start on remaining
body appendages.

So you think that warning some nitwit


Who you callin' a "nitwit?"


The Hacker, but if the "nitwit" fits...


Wouldn't you know better than I?

in some butt crack of a newsgroup


I'm looking at five ngs. Which one or
ones do you think that applies to?


It doesn't matter. Off topic and not
a valid warning for your web site.


What web site? Give me the URL, I didn't know Kane had a website. You
can't imagine my curiosity.

And I can't believe you think there are no Crackers in or that come to
this newsgroup. I think you are trying desperately to back pedal for
ass covering purposes. Am I right? R R R R

is smarter than just a warning screen
on your secret site on the www?


I don't have a "warning screen" and I
don't have a secret site on the WWW.
I have newsgroup postings, and I
recieve E-mail. 'nuf said.


Then what was all that crap you spewed
about a honeypot?


Yep. A back pedal if ever I saw one, and a smokescreen too most
likely.

Don't pretend you don't know what one is and what it's for. YOU posted
that someone left an identifiable trace of themselves in a honeypot
and got caught and prosecuted and BEAT THE RAP with a claim of
entrapment.

I know that one way to beat that legal loophole is to post a public
warning. Then if the Cracker is stupid enough to play he has just lost
that bolt hole of "entrapment."

Is this getting to be too complicated for you?

Ask Doan. He's knows these things. Google on his postings outside aps.

Such a warning should not satisfy
any judge because nobody reads every
post in a newsgroup. Duh.


Sorry. You are dead wrong. You don't
even have to know a law to be convicted
of breaking it. It is sufficient to
make a public notice.


REALLY? Please cite the code on that.


Aaaaah, tell it to the cop that gives you your next ticket for picking
up bottles and cans on private property without the owners permission.
"But officer there was no 'keep out' sign, and I didn't know about
trespass laws in this city."

Won't matter you tore the sign down and hid it in the bushes. If it
ever was up, if there is a trespass law on the books you haven't read,
your ass is grass...and you can put THAT in your hookah and smoke it.

Whenever you and Doan can't respond to a simple challenge you go to
"burden of proof" "burden of proof" "burden of proof" cackling like a
hen just laid the first egg of the season.

But since you insist, dummy:

http://tinyurl.com/zhhf for many answers to your question,

and a sample below at:

http://www.lawinfo.com/legal-audio/real/8320.htm

"Ignorance of the law defense
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The justice system in the United States is based on the assumption
that all citizens know the nation's laws....."

......snipped in respect of copyright. Use the URL for the rest.

I'd see this is pretty damn public, and
in fact targets the very group that
would most likely have Crackers in it.


Nebulous imponderables.


Is that the sound of bubbles I hear?

I don't have to know who would pass down my road to put up a no
trespassing sign.

But I do HAVE a road, and this is one...usenet posting can lead a
Cracker right to one's virtual door...that of his or her workstation
IP if on fixed IP services, just as DSL.

But don't start panting.

I have never had a fixed IP, or not so you silly asses would be able
to find it.

Most don't read the Inquirer.

Besides you didn't say what WWW address to
stay away from.


Nonsense babble. Where did I mention WWW addies?


honeypot you said.
They don't exist without a web site.


Sorry. You are behind the times...much.

"Published By: Internet Week
Posted By: Benjamin D. Thomas
11/4/2003 10:41
SPONSOR: Captus Networks
Precisely Define and Impleent Network Security and Performance
Policies.

The name may be deceptively cute, but "honeypots" can be a serious
source of information for companies trying to protect their networks
from intrusion by hackers. Although technically related to
intrusion-detection systems and firewalls, honeypots have no real
production value as an active sentinel of networks. That is, they
aren't set up to actively protect against break-ins. Rather, they act
as decoy systems that appear vulnerable to outside attack, and
therefore are attractive to hackers. The more a honeypot is targeted
by an intruder, the more valuable it becomes.

Any traffic on a honeypot can be assumed to be suspicious because the
system wasn't meant for internal use in the first place, and the
information collected about these attacks can be used proactively to
update vulnerabilities on a company's live network.
"

Notice that this is about networks...not websites.

Of course a website can be the DOOR to a honeypot, but anything that
attracts a Cracker, such as an open common port, can be the door to a
honeypot.

Put up a no trespassing sign not a newspaper ad.


This isn't the newspaper. I put up a
"no tresspassing sign" in that recent post.
You are trying to claim it isn't what it is,
common for you study [e.d.].


So, as long as you've confused what it is,


Confused what what is?

I'm not the least confused, nor do I want anyone else to be. They are
free to google on the subject and read up...and "make up their own
mind." R R R R

could
you please explain what exactly the Hacker is
not supposed to do to what exactly?


No.

Why are you throwing up smoke? Hackers don't do harm. It's Crackers.

AND THREE MORE GENERATIONS OF THEM.

But, Commander, Liability and debt ends at death.
Kids don't inherit legal debts of their parents.
Where'd you get the incorrect legal information?


Not for a legal debt from a judgement
prior to death.


Kids do NOT inherit parents debts.


No, the estate does. And a depleted estate, after debts are paid that
are legally due...which judgements are of course...with say a 3
million dollar debt to pay off....r r r r.

Do me a favor. Stop twiddling your dick and ask a lawyer.

I'm not one but I do pay attention to laws on inheritance. Go get a
will writt....opps! Sorry! You don't even have even a ****pot. How
would you know anything about wills.

Ask about attempting to shield judgements against an estate and the
cute little word, "fraud."

I'll tell my wife that if I go first she
doesn't have to pay my debts cause I died.
I'll refer her to you when the judgements
for past due debts come in. You can go
to court for her.


Is she your kid?


We have kids. If I died, my debts, that is those of my estate, would
be payable still. Hence, my kids and hers wouldn't get any money if
there was a sufficiently large judgement against my estate.

Debts nor claims do not automatically disappear when one dies...that
is the purpose of the laws regarding that construct, that fiction if
you will, of an "estate." It isn't a person, but it exists in the law
as the final repository of the worth of a person, negative or
positive.

Kids don't inherit legal debts of their parents.


Widows and widowers don't need to INHERIT debt.
They are part of it in the first place, like
it or not.


Let me see now. Just how far are you going to split this hair...until
you think everyone is caught up in hair splitting and not the point.

"Don't Crack at me or risk getting your income for life and beyond
wiped out." Simple enough for you. It's a "no trespassing" sign.

But you said THREE GENERATIONS.


If I wipe out the entire worth of a hacker for his or her life it's
going to be much worse than that.

I can sue for far more than the Crackerhead is worth...or haven't you
noticed that in civil suits?

His or her estate is left the debt until paid. I like to think
everyone can easily earn a million in a lifetime (current company
excepted) so three million would be my minimum suit.

Then you make all of these DIRE THREATS in
a public place?

My "DIRE THREATS" are a legal step.

HOO HAW! Citations please.
How are DIRE THREATS a legal step?


Well, removing the hyperbole YOU introduced,
a warning is suffienct to show a boundary
in tresspass. We are in the area where the
boundary lays. Should I secrete it in a
bottle and pitch it in the ocean.


What boundary? You threatened me.


YOU? YOU are the cracker I am addressing with my warning?

Tsk. Wherever did you get such an idea. We were discussing the issues
and I use the indeterminate pronoun "you" or "I" to distinguish
between players, not you, Greegor, and I, Kane.

You wouldn't attempt to Crack my system. Would you?

But more importantly, would you know someone that would attempt, or
has attempted. I wonder what the laws might be about conspiracy on
this. Like if you collect enough information from me about my system
and its security that it assists another in Cranking...hmmmm...must be
something. I'll go look it up and maybe get back to you...or....R R R
R, maybe not.

This is where Crackers normally come
from, the Internet. This is where
I posted the warning.


And you mocked the idea of a bottle in the ocean?
The internet is that big.


A notice in a bottle cannot be seen until someone finds it in all the
ocean. I'm not going to put a legally chargable warning there with
near zero public notice.

The Internet is not as big as the ocean, despite your hyperbole.

And the Internet is the opposite of concealing, as an ocean would be.

Based on information you yourself admit


admit?


That some Cracker beat the rap with an "entrapment" counter charge.

Try to keep up. Less smoke, more attention, please.

showed that someone beat a case by
claiming entrapment because he wasn't
warned of a honey pot.


What honey pot? You said you have no site.
e-mail is not a honey pot.
newsgroups are not a honey pot.


They are a door, just as a website is. I posted the proof of that
above. E-mail is as to News post is as to website....each is a door.
None are themselves the pot of honey inside. LAN and WANs are the way
to a great deal of honey or a honeypot trap.

I know a fourth chanel but that's none of your business.

The ONLY way to beat that excuse is
to then...what....NOT post a warning?


If you don't have a site, Kane,


You are wrong. You are so wrong about so much it must feel right to be
wrong. You certainly practice it hard enough.

Is all of this
honeypot and warning crap


I don't find it "crap."

because you got
a nastygram in your e-mail or what?


Nope! I have a much better way of dealing with email and posts. And
no, I don't think I'll discuss that with you in a public forum. Care
to backchannel? R R R R

Why are you so curious?

Can't let go of this?

Phishing?

You warned about something vague.


No, it wasn't the least vague.

What exactly were you warning about?


Why do you wish the details?

I posted the sufficient amount for my purpose.

If I put up a no trespassing sign I don't have to describe the path
and the treasure at the end.

Why do you wish more detail?

Just when you think old Kane has lost it

Ya gotta have something to lose it.


You seem to dote on my words.


Thanks for noticing.


It's an effort, mind you, but like most people I'm, sadly, attracted
to and have trouble passing a wreck without gawking.

you best dig a bit deeper, or in your case,
just run Jackrabbit, run.

What a giant GAS BAG!


Oooo...


That's about the right sound effect.


I notice you didn't use the little smiley until you hooked up with
Doan.

Can't you be more original?

Now you've got me thinking of the ""dangerous""
beach ball monster on the movie Dark Star.
(A parody of Dr Strangelove, which was a parody.)


To get you thinking is, obviously, beyond my capacity.


That's why you outsmart me constantly.


You noticed.

In fact I prefer you in the pristine state of
innocence of thought you present here.


Innocence?


Yes. You haven't had an original intelligent fact based thought you
didn't immediately screw up, or that was relevant since I've noticed
you here.

One little pinpoint of white in your black paint eh?


You missed the metaphor. But you rang the bell on you being "innocent
of thought."

Kane is an overgrown whoopee cushion.


We loved that one. Perfect demonstration of what passes for a child
abuser here.

Say, Greegor the Cat Tamer.

I've been meaning to ask.

When you were training your cat to do dog tricks did you spank it and
give it a cold shower when it didn't do what you wanted?

Kane