Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Wine (alt.food.wine) Devoted to the discussion of wine and wine-related topics. A place to read and comment about wines, wine and food matching, storage systems, wine paraphernalia, etc. In general, any topic related to wine is valid fodder for the group. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
Something smells! (Was: Anderson Valley Pinot Noir)
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? |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
Something smells! (Was: Anderson Valley Pinot Noir)
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. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
Something smells! (Was: Anderson Valley Pinot Noir)
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. > |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
Something smells! (Was: Anderson Valley Pinot Noir)
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. > > > > |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
Something smells! (Was: Anderson Valley Pinot Noir)
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. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
Something smells! (Was: Anderson Valley Pinot Noir)
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. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
Something smells! (Was: Anderson Valley Pinot Noir)
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. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
Something smells! (Was: Anderson Valley Pinot Noir)
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 |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
Something smells! (Was: Anderson Valley Pinot Noir)
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). |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
Something smells! (Was: Anderson Valley Pinot Noir)
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. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
Something smells! (Was: Anderson Valley Pinot Noir)
> 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 |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
Something smells! (Was: Anderson Valley Pinot Noir)
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. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
Something smells! (Was: Anderson Valley Pinot Noir)
> 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 |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
Something smells! (Was: Anderson Valley Pinot Noir)
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. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
Something smells! (Was: Anderson Valley Pinot Noir)
"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. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
Something smells! (Was: Anderson Valley Pinot Noir)
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. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
Something smells! (Was: Anderson Valley Pinot Noir)
> 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... |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
Something smells! (Was: Anderson Valley Pinot Noir)
> 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 |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
Something smells! (Was: Anderson Valley Pinot Noir)
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. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
Way OT: IP address assignment on cable modem ( Something smells!
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 |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
Something smells! (Was: Anderson Valley Pinot Noir)
> 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 |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
Way OT: IP address assignment on cable modem ( Something smells! (Was: Anderson Valley Pinot Noir))
> 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 |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
Way OT: IP address assignment on cable modem ( Something smells!
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 |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
Something smells! (Was: Anderson Valley Pinot Noir)
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. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
Something smells! (Was: Anderson Valley Pinot Noir)
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 |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
Something smells! (Was: Anderson Valley Pinot Noir)
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 |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
Something smells! (Was: Anderson Valley Pinot Noir)
> 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... |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
Something smells! (Was: Anderson Valley Pinot Noir)
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. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
Something smells! (Was: Anderson Valley Pinot Noir)
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. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
Something smells! (Was: Anderson Valley Pinot Noir)
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. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
Something smells! (Was: Anderson Valley Pinot Noir)
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) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
TN: Loire, Chablis, Anderson Valley, Spain | Wine | |||
Anderson Valley 2008 Pinot Conference | Wine | |||
Anderson Valley trip | Wine | |||
NYT: Anderson Valley Gewürztraminer | Wine | |||
Bergstrom Pinot Noir Willamette Valley 2002 | Wine |