At least 3 immature jerks in NANAE yet there was more than 100 immature
jerks who flooded NANAE because of Zacks inflamatory post.
No, I'd guess no more than five people from SA. Based on the fact that
you had to spoof your header to get a post on there. I couldn't be bothered
doing it, and neither could many others. What you think was hundreds of people
was in all likelyhood a couple of individuals speed-flooding the place with
spoofed usenet headers (or whatever they're called. I don't know a great deal
about the technical details of Usenet).
Uhuh, so I'll believe your 3 then when you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that the "three" who allegedly DoS'ed SA by providing evidence of
the incident, and when Zack/Lowtax has filed a compalint with the FBI on this
matter. But its apparent than either 5 or 100 of your members contributed to
1400 posts in NANAE alone in 16 hours; making that "more" useful group
useless to those that need to check it; or the VERY ones who needed to post
a question about a block that apperaed in a SPEWS record or an admin who has
booted a spammer and wanted to make sure that everyone knew that spammer was
Yes it would, but its been shown that Zack was the one who instigated
the attack and the padding of k5's article.
Where? Have you even read what Zack said, or the thread in question?
I'll post it for you again, in case you missed it:
Uh, did you read his reply to this article? Did you conveniently ignore the
four or five threads on SA that covered your members gloating about how they
Neither myself nor other admins at Something Awful advocated this, but
I have to admit that I was pleased to see it posted all the same.
Oh, and what about his admission above; that he advocated the abuse? Or his
scathing article about how HE wanted the "contact' email address to SPEWS
to sign them up for SPAM lists? That is encouraging the abuse in my opinon.
ONLY after many of the posters were being reported to their ISP's for the flood;
Shall I quote you his reply found right on ths thread?
Hi, I'm Zack from Something Awful, the guy who originally posted on our
front page about SPEWS and the guy who advocated our users posting off-topic
at NANAE on Usenet.
Additionally, Zack (or any of the other admins) did not even arrive in
the forums thread until well after the article was being pumped up. I have to
wonder why you're selectively applying the facts here in order to swing people
Which forum? SA's. The fact that they dont even monitor what is being published
in their forums nor did they stop their forum members from paddign the votes
and no so much as say "hey stop it, let the article stand on its own merit".
Not it had to take the minions of his website to come here to try and push their
problems onto others. The problem is spam, sweetie, and until you and your ilk
understand this, no matter what you do ,will NEVER change how SPEWS works, or
the admins who CHOOSE to use SPEWS operate.
I do confess it's possible, but it's hardly likely. You might just as
well say it was the NANAE guys who voted up the article in order to sling mud
at SA. There's about as much evidence for one as there is for the other. To
say that it was spammers is sort of like blaming the boogeyman for stealing
the last biscuit out of the jar.
Why? NANAE has been slandered in the past. The group as a whole has been the
subject of attackes by spammers. Spammers have even falsified their identities
to seem as if they were a NANAE regular; Its alot easier to belive that a spammer
is behind the DoS on SA than a person who has better things to do with their
There are also some anti-spammers that go about doing things their own
way, but blaming all NANAE for the actions of the few?
This is precisely my point. Don't go blaming the goons for the actions
of a few morons. We're a good bunch, and knew about the whole SPEWS thing long
before it spilled over into this. We were all searching for a peaceful, amicable
solution to the problem to start with, it was only after the obstinate, arrogant
nature of SPEWS prevented that did things turn nasty.
SPEWS? What arroagnt nature of spews? I see noithing arrogant. They share the
exact same freaking thing I feel about spam. IF ISP's dont want to be responsible
for their networks or their customers behaviour, then I and my customers who
pay me to keep their email inboxes free of spam have no willingless to keep
in contact with them.
So, why can't you offer an alternative?
padding k5's voting process
I've asked this several times, and not gotten a response, what precisely
is the problem with a whole bunch of like-minded individuals coming together
and acting within the rules of kuro5hin.org to get a story we approve of published?
Unless of course you'd like this site to stay the private domain of you and
your SPEWS-buddies, and wish to censor any dissenting opinion.
ask your members why they only signed up to vote that specific article up.
They are the only ones who can answer that question
[ Parent ]