Can Doan provide Alina with the Embry study? was Can Kane provide Jerry with the Embry study?

Doan wrote:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
Hihih! Alina is me is your claim, STUPID!
Claim?

No, it's my speculation that I share with others.

Hahaha! So now it's no longer your claim?

I see you can't answer the question about Alina's missing ISP though.

What missing ISP? You are exposing your STUPIDITY again. Hihihi!
The empty block of fields identifying a poster's IP provider from the
magnitude survey service for e-mail, Doan.

Then you are IGNORANTLY STUPID!
I would be if I bought that dodge. I asked you to explain, if you could
(you can always say, "I don't know"...but your ego is bound up in this
pretty tightly....rrr r r r r ) why no one but Alina lacks data in the
lower left block...the one that gives ALL of us, Me, Ron, Betty, and ISP
who assigned our IP number.

MEXICO! You, Ron, Betty... are in MEXICO?

Doan

Doan wrote:

On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
Hihihi! Kane still EXPOSING his STUPIDITY.
Just explain, please. And thanks.


0;-]


% Joint Whois - whois.lacnic.net
% This server accepts single ASN, IPv4 or IPv6 queries

Yes, but where email traffic magnitude is being tracked the RANGE of IP
numbers is surveyed. If the specific IP number is outside the assigned
range, it is fictitious.

Anyone, Doan, can get a hit off an individual IP number by doing a
general lookup.

I already proved that myself...to you.

That's why I picked the specific source I did...because I know they
don't get a hit, a return of data, on a fictitious IP. Every other
source does, because it's reading only the first two sets of the IP
number between points.

Stop trying to snow those folks that don't know what you and I do.




% Copyright LACNIC lacnic.net
% The data below is provided for information purposes
% and to assist persons in obtaining information about or
% related to AS and IP numbers registrations
% By submitting a whois query, you agree to use this data
% only for lawful purposes.
% 2007-03-01 18:56:55 (BRT -03:00)

inetnum: 148.233/16
status: reallocated
owner: Uninet S.A. de C.V.
ownerid: MX-USCV4-LACNIC
responsible: Gestin de cambios y configuraciones
address: Periferico Sur, 3190,
address: 01900 - Ciudad de Mxico - DF
country: MX
phone: +52 55 56244400 []
owner-c: DCA
tech-c: DCA
inetrev: 148.233/16
nserver: DNS.UNINET.NET.MX
nsstat: 20070227 AA
nslastaa: 20070227
nserver: NSGDL1.UNINET.NET.MX
nsstat: 20070227 AA
nslastaa: 20070227
created: 19980620
changed: 20040203
inetnum-up: 148.224/12

nic-hdl: DCA
person: GESTION DE CAMBIOS
e-mail:
address: PERIFERICO SUR, 3190, ALVARO OBREG
address: 01900 - MEXICO DF - DF
country: MX
phone: +52 5 556244400 []
created: 20021210
changed: 20060704

% whois.lacnic.net accepts only direct match queries.
% Types of queries a POCs, ownerid, CIDR blocks, IP
% and AS numbers.

Remember, unlike YOU, Kane, I don't call people STUPID or a LIAR without
proof!

Wanna know about email traffic monitoring, STUPID Kane?

I already do know. I know that you got a hit on the first part of the IP
addy that identifies the ISP.

I also know that MY source won't get a hit unless the last identifying
part of the IP number is real. It just returns null.

That's why there was none for Alina's IP on that particular lookup
source...that tracks MAGNITUDE of traffic, and there WAS for the rest of
us. WE aren't using, nor are you, fictitious IP numbers for internal
traffic at the anonymizing service.

Ours are real, Alina's fictitious.

What were you saying about proof?

Hell, I provided a productive hit by staying way from the source I used,
THEN I USED THAT TRAFFIC MEASURING SOURCE because it produces precisely
what I told you it did.....NO HIT because of the fictitious nature of
the IP number.

0:]





Doan

On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, 0:- wrote:

0:- wrote:

Where's your explanation for why all of us show an ISP who supplied our
real IP numbers, and NONE where Alina's IP number is run, which of
course means a fictitious IP number was issued for that account by an
anonymizing service.

Who did you subscribe with, Doan?

On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
Wanna me to show you how to do a lookup? Hihihi!

I already know how.

I can produce Alina's ISP by a Whois, but not by a traffic
survey....that disappears her ISP information, but not mine, and Doan,
not even yours.

Hohoho!

Hahaha! YOUR STUPIDITY never ceases to amaze me!

Doan

On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
Hihih! Alina is me is your claim, STUPID!
Claim?

No, it's my speculation that I share with others.

Hahaha! So now it's no longer your claim?

I see you can't answer the question about Alina's missing ISP though.

What missing ISP? You are exposing your STUPIDITY again. Hihihi!
The empty block of fields identifying a poster's IP provider from the
magnitude survey service for e-mail, Doan.

Then you are IGNORANTLY STUPID!
I would be if I bought that dodge. I asked you to explain, if you could
(you can always say, "I don't know"...but your ego is bound up in this
pretty tightly....rrr r r r r ) why no one but Alina lacks data in the
lower left block...the one that gives ALL of us, Me, Ron, Betty, and ISP
who assigned our IP number.

MEXICO! You, Ron, Betty... are in MEXICO?

Oh don't be so stupid. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself.

The STUPID one is YOU! Lookup ARIN vs. LACNIC.
American Registry for Internet Numbers
Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry

Tell me you are just "pretending to be STUPID" please! ;-)

Doan

Forrest Gump is smarter than you, Kane. Or should I say EMPTY KANE!
Hihihi!

Doan


On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
Hihih! Alina is me is your claim, STUPID!
Claim?

No, it's my speculation that I share with others.

Hahaha! So now it's no longer your claim?

I see you can't answer the question about Alina's missing ISP though.

What missing ISP? You are exposing your STUPIDITY again. Hihihi!
The empty block of fields identifying a poster's IP provider from the
magnitude survey service for e-mail, Doan.

Then you are IGNORANTLY STUPID!
I would be if I bought that dodge. I asked you to explain, if you could
(you can always say, "I don't know"...but your ego is bound up in this
pretty tightly....rrr r r r r ) why no one but Alina lacks data in the
lower left block...the one that gives ALL of us, Me, Ron, Betty, and ISP
who assigned our IP number.

MEXICO! You, Ron, Betty... are in MEXICO?

Doan

Empty Kane is making noises agian! Hihihi!

Doan

On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:

On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
Hihihi! Kane still EXPOSING his STUPIDITY.
Just explain, please. And thanks.


0;-]


% Joint Whois - whois.lacnic.net
% This server accepts single ASN, IPv4 or IPv6 queries

Yes, but where email traffic magnitude is being tracked the RANGE of IP
numbers is surveyed. If the specific IP number is outside the assigned
range, it is fictitious.

Anyone, Doan, can get a hit off an individual IP number by doing a
general lookup.

I already proved that myself...to you.

That's why I picked the specific source I did...because I know they
don't get a hit, a return of data, on a fictitious IP. Every other
source does, because it's reading only the first two sets of the IP
number between points.

Stop trying to snow those folks that don't know what you and I do.




% Copyright LACNIC lacnic.net
% The data below is provided for information purposes
% and to assist persons in obtaining information about or
% related to AS and IP numbers registrations
% By submitting a whois query, you agree to use this data
% only for lawful purposes.
% 2007-03-01 18:56:55 (BRT -03:00)

inetnum: 148.233/16
status: reallocated
owner: Uninet S.A. de C.V.
ownerid: MX-USCV4-LACNIC
responsible: Gestin de cambios y configuraciones
address: Periferico Sur, 3190,
address: 01900 - Ciudad de Mxico - DF
country: MX
phone: +52 55 56244400 []
owner-c: DCA
tech-c: DCA
inetrev: 148.233/16
nserver: DNS.UNINET.NET.MX
nsstat: 20070227 AA
nslastaa: 20070227
nserver: NSGDL1.UNINET.NET.MX
nsstat: 20070227 AA
nslastaa: 20070227
created: 19980620
changed: 20040203
inetnum-up: 148.224/12

nic-hdl: DCA
person: GESTION DE CAMBIOS
e-mail:
address: PERIFERICO SUR, 3190, ALVARO OBREG
address: 01900 - MEXICO DF - DF
country: MX
phone: +52 5 556244400 []
created: 20021210
changed: 20060704

% whois.lacnic.net accepts only direct match queries.
% Types of queries a POCs, ownerid, CIDR blocks, IP
% and AS numbers.

Remember, unlike YOU, Kane, I don't call people STUPID or a LIAR without
proof!

Wanna know about email traffic monitoring, STUPID Kane?

I already do know. I know that you got a hit on the first part of the IP
addy that identifies the ISP.

I also know that MY source won't get a hit unless the last identifying
part of the IP number is real. It just returns null.

That's why there was none for Alina's IP on that particular lookup
source...that tracks MAGNITUDE of traffic, and there WAS for the rest of
us. WE aren't using, nor are you, fictitious IP numbers for internal
traffic at the anonymizing service.

Ours are real, Alina's fictitious.

What were you saying about proof?

Hell, I provided a productive hit by staying way from the source I used,
THEN I USED THAT TRAFFIC MEASURING SOURCE because it produces precisely
what I told you it did.....NO HIT because of the fictitious nature of
the IP number.

0:]





Doan

On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, 0:- wrote:

0:- wrote:

Where's your explanation for why all of us show an ISP who supplied our
real IP numbers, and NONE where Alina's IP number is run, which of
course means a fictitious IP number was issued for that account by an
anonymizing service.

Who did you subscribe with, Doan?

Doan wrote:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
Wanna me to show you how to do a lookup? Hihihi!
I already know how.

I can produce Alina's ISP by a Whois, but not by a traffic
survey....that disappears her ISP information, but not mine, and Doan,
not even yours.

Hohoho!

Hahaha! YOUR STUPIDITY never ceases to amaze me!

Then show us that lower left block from the email traffic analysis for
magnitude website...hokay, for say you, and me, and Betty, and Ron using
our IP numbers, and then "Alina's."

Let's see if you get the same for us, and for "her."

Prove your intelligence.

0:]


Doan

Doan wrote:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
Hihih! Alina is me is your claim, STUPID!
Claim?

No, it's my speculation that I share with others.

Hahaha! So now it's no longer your claim?

I see you can't answer the question about Alina's missing ISP though.

What missing ISP? You are exposing your STUPIDITY again. Hihihi!
The empty block of fields identifying a poster's IP provider from the
magnitude survey service for e-mail, Doan.

Then you are IGNORANTLY STUPID!
I would be if I bought that dodge. I asked you to explain, if you could
(you can always say, "I don't know"...but your ego is bound up in this
pretty tightly....rrr r r r r ) why no one but Alina lacks data in the
lower left block...the one that gives ALL of us, Me, Ron, Betty, and ISP
who assigned our IP number.

MEXICO! You, Ron, Betty... are in MEXICO?
Oh don't be so stupid. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself.

The STUPID one is YOU! Lookup ARIN vs. LACNIC.
American Registry for Internet Numbers
Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry

As I said, they will all give us a listing of an ISP because they
recognize the ISP recognition portion of the IP number.

Tell me you are just "pretending to be STUPID" please! ;-)

The source I provided you does NOT work on a fictitious IP number (an
anonymizing service product) because if the full IP number does not fall
within the range of numbers assigned to that ISP it will reject it.

NO ISP will be listed.

That's why all of us, you include, who do not anonymize, show our ISPs
and Alina's does NOT produce an ISP reference on that website I provided
you. A fictitious IP number....common to anon subscription services.

You keep trying to run around this.

Why, Doan?


Doan


Kind of stupid of you to keep dodging so obviously.

0:]

Doan wrote:
Forrest Gump is smarter than you, Kane. Or should I say EMPTY KANE!
Hihihi!

Can't answer the question concerning OUR ISPs appearing on that lookup
for e-mail magnitude analysis, but Alina's does not, can you?

R R R R R .... so you resort to your usual dodges.


Doan


On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
Hihih! Alina is me is your claim, STUPID!
Claim?

No, it's my speculation that I share with others.

Hahaha! So now it's no longer your claim?

I see you can't answer the question about Alina's missing ISP though.

What missing ISP? You are exposing your STUPIDITY again. Hihihi!
The empty block of fields identifying a poster's IP provider from the
magnitude survey service for e-mail, Doan.

Then you are IGNORANTLY STUPID!
I would be if I bought that dodge. I asked you to explain, if you could
(you can always say, "I don't know"...but your ego is bound up in this
pretty tightly....rrr r r r r ) why no one but Alina lacks data in the
lower left block...the one that gives ALL of us, Me, Ron, Betty, and ISP
who assigned our IP number.

MEXICO! You, Ron, Betty... are in MEXICO?

Doan

Doan wrote:
Empty Kane is making noises agian! Hihihi!

Translation: 'He caught me and I've nothing left but the usual ad hom
dodge." Signed, Doan the Monkeyboy.

R R R R RRR R R R R R



Doan

On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
Hihihi! Kane still EXPOSING his STUPIDITY.
Just explain, please. And thanks.


0;-]


% Joint Whois - whois.lacnic.net
% This server accepts single ASN, IPv4 or IPv6 queries
Yes, but where email traffic magnitude is being tracked the RANGE of IP
numbers is surveyed. If the specific IP number is outside the assigned
range, it is fictitious.

Anyone, Doan, can get a hit off an individual IP number by doing a
general lookup.

I already proved that myself...to you.

That's why I picked the specific source I did...because I know they
don't get a hit, a return of data, on a fictitious IP. Every other
source does, because it's reading only the first two sets of the IP
number between points.

Stop trying to snow those folks that don't know what you and I do.



% Copyright LACNIC lacnic.net
% The data below is provided for information purposes
% and to assist persons in obtaining information about or
% related to AS and IP numbers registrations
% By submitting a whois query, you agree to use this data
% only for lawful purposes.
% 2007-03-01 18:56:55 (BRT -03:00)

inetnum: 148.233/16
status: reallocated
owner: Uninet S.A. de C.V.
ownerid: MX-USCV4-LACNIC
responsible: Gestin de cambios y configuraciones
address: Periferico Sur, 3190,
address: 01900 - Ciudad de Mxico - DF
country: MX
phone: +52 55 56244400 []
owner-c: DCA
tech-c: DCA
inetrev: 148.233/16
nserver: DNS.UNINET.NET.MX
nsstat: 20070227 AA
nslastaa: 20070227
nserver: NSGDL1.UNINET.NET.MX
nsstat: 20070227 AA
nslastaa: 20070227
created: 19980620
changed: 20040203
inetnum-up: 148.224/12

nic-hdl: DCA
person: GESTION DE CAMBIOS
e-mail:
address: PERIFERICO SUR, 3190, ALVARO OBREG
address: 01900 - MEXICO DF - DF
country: MX
phone: +52 5 556244400 []
created: 20021210
changed: 20060704

% whois.lacnic.net accepts only direct match queries.
% Types of queries a POCs, ownerid, CIDR blocks, IP
% and AS numbers.

Remember, unlike YOU, Kane, I don't call people STUPID or a LIAR without
proof!

Wanna know about email traffic monitoring, STUPID Kane?
I already do know. I know that you got a hit on the first part of the IP
addy that identifies the ISP.

I also know that MY source won't get a hit unless the last identifying
part of the IP number is real. It just returns null.

That's why there was none for Alina's IP on that particular lookup
source...that tracks MAGNITUDE of traffic, and there WAS for the rest of
us. WE aren't using, nor are you, fictitious IP numbers for internal
traffic at the anonymizing service.

Ours are real, Alina's fictitious.

What were you saying about proof?

Hell, I provided a productive hit by staying way from the source I used,
THEN I USED THAT TRAFFIC MEASURING SOURCE because it produces precisely
what I told you it did.....NO HIT because of the fictitious nature of
the IP number.

0:]



Doan

On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, 0:- wrote:

0:- wrote:

Where's your explanation for why all of us show an ISP who supplied our
real IP numbers, and NONE where Alina's IP number is run, which of
course means a fictitious IP number was issued for that account by an
anonymizing service.

Who did you subscribe with, Doan?