At 09:40 AM 10/3/97 -0700, Alan wrote:
At 10:45 AM 10/2/97 EDT, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
Amazingly, C2Net doesn't like to see its product publicly slandered by reptiles like Vulis. If Vulis' opinion were based on anything other than personal ill will - ie, if he had ever actually downloaded and examined Stronghold and found any problems with it - he would have a leg to stand on. As it is, his allegations are completely unfounded.
If this were true, then C2Net would encourage me to publicly present whatever "evidence" I have so they'd be able to refute it. This is not what they asked me to do.
But it is what you *SHOULD* do. If you have evidence, then present it. If not, then you are just blowing smoke and FUD.
While it is true that Dmitri is a proven liar in the grand tradtion of the Soviet Union (shout a lie long enough and loud enough and eventually some people will start to believe it), and a pathological homophobic bigot (who secretly enjoys sucking cock but wears womens clothing to disguise himself), he was absolutely right in decrying the moderation experiment that was thrown at the list earlier. Sandy did drop his C2 rantings from both moderated and flames lists, because he considered them libelous. That's a line of bullshit -- it wasn't for him to decide libel or not. It's for a jury to decide. Sandy wouldn't have been held responsible in either case because he could have hidden behind the "ISP protection" clause of the CDA. As a moderator who was tasked with spreading the bullshit in one of two places, he simply could have thrown it to either of the lists and claimed it was his duty as moderator to put it out. Of course, by that time Dmitri had so little reputation capital that Gilmore patched Majordomo so it wouldn't even respect a subscription request for him. Dmitri's allegations shouldn't even have gone to the flames list -- they should have gone to the moderated list. If Stronghold has a weakness, or even a perceived weakness, it's crypto relevant. But, when Dmitri writes anything, he's got to attach a "cocksucker this" or "molester that", which makes everything he writes libelous. So, even if he had proof that Lying Fuck Freeh were a axe-murderer, he'd fuck it up and call him "Louis Freeh (cocksucker)", which would continue to throw his credibility down the toilet. Ultimately, Dmitri's allegations of weaknesses in Stronghold, true or not, are totally irrelevant. Without mathematical proof of a weakness, he simply cannot be believed to ever be telling the truth. So, if C2 said to him in private e-mail, "if you call Sameer a cocksucker one more time, we'll slap a libel suit across your emigrant ass, take back your green card, deport you and tell Russia that you called Yeltsin a cocksucker," well, I can understand why he shut up. Actually, I don't think Dmitri knows of any real weaknesses. As I recall, I think he made up some fictitious homosexual connection between Sameer and a law-enforcement agent and suggested that there was a "back door" in Stronghold (pun intended.) Of course, I didn't archive any of his spew from back then. Nobody did, he raved so long and loud at the moderation and Gilmore and everybody that it was all my delete key could do to keep up with his shit. So, don't hold your breath waiting for a repost of previous lies from our dear Kook of the Fucking Century. He might get caught, so he's moved on to new lies now. Cannonymous
I sent this large article out a while back, and apparently it never showed up on the mailing list. Perhaps it was too large I'll re-send it again in two smaller chunks. This article includes several long quotes. I urge anyone still interested in the C2Net/StrongHold thread to read the whole thing. I don't expect to need to contribute to this thread again. The "anonymous" C2Net shill (easily recognizable) wrote:
C2Net was wrong to censor the cypherpunks list in the guise of moderation. It was wrong to send threatening letters to people who claimed its products were weak.
"Moderation" is a misnomer. C2Net engaged in outright fraud by providing a list which C2Net claimed would contain the articles rejected by the C2Net moderator, then censoring articles from both the censored and the uncensored lists. At least one of my articles (not the one about Stronghold; the one quoting the threatening letter from C2net's lawyers) didn't make it even to the "unedited" list. I immediately recognized the "anonymous" shill's hysterical posting style (repeatedly calling me a "liar" and a closet homosexual, making numerous references to my ethnicity and visa status (incorrectly)). Do you happen to remember C2Net's "marketing director" who tried to create the nym "Locutus" via the remailers, and blew his cover because he couldn't change his style?
The burden of proof in claiming that there is a weakness in someone's security product is on those making the claim.
Nope. The burden of proof is on the vendor selling the product. In this case, the vendor is unwilling or unable to present any evidence of the product's security, so it threatens the security experts who question the product.
If anyone really does believe that C2Net's products have backdoors or weaknesses, why don't they present them?
Because C2net's lawyers have been harrassing those who did - plenty of their threats are quoted below. Somebody wrote, and I suspect that it wasn't cc'd to the list, so I'll skip the name:
Are you able to tell some one privately what's wrong with it ??
I'm very sorry, but I'd rather not... Somebody else wrote (my headers are a mess; I apologize profusely if I'm quoting private e-mail to the list. which I suspect I'm doing)
I'm pretty curious, because threatening individuals with lawsuits for questioning the quality of a product seems like an act of desperation. It also seems like it wouldn't hold up in court for a minute.
I agree that this is the behavior one would expect from a vendor that has any confidence at all in its product or in its ability to answer questions about its product in an uncensored discussion.
Imagine if McDonalds tried to sue someone that said big macs suck.
The judge would throw out the case after a good belly laugh.
As a matter of fact, McDonald's did sue some folks in the U.K. (where libel
laws are even weirder than in the U.S.) who were basically saying that
hamburgers aren't healthy. The defendants won just recently. One of the
problems with the U.S. legal system that you can be on the defending end
of a totally meritless suit, and still not recover your legal fees when the
suit is laughed out of court.
C2Net's harrassment included calling my home and threatening my mother-in-law;
threatening to seize all my computers as part of the "discovery process"; etc
(check out some of their threats below). Since I have nothing to gain by
publicizing the truth about them, I'd rather not deal with these creeps.
Jeff Barber
Lucky is lying: the censored articles were also filtered from the list which was billed as being unfiltered.
This is revisionist history. I can't recall any intimation at the time that any messages were filtered from the unfiltered list.
If you can't recall, I'm quoting a bunch of stuff below. At least one of my articles, the one quoting the threatening letter from C2net's lawyers, didn't make it even to the "unedited" list. The "anonymous" C2net shill further wrote:
While it is true that Dmitri is a proven liar in the grand tradtion of the Soviet Union (shout a lie long enough and loud enough and eventually some people will start to believe it), and a pathological homophobic bigot (who secretly enjoys sucking cock but wears womens clothing to disguise himself),
C2Net's shill called me a liar about a dozen times, yet hasn't presented any evidence of me ever lying. On the other hand, C2net's claim that I'm a closet homosexual is an outright lie, typical of Sameer Parekh and his employees.
Of course, by that time Dmitri had so little reputation capital that Gilmore patched Majordomo so it wouldn't even respect a subscription request for him.
This is correct: John Gilmore tried to censor me from this mailing list. As the result, I'm still here, John Gilmore no longer runs this list, and John Gilmore's "reputation capital" is extremely negative. C2net's shill seems to approve of Gilmore's actions, demonstrating once again that he he is employed by a dishonest and dishonorable organization.
Ultimately, Dmitri's allegations of weaknesses in Stronghold, true or not, are totally irrelevant. Without mathematical proof of a weakness, he simply cannot be believed to ever be telling the truth. So, if C2 said to him in private e-mail, "if you call Sameer a cocksucker one more time, we'll slap a libel suit across your emigrant ass, take back your green card, deport you and tell Russia that you called Yeltsin a cocksucker," well, I can understand why he shut up.
Hmm, I turned in my green card about 12 years ago, when I got naturalized... For what it's worth, Sameer is an Arab, and we all know the old Arab proverb: "Women for sons, boys for pleasure, but goats for sheer extasy." However C2net's barratrous threats were not transmitted by e-mail and had nothing to do with Sameer's alleged sexual preferences. Rather, I received 5 or 6 threatening phone calls at home from Janet M. Craycroft. Also the following threatening letter was served on me (on a weekend!) ]Gray Cary Ware ] Frieidenrich ]A professional corporation ] ]Attorneys at Law Janet M. Craycroft ]400 Hamilton Avenue Direct Dial: (415) 833-2297 ]Palo Alto, CA 94301-1826 Internet: JCRAYCROFT@GCWF.COM ]Tel (415) 328-6561 ]Fax (415) 327-3699 Our File No. ] 9999999 ] ] January 21, 1997 ] ] ]VIA OVERNIGHT COURIER ]--------------------- ] ] ]Mr. Dimitri Vulis ]6767 Burns Street, #4K ]Forest Hills, New York 11375-3555 ] ] Re: Internet Postings on Cypherpunks@toad.com ] ]Dear Mr. Vulis: ] ] This firm represents C2Net, a California Corporation. It has come to our attention ]that you are publishing false, defamatory statements about C2Net and its products. ]Specifically, we direct your attention to your January 30, 1997 Internet posting to the ]Cypherpunks@toad.com mailing list which you entitled "Security alert!!!" (A copy of this e- ]mail is enclosed.) ... ] As you are undoubtedly already aware, Stronghold is a web server that protects ]Internet traffic encryption. Stronghold is not a "backdoor" to steal credit card numbers. The ]statements contained in your e-mail directly cast aspersions upon C2Net's product and ]business which will not be tolerated. Dr. Vulis, at a minimum, your e-mail exposes you to ]civil liability for defamation, tortious interference with business relations, interntional ]interference with contractual relations and permits C2Net to seek compensatory damages as ]well as punitive damages against you personally. ] ] C2Net has authorized this firm to take all action necessary to put an immediate stop to ]your actions and conduct as described above, as well as any other conduct or actions ]undertaken by you which might prove to be harmful to C2Net. Such authorization includes ]the filing of a lawsuit against you to obtain injunctive relief as well as compensatory and ]punitive damages. ] ] Given the seriousness of this matter, we insist that you stop disseminating the January ]30 e-mail or any version of such e-mail. If you continue to publish defamatory statements ]about C2Net and its products, we will pursue all remedies against you. So that there is no ]misunderstanding, please confirm in writing by february 4, 1997, that you will agree not to ]further disseminate the January 30 e-mail or versions of such e-mail. ] ] Should you have any questions, please contact me or have your attorney contact me. ] ] Very truly yours, ] ] GRAY CARY WARE & FREIDENRICH ] A Professional Corporation ] ] [Signature] ] Janet M. Craycroft ] ]Enclosure ][deleted] The letter pretty much speaks for itself. Let me just point out that 1) I never claimed that "Stronghold is a backdoor", which makes no sense, 2) Sameer Parekh inists on addressing me as "Mr." because he's a college dropout extremely envious of anyone educated better than him.
So, don't hold your breath waiting for a repost of previous lies from our dear Kook of the Fucking Century.
Yep - since there have been no "previous lies", a repost is impossible.
But here are a few list articles from the time of the "C2Net moderation
experiment". For those who aren't award, Sandy Sandfart is the marketing guy
at C2Net who was trying to "moderate" this mailing list.
Sandy Sandfart posted the following lie (note the date):
]Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:26:27 -0800 (PST)
]From: Sandy Sandfort
This is the second chunk of the same.
Tim May described C2net's legal threats:
]Message-Id:
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM writes:
"Moderation" is a misnomer. C2Net engaged in outright fraud by providing a list which C2Net claimed would contain the articles rejected by the C2Net moderator, then censoring articles from both the censored and the uncensored lists. At least one of my articles (not the one about Stronghold; the one quoting the threatening letter from C2net's lawyers) didn't make it even to the "unedited" list.
As has been pointed out before, "C2Net" never "provided a list" (at least not one relevant to this discussion). Since it is clear you are fully aware of that, this is sufficient to "prove" to most of us the charge of "liar" against you (ignoring the several hundred other examples that might come to mind from the last couple of years). I don't particularly care about this except that it reinforces why your credibility is so low here.
Jeff Barber
wrote: [quoting Dimitri:] Lucky is lying: the censored articles were also filtered from the list which was billed as being unfiltered.
This is revisionist history. I can't recall any intimation at the time that any messages were filtered from the unfiltered list.
If you can't recall, I'm quoting a bunch of stuff below. At least one of my articles, the one quoting the threatening letter from C2net's lawyers, didn't make it even to the "unedited" list.
Since obviously none of us who were on the -unedited list can say for sure whether we received everything sent to it, I can't say with certainty this never happened. But.... This is the problem with being known as a liar. Nobody is inclined to believe what you say without substantitation. So I still don't see any reason to believe that anything was "censored" from the unedited list.
C2Net's shill called me a liar about a dozen times, yet hasn't presented any evidence of me ever lying. On the other hand, C2net's claim that I'm a closet homosexual is an outright lie, typical of Sameer Parekh and his employees.
I don't recall ever seeing such a claim from Sameer or anyone else at C2Net. Though given your penchant for making such "accusations" yourself, one could understand the impulse for making such a claim. The fact that *you* are constantly accusing people you don't apparently know of engaging in various sexual acts or holding a certain sexual orientation is evidence enough that you are unreliable. It seems to be your stance that you are free to fabricate anything the truth of which cannot be utterly *disproven*. This is consistent with your allegations against C2Net's product as well as the allegations of sexual acts and preferences you habitually make. Whether you like them or not, this is why libel laws and such exist. If you accuse someone of having backdoors in their product, but cannot or will not show any basis for the allegation, it's perfectly understandable that they might threaten you legally. And if you're simply "throwing rocks" at Sameer with no substance behind your allegations, the rest of us are unlikely to come to your "defense". Also, here's a little hint (from a non-lawyer): truth is generally a very good defense to a libel suit. You may squirm and dance and claim you don't want to deal with the hassle or expense of a suit, but we all know precisely what that really means... -- Jeff
Jeff Barber wrote:
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM writes:
"Moderation" is a misnomer. C2Net engaged in outright fraud by providing a list which C2Net claimed would contain the articles rejected by the C2Net moderator, then censoring articles from both the censored and the uncensored lists. At least one of my articles (not the one about Stronghold; the one quoting the threatening letter from C2net's lawyers) didn't make it even to the "unedited" list.
this is sufficient to "prove" to most of us the charge of "liar" against you (ignoring the several hundred other examples that might come to mind from the last couple of years).
Lies, like Beauty and Cocksize, are in the aye's of the beholders.
I don't particularly care about this except that it reinforces why your credibility is so low here.
The last bid I saw on the list was $ 150,000.00.
Jeff Barber
wrote: [quoting Dimitri:] Lucky is lying: the censored articles were also filtered from the list which was billed as being unfiltered.
This is revisionist history. I can't recall any intimation at the time that any messages were filtered from the unfiltered list.
Gee, then you must have been one of the list members who were so busy pissing on anyone that disagreed with your position that you paid no attention to things you didn't want to see, and managed to block out the posts which flatly contradicted what you wanted to believe. Me? Well, I just pissed on everyone in sight, and had a jolly good time doing it, but I also subscribed to all three lists at one point or another, and I read the message headers of most of the posts to the list both before, during and after the moderation experiment. {or censorship attack, depending on the angle you were pissing from}
If you can't recall, I'm quoting a bunch of stuff below. At least one of my articles, the one quoting the threatening letter from C2net's lawyers, didn't make it even to the "unedited" list.
Since obviously none of us who were on the -unedited list can say for sure whether we received everything sent to it, I can't say with certainty this never happened. But....
Yes we can... Unless you were on a CypherPunks mailing list in a parallel universe (not to be discounted, since some very strange things went on during that period of time), there were more than a few posts between Sandy and the list/list-members in which he spoke openly about the posts which he shitcanned, his (faulty) reasoning behind it, and a variety of other troubling 'rules and regulations' in which 'flameless' posts which made reference to 'flaming' posts, even if not quoting the 'offensive' part (such as 'bad boy!), became 'flames-by-association.' In the end, Sandy was drawing more Crayola lines between the list members than the CypherPunks conspiracy-theory maniacs. {The major difference being that Sandy was using the 'new' colors, which everyone knows are part of the worldwide plot by the underground reptilian Nazis.}
The fact that *you* are constantly accusing people you don't apparently know of engaging in various sexual acts or holding a certain sexual orientation is evidence enough that you are unreliable. It seems to be your stance that you are free to fabricate anything the truth of which cannot be utterly *disproven*.
Been there, done that, stole the T-shirt, and got out of Dodge without getting killed or caught. (Although there are still rumors of Tim May "headed North.") As they say in Texas (or should), "Even a bad shot is right 50% of the time--if he uses a shotgun." Read the News of the Weird, sometime. It uses only 'real' facts from the 'respectable' media and they still manage to paint a much more bizarre picture of reality than even the looniest of CypherPunks.
And if you're simply "throwing rocks" at Sameer with no substance behind your allegations, the rest of us are unlikely to come to your "defense".
Who died and made *you* Chief CypherPunks Spokesperson? (Anonymous? TruthMonger? Nobody?)
Also, here's a little hint (from a non-lawyer): truth is generally a very good defense to a libel suit. You may squirm and dance and claim you don't want to deal with the hassle or expense of a suit, but we all know precisely what that really means...
Yes...and we all disagree, nonetheless. We are getting away from the important issue in this thread, which is that CypherPunks are most effective when engaging in pissing contests and shooting themselves and each other in the foot. This makes the AOL'ers too nervous to stick around long, helps us to work off angry energy which might otherwise cause our hands to shake when working on sensitive nuclear devices, and gives people in the 'Home' more constructive and destructive things to do than sitting around all day cutting out those damned paper dolls. (And boy am I getting tired of that). If you choose to reply to this post, please be polite. I am a very sensitive person, and easily offended. CypherPisser
participants (4)
-
Anonymous
-
CypherPisser
-
dlv@bwalk.dm.com
-
Jeff Barber