Dave,
I'm not sure that I appreciate your continued referrals to those who
disbelieve in Audrey as McCarthyists, fascists, "1600", or
witchhunters. To me, sock puppetry is probably the epitome of low
behavior in newsgroups. If one can't defend one's position without
resorting to fictional backup, then retreat.

I understood your point (as I'm sure Mark Lipton did) of some modem
addresses not reflecting geographic location, as typified by AOL. The
difference is those blocks of AOL addresses are dynamic addresses they
assign as needed. Yet Mr. Neidich has had the same IP address for quite
a while. Mark was wrong about one thing, Mr. Neidich is in Charlotte
not Raleigh- just like the IP address

24.148.225.120
Record Type: IP Address
Earthlink, Inc. ERLK-CBL-TW-MIDSOUTH (NET-24-148-128-0-1)
24.148.128.0 - 24.148.255.255
EARTHLINK, INC ERLK-TW-CHARLOTTE36 (NET-24-148-224-0-1)
24.148.224.0 - 24.148.235.255

Suddenly Audrey posts from the same address. It's true any AOL IP
search will show a Virginia address, is that how Earthlink works? I
checked a few local sites, looked at listing of top posters for
Earthlink/Mindspring addresses. Don't know the Charlottle group. But I
did try another NC newsgroup, and for an Earthlink poster on
triangle.dining (for the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area) found this:

24.225.65.114
Record Type: IP Address
Earthlink, Inc. ERLK-CBL-TW-MIDSOUTH (NET-24-225-32-0-1)
24.225.32.0 - 24.225.95.255
EARTHLINK, INC. ERLK-TW-RALEIGH11 (NET-24-225-64-0-1)
24.225.64.0 - 24.225.95.255

OK, so Raleigh group, Raleigh modem.

Then tried Atlanta, home of Audrey. A pair of Earthspring posters from
atl.general, the Altlanta newsgroup:

66.32.216.246
Record Type: IP Address
OrgName: EarthLink Network, Inc.
OrgID: ERAD
Address: 1375 PECHTREE ST, LEVEL A
City: ATLANTA
StateProv: GA
PostalCode: 30309
Country: US

66.32.196.227
Record Type: IP Address
OrgName: EarthLink Network, Inc.
OrgID: ERAD
Address: 1375 PECHTREE ST, LEVEL A
City: ATLANTA
StateProv: GA
PostalCode: 30309
Country: US

For fun, I tried a couple other groups across the country:

>From Austin.general
63.246.166.202
Record Type: IP Address
EarthLink, Inc. ERLK-CABLE-TWSOUTHWEST-4 (NET-63-246-160-0-1)

63.246.160.0 - 63.246.191.255
EARTHLINK, INC. ERLK-TW-AUSTIN12 (NET-63-246-160-0-2)

63.246.160.0 - 63.246.191.255
from nyc.transit
69.86.10.63
Record Type: IP Address

EarthLink, Inc. ERLK-CBL-TW-NYC (NET-69-86-0-0-1)
69.86.0.0 - 69.86.255.255
EARTHLINK, INC. ERLK-TW-STATENISLAND5 (NET-69-86-0-0-2)
69.86.0.0 - 69.86.15.255

Wow. It kind of looks to me like the whois results of where Earthlink
modems are indicates.....where the modems are. So I'm very confused as
to how Atlanta Audrey posted from the same IP as Mr. Neidich.

I'm about to make an offer to "resign" from AFW (and richly reward both
Audrey and Mr. Neidich if I unfairly maligned them) in response to Mr.
Neidich. Want in on the action?

Breaking my own rule of not responding to you (when I switched to
Google groups I lost the ability to killfile)

I somehow missed the posts from you and Dave (I had some house issues
Sat night/Sunday). While I appreciate Midlife's point about getting
along, I think it is crucial to the health of the group that no one is
unclear that sock puppetry is unacceptable. You say that :
"post again is of the maligning type. Group think works
for you I see. "

Actually, I generally try to (a) think for myself , (b) be reasonably
polite and welcoming, and (c) be courteous. I don't always succeed,
but I try. In your case over the years I tried to be polite online (and
was polite when you called me at my office, when you emailed me, and
when I delivered a package for you when Ian Hoare was visiting US).
When your posts once again crossed the line last winter, I chose to
ignore you rather than encourage you (I killfilled you once before for
your xenophobic rants, then restored after your public apology - which
you proceeded to undermine with your "jokes").

So now you say I have maligned you. I'm so sorry. Tell you what. Since
I maligned BOTH you and Audrey, both lovers of fine complex French
Burgundy, I'd like to offer you each a Grand Cru Burgundy. I'll send
you both a list, some Potels, Trapets, Drouhins, Rousseaus, etc (I'll
offer some top 1ers like a Dujac Combottes or a Comte Armand Epeneaux
for variety). You can each choose one. As soon as there's some evidence
Audrey is real, I'll get them to you (my brother lives in Atlanta, and
Betsy plays in NC a lot, so no worries re violating shipping laws). In
addition, I'll agree to stop posting on AFW forever. I'm a man of my
word, and have always donated any wine for a bet or a charity that I've
offered (you can check with folks at Wine Lovers Discussion Group or
Bordeaux Wine Enthusiasts if you have doubts). What a win-win for you
and Audrey- a bottle of good Burgundy and ridding AFW of one of those
pesky fascist regulars. All we need is for Audrey to step forward and
show:
1) she exists in Atlanta
2) she works for a company that uses Earthlink
3) she visited Oregon last week (copy of itinerary, maybe?)
4) she can post from Charlotte modems from Atlanta.
If she's reluctant to reveal her identity to a fascist like myself, I'm
sure we can find a neutral AFWer we both trust -no, Dave doesn't count.
There's zero downside here for you or Audrey, right?

Let's be clear. I think those that use sock puppets are vile. They
undermine everything that makes a community.

Dale, I very much would like to accept your offer to provide me with some
wine. Send anytime. That is my way of saying I really am the bigger man
and can accept your gift of apology. Your behavior really is McCarthy like.
In my case, not being a computer geek I cannot fully understand your IP
issues. Your issues, not mine. I have explained who I am and where I
reside. That is all I plan to do on that matter. Earthlink today did
advise me when their service is Time Warner there are certain (loops) that
pull identical IP's. I explained as much as I could being a non computer
person and they indicated that those with a little knowledge have made a big
leap.

If your killfile does not work...I am sorry for that. We are apparently
never going to get along you and I. I have not ever asked you to leave this
group...so don't. I am not going anywhere either. However for a case of
DRC..I could be paid off :-)

As for Audrey, I hope she/he takes you up on your offer as well.
Unfortunatly in the last posting Audrey indicated she was not returning so
you will need to contact that person direct for your offer. Since I really
am not Audrey, I cannot assist any more on that. I am still willing to let
you send me the wine however.

Sorry you had water-electric problems in your place. Hope you are not
trying to get rid of moldy labeled wine with me.

Re,dick




"DaleW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Breaking my own rule of not responding to you (when I switched to
> Google groups I lost the ability to killfile)
>
> I somehow missed the posts from you and Dave (I had some house issues
> Sat night/Sunday). While I appreciate Midlife's point about getting
> along, I think it is crucial to the health of the group that no one is
> unclear that sock puppetry is unacceptable. You say that :
> "post again is of the maligning type. Group think works
> for you I see. "
>
> Actually, I generally try to (a) think for myself , (b) be reasonably
> polite and welcoming, and (c) be courteous. I don't always succeed,
> but I try. In your case over the years I tried to be polite online (and
> was polite when you called me at my office, when you emailed me, and
> when I delivered a package for you when Ian Hoare was visiting US).
> When your posts once again crossed the line last winter, I chose to
> ignore you rather than encourage you (I killfilled you once before for
> your xenophobic rants, then restored after your public apology - which
> you proceeded to undermine with your "jokes").
>
> So now you say I have maligned you. I'm so sorry. Tell you what. Since
> I maligned BOTH you and Audrey, both lovers of fine complex French
> Burgundy, I'd like to offer you each a Grand Cru Burgundy. I'll send
> you both a list, some Potels, Trapets, Drouhins, Rousseaus, etc (I'll
> offer some top 1ers like a Dujac Combottes or a Comte Armand Epeneaux
> for variety). You can each choose one. As soon as there's some evidence
> Audrey is real, I'll get them to you (my brother lives in Atlanta, and
> Betsy plays in NC a lot, so no worries re violating shipping laws). In
> addition, I'll agree to stop posting on AFW forever. I'm a man of my
> word, and have always donated any wine for a bet or a charity that I've
> offered (you can check with folks at Wine Lovers Discussion Group or
> Bordeaux Wine Enthusiasts if you have doubts). What a win-win for you
> and Audrey- a bottle of good Burgundy and ridding AFW of one of those
> pesky fascist regulars. All we need is for Audrey to step forward and
> show:
> 1) she exists in Atlanta
> 2) she works for a company that uses Earthlink
> 3) she visited Oregon last week (copy of itinerary, maybe?)
> 4) she can post from Charlotte modems from Atlanta.
> If she's reluctant to reveal her identity to a fascist like myself, I'm
> sure we can find a neutral AFWer we both trust -no, Dave doesn't count.
> There's zero downside here for you or Audrey, right?
>
> Let's be clear. I think those that use sock puppets are vile. They
> undermine everything that makes a community.
>

Basta!! (enough) I've met Dale a few times, one @ my 60th b'day dinner in
Brooklyn he's not in anyway a fascist and works with the homeless, his day
job. The beanguy is more to the right than Dale but he's more an Eisenhower
Republican then a zealot.

I can not understand the beef but its sounds jejune. To paraphrase Quincy
Jones guys leave your ego's at the door.
And as my pal Salvatore da Bounca sez "Take it outside" pleeeeeeze.

"Richard Neidich" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Dale, I very much would like to accept your offer to provide me with some
> wine. Send anytime. That is my way of saying I really am the bigger man
> and can accept your gift of apology. Your behavior really is McCarthy
like.
> In my case, not being a computer geek I cannot fully understand your IP
> issues. Your issues, not mine. I have explained who I am and where I
> reside. That is all I plan to do on that matter. Earthlink today did
> advise me when their service is Time Warner there are certain (loops) that
> pull identical IP's. I explained as much as I could being a non computer
> person and they indicated that those with a little knowledge have made a
big
> leap.
>
> If your killfile does not work...I am sorry for that. We are apparently
> never going to get along you and I. I have not ever asked you to leave
this
> group...so don't. I am not going anywhere either. However for a case of
> DRC..I could be paid off :-)
>
> As for Audrey, I hope she/he takes you up on your offer as well.
> Unfortunatly in the last posting Audrey indicated she was not returning so
> you will need to contact that person direct for your offer. Since I
really
> am not Audrey, I cannot assist any more on that. I am still willing to
let
> you send me the wine however.
>
> Sorry you had water-electric problems in your place. Hope you are not
> trying to get rid of moldy labeled wine with me.
>
> Re,dick
>
>
>
>
> "DaleW" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Breaking my own rule of not responding to you (when I switched to
> > Google groups I lost the ability to killfile)
> >
> > I somehow missed the posts from you and Dave (I had some house issues
> > Sat night/Sunday). While I appreciate Midlife's point about getting
> > along, I think it is crucial to the health of the group that no one is
> > unclear that sock puppetry is unacceptable. You say that :
> > "post again is of the maligning type. Group think works
> > for you I see. "
> >
> > Actually, I generally try to (a) think for myself , (b) be reasonably
> > polite and welcoming, and (c) be courteous. I don't always succeed,
> > but I try. In your case over the years I tried to be polite online (and
> > was polite when you called me at my office, when you emailed me, and
> > when I delivered a package for you when Ian Hoare was visiting US).
> > When your posts once again crossed the line last winter, I chose to
> > ignore you rather than encourage you (I killfilled you once before for
> > your xenophobic rants, then restored after your public apology - which
> > you proceeded to undermine with your "jokes").
> >
> > So now you say I have maligned you. I'm so sorry. Tell you what. Since
> > I maligned BOTH you and Audrey, both lovers of fine complex French
> > Burgundy, I'd like to offer you each a Grand Cru Burgundy. I'll send
> > you both a list, some Potels, Trapets, Drouhins, Rousseaus, etc (I'll
> > offer some top 1ers like a Dujac Combottes or a Comte Armand Epeneaux
> > for variety). You can each choose one. As soon as there's some evidence
> > Audrey is real, I'll get them to you (my brother lives in Atlanta, and
> > Betsy plays in NC a lot, so no worries re violating shipping laws). In
> > addition, I'll agree to stop posting on AFW forever. I'm a man of my
> > word, and have always donated any wine for a bet or a charity that I've
> > offered (you can check with folks at Wine Lovers Discussion Group or
> > Bordeaux Wine Enthusiasts if you have doubts). What a win-win for you
> > and Audrey- a bottle of good Burgundy and ridding AFW of one of those
> > pesky fascist regulars. All we need is for Audrey to step forward and
> > show:
> > 1) she exists in Atlanta
> > 2) she works for a company that uses Earthlink
> > 3) she visited Oregon last week (copy of itinerary, maybe?)
> > 4) she can post from Charlotte modems from Atlanta.
> > If she's reluctant to reveal her identity to a fascist like myself, I'm
> > sure we can find a neutral AFWer we both trust -no, Dave doesn't count.
> > There's zero downside here for you or Audrey, right?
> >
> > Let's be clear. I think those that use sock puppets are vile. They
> > undermine everything that makes a community.
> >
>
>

Oh, I definitely used the "reply to author" option to notify Audrey of
my offer. She's psychologically unlike real person I ever met if she's
unwilling to come back to both rub my nose in the ground and get free
GC Burgundy. Weird that someone assertive enough to complain about
regulars on her second post would be so traumatized that she couldn't
face return, even for vindification.

But leaving aside Audrey, please send me the name and contact info of
the Earthlink tech guy who says that they have "loops" where they
assign identical IPs. Must be rough on the customers, with random
webpages loading because the other guy requested them. After I confirm
his/her opinion that it's possible than an Earthlink customer in GA can
post from the same static IP that you have been using from months,
I'll send you a serious bottle by way of apology and "resign" from AFW.
Until then I'll go back to ignoring you, as I've noted I find the
deception of sock puppet use the most heinous of breaches of newsgroup
etiquette.

In article .com>,
"DaleW" > wrote:

> Breaking my own rule of not responding to you (when I switched to
> Google groups I lost the ability to killfile)
>
> I somehow missed the posts from you and Dave (I had some house issues
> Sat night/Sunday). While I appreciate Midlife's point about getting
> along, I think it is crucial to the health of the group that no one is
> unclear that sock puppetry is unacceptable. You say that :
> "post again is of the maligning type. Group think works
> for you I see. "
>
> Actually, I generally try to (a) think for myself , (b) be reasonably
> polite and welcoming, and (c) be courteous. I don't always succeed,
> but I try. In your case over the years I tried to be polite online (and
> was polite when you called me at my office, when you emailed me, and
> when I delivered a package for you when Ian Hoare was visiting US).
> When your posts once again crossed the line last winter, I chose to
> ignore you rather than encourage you (I killfilled you once before for
> your xenophobic rants, then restored after your public apology - which
> you proceeded to undermine with your "jokes").
>
> So now you say I have maligned you. I'm so sorry. Tell you what. Since
> I maligned BOTH you and Audrey, both lovers of fine complex French
> Burgundy, I'd like to offer you each a Grand Cru Burgundy. I'll send
> you both a list, some Potels, Trapets, Drouhins, Rousseaus, etc (I'll
> offer some top 1ers like a Dujac Combottes or a Comte Armand Epeneaux
> for variety). You can each choose one. As soon as there's some evidence
> Audrey is real, I'll get them to you (my brother lives in Atlanta, and
> Betsy plays in NC a lot, so no worries re violating shipping laws). In
> addition, I'll agree to stop posting on AFW forever. I'm a man of my
> word, and have always donated any wine for a bet or a charity that I've
> offered (you can check with folks at Wine Lovers Discussion Group or
> Bordeaux Wine Enthusiasts if you have doubts). What a win-win for you
> and Audrey- a bottle of good Burgundy and ridding AFW of one of those
> pesky fascist regulars. All we need is for Audrey to step forward and
> show:

As for me I don't care whether Audrey is or is not a real person. I
don't want Dale to leave the list. His posts have been informative for
food and wine as well as entertaining. I think it would be a tremendous
loss.

Lawrence, I have never asked or suggested Dale leave. He has been having a
temper tantrum here. I enjoy his postings as well. Usually mouth watering.

In my earlier posting I stated following: But don't worry Dale is not going
anywhere...its just a tantrum that will fade.

"Richard Neidich" > wrote in message

link.net>...

Snip

"I have not ever asked you to leave this group...so don't. I am not going
anywhere either."

snip



"Lawrence Leichtman" > wrote in message
...
> In article .com>,
> "DaleW" > wrote:
>
>> Breaking my own rule of not responding to you (when I switched to
>> Google groups I lost the ability to killfile)
>>
>> I somehow missed the posts from you and Dave (I had some house issues
>> Sat night/Sunday). While I appreciate Midlife's point about getting
>> along, I think it is crucial to the health of the group that no one is
>> unclear that sock puppetry is unacceptable. You say that :
>> "post again is of the maligning type. Group think works
>> for you I see. "
>>
>> Actually, I generally try to (a) think for myself , (b) be reasonably
>> polite and welcoming, and (c) be courteous. I don't always succeed,
>> but I try. In your case over the years I tried to be polite online (and
>> was polite when you called me at my office, when you emailed me, and
>> when I delivered a package for you when Ian Hoare was visiting US).
>> When your posts once again crossed the line last winter, I chose to
>> ignore you rather than encourage you (I killfilled you once before for
>> your xenophobic rants, then restored after your public apology - which
>> you proceeded to undermine with your "jokes").
>>
>> So now you say I have maligned you. I'm so sorry. Tell you what. Since
>> I maligned BOTH you and Audrey, both lovers of fine complex French
>> Burgundy, I'd like to offer you each a Grand Cru Burgundy. I'll send
>> you both a list, some Potels, Trapets, Drouhins, Rousseaus, etc (I'll
>> offer some top 1ers like a Dujac Combottes or a Comte Armand Epeneaux
>> for variety). You can each choose one. As soon as there's some evidence
>> Audrey is real, I'll get them to you (my brother lives in Atlanta, and
>> Betsy plays in NC a lot, so no worries re violating shipping laws). In
>> addition, I'll agree to stop posting on AFW forever. I'm a man of my
>> word, and have always donated any wine for a bet or a charity that I've
>> offered (you can check with folks at Wine Lovers Discussion Group or
>> Bordeaux Wine Enthusiasts if you have doubts). What a win-win for you
>> and Audrey- a bottle of good Burgundy and ridding AFW of one of those
>> pesky fascist regulars. All we need is for Audrey to step forward and
>> show:
>
> As for me I don't care whether Audrey is or is not a real person. I
> don't want Dale to leave the list. His posts have been informative for
> food and wine as well as entertaining. I think it would be a tremendous
> loss.

Dale,

Thanks for the detailed post and response.

Now, I think Audrey -- or any woman for that matter -- would be foolish
to provide *anyone* with their contact information online, especially
given the rather vitriolic direction this conversation has headed, not
to mention some of the insinuations as to whether Audrey exists or not.
Do people here not understand privacy issues, identity theft/fraud,
etc., and that it can begin as simply as providing such information to
an unknown person online? In any case, after the character assault
placed against "Audrey", why should she -- or the person behind her
alias -- have any desire to do anything BUT leave the list, which it
appears she did?


> I'm not sure that I appreciate your continued referrals to those who
> disbelieve in Audrey as McCarthyists, fascists, "1600", or
> witchhunters.

Come now... you're combining several of my "fairness calls" from
multiple threads... however, if that be the case, then you forgot about
the 'illuminati'. I do remember stating something to that effect a
while back.

While I respect your right to your own views on the matter, I simply
call things as I see it, and admittedly it has the tendency to ruffle
feathers. To that degree, my apologies if my comments have resulted in
any offense to your or anyone else here.

However, if members here don't want me issuing fairness calls, then the
simple solution might be to stop posting accusations in the first
place, and just let the list be itself... it is, after all, just a
NG... and as Joe pointed out, there are far greater and important
things to do in this life than quibble over what goes on here... good
point, Joe -- I myself make that mistake far too often too, and forget
to take life less seriously than I regularly do.

However, Dale, let me give you the benefit of the doubt, and let's
assume for a moment that Audrey doesn't exist. To that degree then,
what does that tell you about this list, if actual people do not feel
comfortable posting? That they must construct an alias from which to
share their true feelings? If anything... I should think that such a
realization would have far-greater implications, than any offense
caused by the individual creating the alias in the first place...


> I'm about to make an offer to "resign" from AFW (and richly reward both
> Audrey and Mr. Neidich if I unfairly maligned them) in response to Mr.
> Neidich. Want in on the action?

No one wants you to leave, I certainly don't, and so I am going to
generously decline your offer of wine. I'd like to think the list can
exist and go on with members 'agreeing to disagree' -- that is, after
all, how we can make the list diverse and preserve the richness of
opinions, etc. It would be a very dull place if we all agreed about the
same things all the time...

In any case, while I'd certainly love to accept a bottle of good wine
from you, God knows, I have too much here already (not all of it good)
-- and besides, the vendange (and subsequently, home vinting) is just
around the corner, meaning very soon, there will be even more wine
clogging up the cellar...

Thanks again for your thoughts on all this.

Cheers,

David

I wish I had the elder wisdom of Mark and just stepped back (oh wait, I
think I''m a year older than he). Sigh, but I am weak.

"if actual people do not feel
comfortable posting? That they must construct an alias from which to
share their true feelings? "

The point isn't whether Audrey is a real name, but that the posts came
from the same static IP address that Mr. Neidich had used for the
previous several months and continues to use. As you mentioned your
experience as owner of a hosting company, perhaps you will comment on
how that could happen, or Mr. Neidich's claim that Earthlink assigns
identical IP addresses to multiple customers? If you do not understand
how sock puppetry from supposed regular posters undermines the
integrity of any community, then we just live on different planets. I
have actually have no problem with people with obviously false names (
I look forward to posts from cwdjrxyz, midlife, etc) ; I do have
problems with made-up people to make it look like one's point is valid.
One voice per customer, please.

I did offer that if she felt uncomfortable revealing herself to shady
character like myself, she could chose the uninvolved poster we could
mutually accept. (As to identity theft, while a very real problem, it
has become to some extent the bugaboo of the 21st century. Would
revealing one's name and place of employment put one at risk of ID
theft? Wow, I guess I'm in deep shit - tens of thousands of people who
don't even read Usenet know that about me! )

Oh, I did get a response from "Audrey" (I didn't see immediately
because spam filter tends to trap unknown senders from freebie mail
accounts). This is the first mail I've ever seen from a Yahoo account
with one of those lawyerly "privileged, confidential and/or proprietary
to Audrey Retadore" notices. I wouldn't let that alone stop me from
posting the letter, but I'll refrain as public posting of email is
frowned upon in newsgroup etiquette (obviously not as bad an offense as
sockpuppetry, but still the rules). It's too bad it wasn't a public
post, since as I was compared to Hitler I could invoke Godwin's law.
I'm a pretty sensitive guy, but I must say that emails from free Yahoo
accounts from a cellphone/PDA (like Audrey's final post, this came from
a Sprint PCS wireless IP, not Sprintlink which is their home internet
provider) by folks who don't seem to have made any impression on the
world outside of free Google Groups postings don't exactly wound me.
Especially when they use the same grammar and spelling as Mr. Neidich
(for instance it's McCarthy-like, not McCarthy like ). If you wish I'll
happily forward to anyone (even though the scary notice says I can't).

I got into this for several reasons:
1) I dislike dishonesty intensely. I'll take a regular troll over a
sockpuppet any day. Anyone who gives any credence to someone who uses
sockpuppets is a fool IMHO.
2) I don't like seeing people who had struggled to keep this group
going (while others have done their xenophobic ranting) called
belligerent asses.
3) I believe your and Dick's whole premise (that this group is
horrifically mean to newbies) is faulty. I think anyone reading Dave
from Liquorama's posts would see that Dick's description was either
mistaken or a lie. I agree the post questioning BigCAWine was badly
thought out , but he came back and said thanks for recs (to Mark).
Looking back a few weeks I don't see anyone being "mean" to Ben Snyder,
the retiring guy, zeppo, Gary, Greenpointer, ginmill01, TimTam, etc.
No one lashed out at Audrey. Of course, once she started commenting on
the regulars- and it turned out she was one in drag- that's a whole
'nother story. I'd like to see some concrete examples of what is so
scary.

Ok, I'll listen to wiser heads and just shut up now (though the
Burgundy offers still hold).

Dale W wrote:

Dale, as you know I was openly copied on that email that Audrey sent to you.
That said, let me state that the writing is not mine and I will not forward
or copy. You can do what you want. Secondly, realize that you may not be
afraid of posting or forwarding, but I have seen a recent John Doe lawsuit
on copyright infringment for such matters in Texas. Good luck on your
decision.

Secondly, since she copied me openly, I don't really see any similarity to
my writing style whatsoever. If you think McCarthy like, or McCarthy-like
or a compound word like McCarthylike is your proof its me than so be it.
Not much I can do. As you said she posted from Sprint...I don't think I
have ever done that so you should apologize to me now.

You could invoke Godwins law had she compared you to the ultimate of evil.
But she had to do that publically not in an email. You do not have the
right to invoke crap on that one.

My point is as follows:

1) M. Tomassi posted "End of AFW". suggesting it has been getting real
bad in here with spam, etc.
2) I responded and simply suggested ignore the bad guys. That AFW is
worthy to continue. My post was civil!
3) The three new posters come and St. Hellier starts questioning 2 of
them as to stealth marketers, Mark Lipton questions Audrey. 3 new posters
in 2 days under immediate suspicion.
4) Then Audrey posts on Oregon Wine and later suggests in another post
that new posters don't really seem welcome.
5) Audrey as a new poster was more civil in her posts than you and Mark
Lipton were in contesting them. You are not the police.
6) Seems to me like you, Mark and St. Hellier are the same person on this
cause you are "sharing the same brain."
7) REMAIN CIVIL. DON'T MAKE ACCUSATORY STATEMENTS....


If you planned to killfile me long ago, and according to your post had done
so until Google it really does sound, as Audrey suggested, that you had an
motive here when you chose to get caught up in this rediculous thread. That
was to support St. Hellier and Mark Lipton. Therefore, you attacked for
that reason and that reason only. You know it. Otherwise you would have
decided to ignore my posts as you have done for a long time. GET A LIFE.

> The point isn't whether Audrey is a real name, but that the posts came
> from the same static IP address that Mr. Neidich had used for the
> previous several months and continues to use.

My understanding is that Dick is on a cable modem/router, which is
typically assigned an IP via DHCP - and temporary until the next time
the router is power-cycled. In any case, it is doubtful he would have a
static IP unless he was willing to pay a premium. Typically, that's
only something businesses opt for, such as if they want to host web
applications or mailservers in-house.

In any case, if Dick has a wireless router, and it's unsecured... it
would be very easy for someone to piggyback traffic onto his
connection. Who knows? Perhaps he's got a secret admirer across the
street from his house who's been listening in on conversations -- but
you see, that is going down the same paranoid track this entire
conversation has, and I simply won't go there. That Dick denies he is
using an alias is enough for me, and it should be enough for the rest
of you all.


> experience as owner of a hosting company, perhaps you will comment on
> how that could happen, or Mr. Neidich's claim that Earthlink assigns
> identical IP addresses to multiple customers? If you do not understand
> how sock puppetry from supposed regular posters undermines the
> integrity of any community, then we just live on different planets.

One thing is obvious -- if this is a charade, it's exposing the fact
that this group would rather spend more time bickering over
*qualitative content* of postings, while completely ignoring the
*quantitative content* and static generated by all of the bickering.
That goes for my post too, I must admit - but I wanted to reply since
you did pose a question or two for me.


> have actually have no problem with people with obviously false names (
> I look forward to posts from cwdjrxyz, midlife, etc) ; I do have
> problems with made-up people to make it look like one's point is valid.
> One voice per customer, please.

Agreed, but of all people, I don't think Dick needs to hide behind
anything in order to back up his point. Like me, he's fully capable of
defending himself, calling crap where he sees it, and dishing it right
back where it comes from.

Now... if he *is* playing games... I happen to find some level of
amusement in that to be honest... because I think this list could be
well-served with a little fun... No real harm has been done, except
it's compelled you to spend a bunch of time trying to dig up the truth
of the matter about who's who... however you look at it, you might
consider it time well-spent (unearthing the truth about this 'mystery
poster') or, as I'd tend to look at it, a complete waste of time, as
sadly I have little time these days for much NG activity.


> I did offer that if she felt uncomfortable revealing herself to shady
> character like myself, she could chose the uninvolved poster we could
> mutually accept.

But you see... that offer, while no doubt genuine, can accomplishe only
very little. One online stranger over another... who's to say this
"mutually acceptable" poster would even exist, given your list of
acceptable posters are probably all feel the same as you in doubting
her true identity.


> (As to identity theft, while a very real problem, it
> has become to some extent the bugaboo of the 21st century. Would
> revealing one's name and place of employment put one at risk of ID
> theft? Wow, I guess I'm in deep shit - tens of thousands of people who
> don't even read Usenet know that about me! )

No, but all I need is your phone number, and I can wreak complete
havoc. I don't even need to know your name, SSN, nothing. Just your
phone number. I can purchase calling lists from major national telcos,
just like the NSA did (yes, it is actually legal -- but ethical? An
entirely different question!), and piece together a nice framework of
your entire social crowd (who you're calling, who's calling you, etc.)
Furthermore, I can use your phone number in researching credit reports,
along with reports for all the people who you've called, so now I can
construct if you have anything to do (business, mortgage, phone
companies, credit cards, etc.) with some of the people you're talking
with. Not that it matters, since apparently all this is simply a
"bugaboo" of this century...

My more general point was more along the lines of: why should a woman
give out confidential information of ANY level to a complete male
stranger?


> Oh, I did get a response from "Audrey" (I didn't see immediately
> because spam filter tends to trap unknown senders from freebie mail
> accounts). This is the first mail I've ever seen from a Yahoo account
> with one of those lawyerly "privileged, confidential and/or proprietary
> to Audrey Retadore" notices. I wouldn't let that alone stop me from
> posting the letter, but I'll refrain as public posting of email is
> frowned upon in newsgroup etiquette (obviously not as bad an offense as
> sockpuppetry, but still the rules). It's too bad it wasn't a public
> post, since as I was compared to Hitler I could invoke Godwin's law.
> I'm a pretty sensitive guy, but I must say that emails from free Yahoo
> accounts from a cellphone/PDA (like Audrey's final post, this came from
> a Sprint PCS wireless IP, not Sprintlink which is their home internet
> provider)

Have you considered contacting Yahoo to inquire? They're quite good
about digging up all kinds of crap on their users and selling it. They
were one of the first companies to fold when the NSA came knocking, and
I'm sure if you leveled a valid complaint, they'd dig up some info for
you.

Now, regarding the IP tracing to Sprint.. I did the same, and confirmed
it is on Sprints IP block. However, Sprint PCS or Sprintlink - it could
all be the same. All she'd need would be a wireless PCS card that can
either plug into a wireless modem (home use) or from the
office/remote/coffee shop, via the Sprint PCS (cellular) network. Same
card. Two different uses, two different IPs, one local, one
dynamic-while-roaming.


> Especially when they use the same grammar and spelling as Mr. Neidich
> (for instance it's McCarthy-like, not McCarthy like ). If you wish I'll
> happily forward to anyone (even though the scary notice says I can't).

No, that's all right. I'd honor the request for privacy actually.. if
not for legal reasons, than at least I think you have an ethical
obligation not to forward it without Audrey's permission.


> I got into this for several reasons:
> 1) I dislike dishonesty intensely. I'll take a regular troll over a
> sockpuppet any day. Anyone who gives any credence to someone who uses
> sockpuppets is a fool IMHO.

Aren't your lengthy responses to this 'sockpuppet' giving credence??


> 2) I don't like seeing people who had struggled to keep this group
> going (while others have done their xenophobic ranting) called
> belligerent asses.
> 3) I believe your and Dick's whole premise (that this group is
> horrifically mean to newbies) is faulty. I think anyone reading Dave
> from Liquorama's posts would see that Dick's description was either
> mistaken or a lie. I agree the post questioning BigCAWine was badly
> thought out , but he came back and said thanks for recs (to Mark).

You forgot this bit BigCAWine first before his "thanks" to Mark:

"Sorry to cause any commotion... I have actually been lurking the
alt.food.wine board for a little while and just decided to post. There
are so few decent chat boards out there discussing wine-- esp. CA
wine."

Don't you think it's the least bit SAD that a person who, in complete
innocence posted a question, followed up with a final note on this
thread BY APOLOGIZING for "causing commotion"? What is this, some
stupid vice-presidential hunting trip where the victim is expected to
apologize for being shot? That is simply disgusting, and I would hope
you could have validated BigCAWine a little more than simply saying
this matter "was badly thought out". Where is the apology BACK to him
(this goes for everyone who doubted him) for all the trouble they put
him through -- as no doubt, he was reading each and every post of this
thread to see if *someone* would actually be addressing his questions?


> Looking back a few weeks I don't see anyone being "mean" to Ben Snyder,
> the retiring guy, zeppo, Gary, Greenpointer, ginmill01, TimTam, etc.

Because they didn't say or ask very much.


> No one lashed out at Audrey. Of course, once she started commenting on
> the regulars- and it turned out she was one in drag- that's a whole
> 'nother story. I'd like to see some concrete examples of what is so
> scary.

I see now. It's okay for a newcomer to ask such and such, but NOT okay
for them to comment on "the regulars"? Even if they've been lurking for
a bit?

Really, Dale, you're just validating my notion that AFW "regulars" tend
to enforce an unspoken, illuminati communication code as part of all
new subscriber's initiation ritual. Should the new sub's play it safe
and do as they're expected, no problem. However, should they dare utter
"the secret word" prior to an unknown amount of time first passing,
then all bets are off and it's open season on them.

What's scary is that your post here has done nothing to strike down my
prior paragraph, only reinforce it. Not desiring to flame or argue with
you, just hoping you can see the direction this thread is forcing my
thoughts to go... we can take it off-list if you want to continue
discussing without creating more static here than we've already done.

Cheers,

David

Dave wrote:

> My understanding is that Dick is on a cable modem/router, which is
> typically assigned an IP via DHCP - and temporary until the next time
> the router is power-cycled. In any case, it is doubtful he would have a
> static IP unless he was willing to pay a premium. Typically, that's
> only something businesses opt for, such as if they want to host web
> applications or mailservers in-house.

Whether he uses a router or not makes no difference. That only changes
the IP his PC uses between it and the router and not the IP used to
connect to the internet. Take the router out and no difference as far
as the ISP is concerned. The router is an irrelevant point unless
you're trying to determine which computer inside a particular building.

> Whether he uses a router or not makes no difference. That only changes
> the IP his PC uses between it and the router and not the IP used to
> connect to the internet. Take the router out and no difference as far
> as the ISP is concerned. The router is an irrelevant point unless
> you're trying to determine which computer inside a particular building.

I'm not talking about the IP assigned to his PC within the subnet in
his home or building. I'm talking about the IP address assigned to the
router. By default, cable modems are assigned dynamic IPs. Comcast is a
perfect example of this. If you unplug the modem, or the modem is
reset, you may need to refresh/reset your DHCP settings, as they time
out after so many hours or days. This results in a constant "catch and
release" between the central (DHCP) server and all the cable modems
being routed through it. It's very possible someone else within the IP
block may be re-assigned your IP if your cable modem happens to go
offline for even just a few minutes. I had this happen several times
over the years (now on FIOS, which is even worse - absolutely random
IPs throughout an entire range).

David

OK, it's very possible that Mr. Neidich has a dynamic IP, and just
hasn't needed to reboot the router in months. But the idea that he has
a secret admirer in his neighborhood defending his views while
piggybacking on his network, or that his router went down for a while,
the IP was assigned to someone who just happened to want to make a post
to AFW, and then was REASSIGNED to Neidich defies belief.

>Now... if he *is* playing games... I happen to find some level of
>amusement in that to be honest..

See, this is the problem. Deception and lies are not funny. A violation
of the trust of the community is not funny.

>No, but all I need is your phone number, and I can wreak complete
>havoc. I don't even need to know your name, SSN, nothing. Just your
>phone number.

Hey, it's listed. Do your best!

>My more general point was more along the lines of: why should a woman
>give out confidential information of ANY level to a complete male
>stranger?

I don't think most people would regard proof of existence as
confidential.

>No, that's all right. I'd honor the request for privacy actually.. if
>not for legal reasons, than at least I think you have an ethical
>obligation not to forward it without Audrey's permission.

Whoa, one must ask for permission before forwarding email? Do you do
that before you forward any email? This had one of those privacy
notices, but I actually AM the person it was addressed to. Besides, how
can I violate the privacy of a person who has left no evidence "she"
even exists (can you name me one other person who would show zero hits
on Google)? One cannot violate the privacy of a pseudonym. Certainly in
this case this email contained no confidential information, unless one
thinks its a secret that I'm a combination of Hitler, Cheney, and
Milosovic. I forwarded it to a few friends, certainly none of them know
anything about "audrey" that they didn't know before!

>Aren't your lengthy responses to this 'sockpuppet' giving credence??

In retrospect, maybe I should have left it alone. But I felt that lies
are better dealt with than ignored. Possibly wrongly.

>Really, Dale, you're just validating my notion that AFW "regulars" tend
>to enforce an unspoken, illuminati communication code as part of all
>new subscriber's initiation ritual. Should the new sub's play it safe
>and do as they're expected, no problem. However, should they dare utter
>"the secret word" prior to an unknown amount of time first passing,
>then all bets are off and it's open season on them.

No, I think the correct notion is that people (I should be more exact
and not speak for other, so let's say that I) despise people who enter
a community under false pretenses. People who play with sockpuppets
are the scum of the Usenet universe. For others who I just think are a
detriment to the community (regulars or not) , I'll just go back to
ignoring.

As to newbies, as far as I am concerned they can question and criticize
regulars all they want. But as Usenet is a forum for discussion, don't
expect to post something w/o
possibility of someone debating/refuting it. I'll happily debate-
unless there's clear evidence that one is liar.

And now back to your regular programming.

"DaleW" snipit>


> No, I think the correct notion is that people (I should be more exact
> and not speak for other, so let's say that I) despise people who enter
> a community under false pretenses.

First, I did not enter community under any false pretenses. I have been
here for over 12 years.

If you really wanted to killfile me, and I have no problem with that, you
should stop talking behind my back loud enough for me he hear. See that is
RUDE.

Isn't the very idea of killfile to ignore! Not to continue BS like this.

Your actions here are RUDE! I am not Audrey. That is all I will say to
that.

Dave wrote:

> I'm not talking about the IP assigned to his PC within the subnet in
> his home or building. I'm talking about the IP address assigned to the
> router. By default, cable modems are assigned dynamic IPs. Comcast is a
> perfect example of this. If you unplug the modem, or the modem is
> reset, you may need to refresh/reset your DHCP settings, as they time
> out after so many hours or days.

Its not the modem that is assigned a DHCP IP. It is the PC. The modem
is just a conduit. You control the DHCP or Static IP settings in
Windows, not the modem. If you reset the router it too may get a new
dynamic IP from the ISP. Same as if the router didn't exist. Then the
ISP would issue the IP to the PC just the same as it did with the
router. The cable modem has nothing to do with the IP, dynamic or static.

> Its not the modem that is assigned a DHCP IP. It is the PC. The modem
> is just a conduit. You control the DHCP or Static IP settings in
> Windows, not the modem. If you reset the router it too may get a new
> dynamic IP from the ISP. Same as if the router didn't exist. Then the
> ISP would issue the IP to the PC just the same as it did with the
> router. The cable modem has nothing to do with the IP, dynamic or static.

It sounds as though you've never set up a home network with multiple
machines. The IP address stops at your modem/firewall/router/switch
(whatever you want to call it). Behind the modem is an
internally-assigned set of IPs, but the firewall is assigned the IP
(dynamic or static) by your ISP...

> See, this is the problem. Deception and lies are not funny. A violation
> of the trust of the community is not funny.

If it's intended malicously, absolutely, deception of any sort is
wrong. If it's intended playfully, well, that's all it is, and should
be seen as such.


> I don't think most people would regard proof of existence as
> confidential.

In a previous post you asked for contact information. That can be
considered confidential, especially should Audrey have an unlisted
number, etc. I think the bigger picture is, it's easier for a male
(than a female) to hand out information freely on the web without being
too worried about repercussions. Just look at the way this list has
behaved and essentially scared off all female members...


> Whoa, one must ask for permission before forwarding email?

If you're going to harp on others about etiquette and ethics, yes,
given the email you speak of contained a notice asking that it not be
forwarded without permission from the author.

If you want to change the rules so they apply in your favor in all
situations, then I feel another "1600" comparison might be
approaching...


> As to newbies, as far as I am concerned they can question and criticize
> regulars all they want. But as Usenet is a forum for discussion, don't
> expect to post something w/o
> possibility of someone debating/refuting it. I'll happily debate-
> unless there's clear evidence that one is liar.

Debating/refuting is fine - outright character assassination is
another.

David

Dave wrote:

> It sounds as though you've never set up a home network with multiple
> machines. The IP address stops at your modem/firewall/router/switch
> (whatever you want to call it). Behind the modem is an
> internally-assigned set of IPs, but the firewall is assigned the IP
> (dynamic or static) by your ISP...

My reply was regarding the notion that the IP is assigned to the modem.
It most certainly is not. The point was that the cable modem has zero
to do with an IP whether static or dynamic. Its the router, firewall or
PC that is assigned the IP by the ISP, not the modem.

Dave wrote:

> My understanding is that [someone] is on a cable modem/router, which is
> typically assigned an IP via DHCP - and temporary until the next time
> the router is power-cycled. In any case, it is doubtful he would have a
> static IP unless he was willing to pay a premium. Typically, that's
> only something businesses opt for, such as if they want to host web
> applications or mailservers in-house.

Actually, I've found that I effectively have a static IP address
even though I do not pay for one.

I do not know how long the lease time is, but Comcast caches the DHCP
assignment made to my router, so I always get the same address regardless
of how often I power-cycle the router as long as my router has the same
MAC address, and this has been the case for well over two years.

This may not be the case for all cable modem users, but it certainly
isn't like a telephone modem pool, where connections come and go
frequently and you don't have a MAC address to lease a DHCP address to.

Enough now.

Dana

> My reply was regarding the notion that the IP is assigned to the modem.
> It most certainly is not. The point was that the cable modem has zero
> to do with an IP whether static or dynamic. Its the router, firewall or
> PC that is assigned the IP by the ISP, not the modem.

Um, yeah, that was fully understood to begin with. Thanks for making my
point.

The IP is certainly assigned by the ISP. Most cable ISPs these days
requires that you use a gateway "modem" (essentially a cheap
firewall/router combo). Unless your PC is equiped with a coaxial cable
jack...

Any number of PCs sitting behind the router/firewall (this being on the
"traditional" broadband cable/fiber setting), when broadcasting/sending
packets, do all broadcast as originating from the same IP as the
firewall. Should that firewall/router double as wireless, anyone could
easily connect via it and begin sending mails, browsing, etc. -- all of
which would send out as originating from that same firewall IP.

The whole purpose of the bleeping firewall is to act as a buffer
against intruders. Anyone pinging the originating IP is stopped at the
firewall, so they cannot break in beyond and potentially infiltrate
your PC.

My point is that traceroutes performed on cable modem users sheds
little, given the fact the IPs are most often dynamically assigned, but
also because if the modem is unsecured, someone could easily connect in
from down the street, and what do you know? That person's outgoing
packets would also be branded with the same exact IP as the lawful
owner/user of that same cable connection.

Let's put it this way. I have a wireless router here. I can pop open my
Bluetooth network settings with a wireless laptop, and *bing* two or
three other neighborhood connections open up, one of which is
unsecured. Should I tire of my 5-Meg FIOS connection here, I can always
have my laptop remotely connect to my neighbor's (down the street), and
anything I do or send would be sent via their router, and any
traceroutes would come back -- and stop -- at that same router, NOT my
laptop here.

That is the ultimate point I have been trying to make. The witch hunt
for Dick's alter ego should cease immediately.

David

> Actually, I've found that I effectively have a static IP address
> even though I do not pay for one.

Sure, that's the case for a lot of users, until the power drops on your
router and when powering up, you find the leased IP has been given to
the next guy down the street who's also powering up.


> I do not know how long the lease time is, but Comcast caches the DHCP
> assignment made to my router, so I always get the same address regardless
> of how often I power-cycle the router as long as my router has the same
> MAC address, and this has been the case for well over two years.

Leasing is auto-renewed unless at a point when power is lost, and
someone else's router is jockeying for an open IP. I cycled through
about ten different IPs in the course of two weeks once, when
construction consistently cut my Comcast cable setting. Admittedly, I
was in a relatively large suburbia scape at the time with about 100,000
customers, so a lot of demand for open IPs.. the point is, it can
happen when you least expect.


> This may not be the case for all cable modem users, but it certainly
> isn't like a telephone modem pool, where connections come and go
> frequently and you don't have a MAC address to lease a DHCP address to.

I certainly wasn't comparing anything to telephone modems. I have no
idea where you got that idea. Haven't used a dialup in over five years.
Have a nice 5-Meg fiber connection, but what do you know -- even it is
a dynamic assignment. All I have to do is power cycle it for TEN whole
seconds, and immediately, a new IP is assigned. Checking
www.hostip.info, I find that my current IP was last leased to a FIOS
customer in Reston, Virginia... even though I'm 3,000 miles from
that...


> Enough now.

Yes, it would be nice if people could stop being myopic with their
wanna-be Sherlock Holmes methodologies, as they're obviously flawed. It
shouldn't be this easy to poke so many holes in them --- and yet, the
conspiracy theories persist.

David

Dave wrote:

> I certainly wasn't comparing anything to telephone modems. I have no
> idea where you got that idea. Haven't used a dialup in over five years.
> Have a nice 5-Meg fiber connection, but what do you know -- even it is
> a dynamic assignment. All I have to do is power cycle it for TEN whole
> seconds, and immediately, a new IP is assigned.

I suppose my part of the Comcast fabric is quieter. I've never seen
a new IP assigned, save for the time I intentionally changed the MAC
on my router in order to force a new IP address assignment, because
I was tripping over a bum router in the fabric (long story; suffice it
to say, Comcast "support" was politely helpless and I had to figure
out a solution to my own problem).

You're only getting 5Mbps on your fiber? I routinely see 6Mbps+
on the cable (downstream; upstream is dull, that's where fiber really
wins). I haven't used analog dial-up myself in, um, 8 years, though
ISDN (used that for a bit) is technically dial-up.

> Checking
> www.hostip.info, I find that my current IP was last leased to a FIOS
> customer in Reston, Virginia... even though I'm 3,000 miles from
> that...

I wouldn't trust www.hostip.info; it thinks my current IP is in
Minnesota, dreadfully wrong. www.maxmind.com is more on the ball.

Dana

Dave wrote:

> The IP is certainly assigned by the ISP. Most cable ISPs these days
> requires that you use a gateway "modem" (essentially a cheap
> firewall/router combo). Unless your PC is equiped with a coaxial cable
> jack...

Um...no. The modem is not a firewall/router combo. It does neither
function. A firewall or router is a separate piece of equipment.

Dave wrote:

> My point is that traceroutes performed on cable modem users sheds
> little, given the fact the IPs are most often dynamically assigned, but
> also because if the modem is unsecured, someone could easily connect in
> from down the street, and what do you know? That person's outgoing
> packets would also be branded with the same exact IP as the lawful
> owner/user of that same cable connection.
>
> Let's put it this way. I have a wireless router here. I can pop open my
> Bluetooth network settings with a wireless laptop, and *bing* two or
> three other neighborhood connections open up, one of which is
> unsecured. Should I tire of my 5-Meg FIOS connection here, I can always
> have my laptop remotely connect to my neighbor's (down the street), and
> anything I do or send would be sent via their router, and any
> traceroutes would come back -- and stop -- at that same router, NOT my
> laptop here.

I've been sitting this thread, but it's getting a bit silly now.

Look, IMHO, Dick is and has been a fine and upstanding member of a.f.w
for many years. Either he's a victim or a prankster in this case, and
it doesn't really matter to me, let's just let it go.

David, of course most consumer firewall/routers are configured to
use NAT, so all hosts behind the router will appear to be one host.
If someone is running an open access-point, then it's possible to
have drive-by users.

Of course, this would mean that Audrey was sitting outside Dick's
home on 1 Sep 2006 from around 8am to 10am and switched-over to
Sprint PCS (a mational wireless service) later in the day. If
I were Dick, I'd be highly concerned about a stalker - what are
the odds that someone would just show up in front of my house at
breakfast-time and join into the same thread on alt.food.wine that
I was posting on?

But, like I started with, let's just let it go.

Dana

Some how I think I am a victom. Any guess who in this group would pull
such a thing?

I know nothing about the actual IP Networking other than I know what I use.

Shortly after my post to M. Tomassi on the end of AFW my computer has been
malfuctioning. Here were some of the oddball occurances.

1) mailto links stopped working and when I click on an email link in
outlook or IE it would open up 57 web sites.
2) File associations on .EML ceased to work.
3) My computer had had a hard time with pulling an IP address throught
the wireless linksys router.

All of these issues are not fixed.

I had some support here that ran the fixes to my issues but it was not a
virus. Likely an intrusion. However no proof of that. Someone trying to do
harm.

I run firewall software and do remember it asking me to allow an IP access.

Now, I do beleive that someone in this group that really understands this
stuff was the instigator. I cannot blame anyone specifically but I do have
my suspicions. Likely some of those attempting to discredit me.

Well, my support persons changed the access to the computer at this point
not to allow remote access at all. Plus I now have more password
protection.

Thanks to those members that posted here I knew there was a problem somehow.

As for Sprint IP address, not me. I do not use Sprint..Earthlink/Time
Warner. Just like I have always stated.




"Dana H. Myers" > wrote in message
...
> Dave wrote:
>
>> My point is that traceroutes performed on cable modem users sheds
>> little, given the fact the IPs are most often dynamically assigned, but
>> also because if the modem is unsecured, someone could easily connect in
>> from down the street, and what do you know? That person's outgoing
>> packets would also be branded with the same exact IP as the lawful
>> owner/user of that same cable connection.
>>
>> Let's put it this way. I have a wireless router here. I can pop open my
>> Bluetooth network settings with a wireless laptop, and *bing* two or
>> three other neighborhood connections open up, one of which is
>> unsecured. Should I tire of my 5-Meg FIOS connection here, I can always
>> have my laptop remotely connect to my neighbor's (down the street), and
>> anything I do or send would be sent via their router, and any
>> traceroutes would come back -- and stop -- at that same router, NOT my
>> laptop here.
>
> I've been sitting this thread, but it's getting a bit silly now.
>
> Look, IMHO, Dick is and has been a fine and upstanding member of a.f.w
> for many years. Either he's a victim or a prankster in this case, and
> it doesn't really matter to me, let's just let it go.
>
> David, of course most consumer firewall/routers are configured to
> use NAT, so all hosts behind the router will appear to be one host.
> If someone is running an open access-point, then it's possible to
> have drive-by users.
>
> Of course, this would mean that Audrey was sitting outside Dick's
> home on 1 Sep 2006 from around 8am to 10am and switched-over to
> Sprint PCS (a mational wireless service) later in the day. If
> I were Dick, I'd be highly concerned about a stalker - what are
> the odds that someone would just show up in front of my house at
> breakfast-time and join into the same thread on alt.food.wine that
> I was posting on?
>
> But, like I started with, let's just let it go.
>
> Dana

> Um...no. The modem is not a firewall/router combo. It does neither
> function. A firewall or router is a separate piece of equipment.

I think the confusion is whether you're talking about the actual
function of the product, as opposed to what the marketers call it in
their literature. The router-firewall is the technical name. But
Verizon, Comcast, etc., all used to call these boxes "modems" and
"cable modems", I think because most consumers would be too stupid to
know the difference.

My router has a built-in firewall. A web-based client permits me to do
port filtering, manage internal DHCP IP assignments, or fixed IPs to
specific MAC addresses. It also has the typical features of locking
down ports, and generally does what most firewalls do in stopping
pings, traces, and hack attempts before they get on the internal side
of the network. This is the standard for fiber and broadband these
days. Thinking back over the years... It's been this way for quite a
while now...

Dave wrote:

> I think the confusion is whether you're talking about the actual
> function of the product, as opposed to what the marketers call it in
> their literature. The router-firewall is the technical name. But
> Verizon, Comcast, etc., all used to call these boxes "modems" and
> "cable modems", I think because most consumers would be too stupid to
> know the difference.

Not sure what you are referring to. A Cable modem as used by Cable
Internet providers are not routers and not firewalls. Thats why they
aren't called by those terms. If you wish to share your cable internet
connection with other PC's then you need to add a router. Most cable
companies are based on the DOCSIS standard and use DOCSIS compatible
cable modems. I have not seen a DOCSIS cable modem with built-in
routing capabilities.

In article et>,
"Richard Neidich" > wrote:

> Some how I think I am a victom. Any guess who in this group would pull
> such a thing?
>
> I know nothing about the actual IP Networking other than I know what I use.
>
> Shortly after my post to M. Tomassi on the end of AFW my computer has been
> malfuctioning. Here were some of the oddball occurances.
>
> 1) mailto links stopped working and when I click on an email link in
> outlook or IE it would open up 57 web sites.
> 2) File associations on .EML ceased to work.
> 3) My computer had had a hard time with pulling an IP address throught
> the wireless linksys router.
>
> All of these issues are not fixed.
>
> I had some support here that ran the fixes to my issues but it was not a
> virus. Likely an intrusion. However no proof of that. Someone trying to do
> harm.
>
> I run firewall software and do remember it asking me to allow an IP access.
>
> Now, I do beleive that someone in this group that really understands this
> stuff was the instigator. I cannot blame anyone specifically but I do have
> my suspicions. Likely some of those attempting to discredit me.
>
> Well, my support persons changed the access to the computer at this point
> not to allow remote access at all. Plus I now have more password
> protection.
>
> Thanks to those members that posted here I knew there was a problem somehow.
>
> As for Sprint IP address, not me. I do not use Sprint..Earthlink/Time
> Warner. Just like I have always stated.
>
>
>
>
> "Dana H. Myers" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Dave wrote:
> >
> >> My point is that traceroutes performed on cable modem users sheds
> >> little, given the fact the IPs are most often dynamically assigned, but
> >> also because if the modem is unsecured, someone could easily connect in
> >> from down the street, and what do you know? That person's outgoing
> >> packets would also be branded with the same exact IP as the lawful
> >> owner/user of that same cable connection.
> >>
> >> Let's put it this way. I have a wireless router here. I can pop open my
> >> Bluetooth network settings with a wireless laptop, and *bing* two or
> >> three other neighborhood connections open up, one of which is
> >> unsecured. Should I tire of my 5-Meg FIOS connection here, I can always
> >> have my laptop remotely connect to my neighbor's (down the street), and
> >> anything I do or send would be sent via their router, and any
> >> traceroutes would come back -- and stop -- at that same router, NOT my
> >> laptop here.
> >
> > I've been sitting this thread, but it's getting a bit silly now.
> >
> > Look, IMHO, Dick is and has been a fine and upstanding member of a.f.w
> > for many years. Either he's a victim or a prankster in this case, and
> > it doesn't really matter to me, let's just let it go.
> >
> > David, of course most consumer firewall/routers are configured to
> > use NAT, so all hosts behind the router will appear to be one host.
> > If someone is running an open access-point, then it's possible to
> > have drive-by users.
> >
> > Of course, this would mean that Audrey was sitting outside Dick's
> > home on 1 Sep 2006 from around 8am to 10am and switched-over to
> > Sprint PCS (a mational wireless service) later in the day. If
> > I were Dick, I'd be highly concerned about a stalker - what are
> > the odds that someone would just show up in front of my house at
> > breakfast-time and join into the same thread on alt.food.wine that
> > I was posting on?
> >
> > But, like I started with, let's just let it go.
> >
> > Dana

It could have been some of the same people who have appropriated others
addresses and posted some really nasty stuff in the recent past.

My issues are fixed/resolved. No idea what caused them. Likely an
intrusion as my nortons firewall indicates intrusion. I get updates
regularly that say "norton anti virus updated, and I click ok.

The same yellow notification box in bottom right reports an another IP
address was attempting to access my computer 6x yesterday...I probably
mistakenly clicked ok before.

I am fixed for now. What a pain in the ?)*



"Lawrence Leichtman" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> "Richard Neidich" > wrote:
>
>> Some how I think I am a victom. Any guess who in this group would pull
>> such a thing?
>>
>> I know nothing about the actual IP Networking other than I know what I
>> use.
>>
>> Shortly after my post to M. Tomassi on the end of AFW my computer has
>> been
>> malfuctioning. Here were some of the oddball occurances.
>>
>> 1) mailto links stopped working and when I click on an email link in
>> outlook or IE it would open up 57 web sites.
>> 2) File associations on .EML ceased to work.
>> 3) My computer had had a hard time with pulling an IP address throught
>> the wireless linksys router.
>>
>> All of these issues are not fixed.
>>
>> I had some support here that ran the fixes to my issues but it was not a
>> virus. Likely an intrusion. However no proof of that. Someone trying to
>> do
>> harm.
>>
>> I run firewall software and do remember it asking me to allow an IP
>> access.
>>
>> Now, I do beleive that someone in this group that really understands this
>> stuff was the instigator. I cannot blame anyone specifically but I do
>> have
>> my suspicions. Likely some of those attempting to discredit me.
>>
>> Well, my support persons changed the access to the computer at this point
>> not to allow remote access at all. Plus I now have more password
>> protection.
>>
>> Thanks to those members that posted here I knew there was a problem
>> somehow.
>>
>> As for Sprint IP address, not me. I do not use Sprint..Earthlink/Time
>> Warner. Just like I have always stated.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Dana H. Myers" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Dave wrote:
>> >
>> >> My point is that traceroutes performed on cable modem users sheds
>> >> little, given the fact the IPs are most often dynamically assigned,
>> >> but
>> >> also because if the modem is unsecured, someone could easily connect
>> >> in
>> >> from down the street, and what do you know? That person's outgoing
>> >> packets would also be branded with the same exact IP as the lawful
>> >> owner/user of that same cable connection.
>> >>
>> >> Let's put it this way. I have a wireless router here. I can pop open
>> >> my
>> >> Bluetooth network settings with a wireless laptop, and *bing* two or
>> >> three other neighborhood connections open up, one of which is
>> >> unsecured. Should I tire of my 5-Meg FIOS connection here, I can
>> >> always
>> >> have my laptop remotely connect to my neighbor's (down the street),
>> >> and
>> >> anything I do or send would be sent via their router, and any
>> >> traceroutes would come back -- and stop -- at that same router, NOT my
>> >> laptop here.
>> >
>> > I've been sitting this thread, but it's getting a bit silly now.
>> >
>> > Look, IMHO, Dick is and has been a fine and upstanding member of a.f.w
>> > for many years. Either he's a victim or a prankster in this case, and
>> > it doesn't really matter to me, let's just let it go.
>> >
>> > David, of course most consumer firewall/routers are configured to
>> > use NAT, so all hosts behind the router will appear to be one host.
>> > If someone is running an open access-point, then it's possible to
>> > have drive-by users.
>> >
>> > Of course, this would mean that Audrey was sitting outside Dick's
>> > home on 1 Sep 2006 from around 8am to 10am and switched-over to
>> > Sprint PCS (a mational wireless service) later in the day. If
>> > I were Dick, I'd be highly concerned about a stalker - what are
>> > the odds that someone would just show up in front of my house at
>> > breakfast-time and join into the same thread on alt.food.wine that
>> > I was posting on?
>> >
>> > But, like I started with, let's just let it go.
>> >
>> > Dana
>
> It could have been some of the same people who have appropriated others
> addresses and posted some really nasty stuff in the recent past.

Richard Neidich scribed:

>My issues are fixed/resolved. No idea what caused them. Likely an
>intrusion as my nortons firewall indicates intrusion. I get updates
>regularly that say "norton anti virus updated, and I click ok.
>
>The same yellow notification box in bottom right reports an another IP
>address was attempting to access my computer 6x yesterday...I probably
>mistakenly clicked ok before.
>
>I am fixed for now. What a pain in the ?)*
>
Too bad...that was your 15 minutes. :-)
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)