Re: Stronghold

Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk> writes:
>> > Unfortunately I wasn't on cypherpunks-unedited at the time, but I
>> > thought that it was immediate send out from toad.com without going via
>> > Sandy.
>>
>> Going over my notes I see that at least one of my submissions - the
>> one quoting the C2Net lawyer letter in its entirety - didn't appear
>> even on cypherpunks-unedited.
>
>I think I saw this claim made before around the time of the "moderation
>experiment".
>
>The only ways I can see that this could have happened are either that:
>
>  i)  John Gilmore started editing cypherpunks-unedited at Sandy/C2net's
>      request
>
>  ii) cypherpunks-unedited was edited all along by someone (John or Sandy)
>
>i) is sort of feasible, perhaps there are others who were on unedited
>and were counting who could confirm this.  Toto I think was.

Apparently a 'bot was installed on toad.com to discard my submissions from the
"unedited" list _after my article which prompted the C2net threatening lawyer
letter did make it through the "unedited" list (but was censored from the
"flames" list by C2Net).

>ii) is hard to believe because the fact that something is edited shows
>-- when the editor is sleeping you get lag.
>
>I'm fairly sure I didn't see the C2 legal letter you posted yesterday
>before.

I'm sorry to have to return to this topic that's been beaten to death and
causes me intense nausea. I figured I'll comment on two more attempts to
revise history by lying C2Net shills from Hewlett Packard and Oracle.

Please recall that C2Net created 3 lists on toad.com:
 unedited
 flames
 C2Net-approved

At one point, all my submissions to cypherpunks appeared on "unedited" and
then on "flames" with about a 3-second delay, indicating a 'bot at work. The
'bot was scrubbed when C2net decided that my writings were not suitable for
auto- forwarding to the "flames" list either. For about a week, numerous
articles by myself, Tim May, et al appeared on "unedited" but not on "flames".

Howver toward the end of the "moderation experiment" apparently a 'bot on
toad.com was filtering my submissions from the 'unedited' list as well. My Jan
30th announcement that C2Net filtered out of the flames list _did show up on
the unedited list. However my following articles, like the one quoting C2Net's
threatening lawyer letter (which I cc'd to numerous people, including JYA,
who, not surprisingly, declined to put it on his archive) did _not appear on
the "unedited" list. Nevertheless at least one lying C2Net shill from Hewlett
Packard claims that my articles appearing on the unedited list on January 30th
prove that I wasn't being filtered from "unedited" one week later.

Another lying C2net shill, Jason E. Durbin, a technical writer for Oracle,
just wrote in news.admin.net-abuse.policy:

}For those unfamiliar with the tactics Vulis uses when attempting to
}destroy moderated fora, take a look at the current, ongoing thread
}called "Stronghold" (and other variations on same) on the Cypherpunks
}mailing list archived at:
}
}http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/current/date.html#start
}
}It summarizes (including Vulis' take on the situation) Vulis' attack
}on the mailing list itself via a feigned attack on the Stronghold
}security server.
}
}In summary, make such an annoyance of yourself by whatever means
}necessary (posting binaries, running an insultbot, making false
}accusations, etc.) to get yourself threatened with banishment, then
}rally the free speech advocates by painting yourself as the innocent
}harmed party even though no banishment occurred.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
}
}Interesting insights into how Vulis attempts to manipulate his victims
}into damning themselves while making him look like a victim.
}Interesting reading.

"No banishment occured" - more bizarre lies from C2Net and their supporters.

Oh, and I don't recall sending binaries to this list either.

This reminds me of the claim by Rich Graves, another C2Net/Cygnus shill, that
I'm sending "hundreds" of articles a day to this mailing list.

You may recall that the same C2net/Oracle shill Jason Durbin has been
following up on my Usenet articles in sci.crypt, comp.unix.questions, etc
with lies and libel: claiming, e.g., that I "lie about my credentials",
that I don't even have a master's degree, etc. Is C2Net paying Jason Durbin
to badmouth my academic credentials?

>From Jason Durbin's Net.Scum page:

Jason E. Durbin, jdurbin@nl.oracle.com, jed@poisson.com,
slothrop@poisson.com, jed@best.com, jed@netcom.com.

Jason claims to work for Poisson Corporation, 8 Avocet Drive, #211, Redwood
Shores, CA 94065, tel +1 415 637 0435, JD503.

In real life, Jason is a lowly technical writer for Oracle Corporation, 500
Oracle Parkway, Redwood City, CA 94065, tel: +1 800 345 3267, +1 415 506 7000,
(+1 605 506 7000), fax: +1 415 506 7200.

Jason's manager in the technical writing department is:
Sanford Dreskin
Mail Stop:  MS-40P12
Office tel: +1 415 506 2181
Office fax: +1 415 506 7228
Home tel: +1 510 376 9526
Home addr: 859 Augusta Drive, Moraga, CA 94556-1051

In what ways are Durbin and the Hewlett-Packard liar affiliated with C2Net?

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

Dimitri Vulis <dlv@bwalk.dm.com> writes:
> Apparently a 'bot was installed on toad.com to discard my
> submissions from the "unedited" list _after my article which
> prompted the C2net threatening lawyer letter did make it through the
> "unedited" list (but was censored from the "flames" list by C2Net).

Your claim has some plausibility, I'll grant.  You were already
singled out for special treatment, in that John Gilmore did
unsubscribe you, and block you from re-subscribing.  We know that much
because he admitted it himself.

Also Attila said something recently about some of his messages being
excluded from the unedited list, and being able to repost them at
night and have them go through.  He said he thought Tim May
experienced similar problems.

This is a serious charge because we were lead to believe that unedited
was completely unedited -- it was supposed to be straight through, and
neither John or Sandy ever admitted to editing unedited, yet according
to these claims it appears that it was being edited.

There are sort of plausible reasons why mail can disappear -- freak
delivery problem (happens now and then), or perhaps flakiness of
toad's majordomo to many changes being made to it.  It is sort of
within the bounds of believeability that these posts could have
disappeared by accident.

Given that multiple people are saying things about unedited being
edited (either by bots or by hand selection) it seems likley that
there was something sneaking going on towards the end, even with the
unedited list.

> At one point, all my submissions to cypherpunks appeared on
> "unedited" and then on "flames" with about a 3-second delay,
> indicating a 'bot at work.  The 'bot was scrubbed when C2net decided
> that my writings were not suitable for auto- forwarding to the
> "flames" list either.

Wow.  That is a somewhat plausible claim also, one it might be
possible to verify from article headers in list archives.

> For about a week, numerous articles by myself, Tim May, et al
> appeared on "unedited" but not on "flames".

I can confirm my belief that this part is true.  Numerous people have
verified this, which ocurred after Sandy faced his engineered
"dilemma" :-)

> My Jan 30th announcement that C2Net filtered out of the flames list
> _did show up on the unedited list. However my following articles,
> like the one quoting C2Net's threatening lawyer letter (which I cc'd
> to numerous people, including JYA, who, not surprisingly, declined
> to put it on his archive) 

I'd be interested to hear John Young confirm or deny this.  He if I
recall correctly was also critical of C2's handling of the affair, and
I would have thought that with his normal 'tude to censorship of
documents, he would've put it up.  So what happened John?

> did _not appear on the "unedited" list. Nevertheless at least one
> lying C2Net shill from Hewlett Packard claims that my articles
> appearing on the unedited list on January 30th prove that I wasn't
> being filtered from "unedited" one week later.

Some thing's just can't be proven.  That logic clearly doesn't flow.

> Another lying C2net shill, Jason E. Durbin, a technical writer for Oracle,
> just wrote in news.admin.net-abuse.policy:
> 
> [Dimitri bashing by Jason Durbin]
> 
> "No banishment occured" - more bizarre lies from C2Net and their supporters.

Yup, that one is incorrect -- we've established that because John
Gilmore admitted to unsubscribing you, and blocking you from
re-subscribing.

> Oh, and I don't recall sending binaries to this list either.

No, can't say I recall you sending binaries either.

> This reminds me of the claim by Rich Graves, another C2Net/Cygnus
> shill, that I'm sending "hundreds" of articles a day to this mailing
> list.

Not hundreds, I agree.  However there were a few rather long ones
about "dandruff covered Armenians" :-), something involving some
claimed historic ethnic cleansing.

> You may recall that the same C2net/Oracle shill Jason Durbin has
> been following up on my Usenet articles in sci.crypt,
> comp.unix.questions, etc with lies and libel: claiming, e.g., that I
> "lie about my credentials", that I don't even have a master's
> degree, etc. Is C2Net paying Jason Durbin to badmouth my academic
> credentials?

Your credentials are independently verifiable.  I have seen claims by
people who have said that they had satisfied themself of your
credentials by calling the university you got your PhD from.  I have
not done this myself, but I take your word for it.  

However another aspect to this argument over credentials is a comment
that arose when another person with a PhD who used the title "Dr" in
his From line subscribed to the list.  That person was Fred Cohen.
His above average education in having his PhD didn't seem to reflect
in his posts, and several people commented on this fact.  It seems to
be that listing qualifications in From fields is asking for rude
comments, or it seems to attract criticism :-)

I can say I like the practice.

Was a time on this list when there were quite a number of people who
had PhD's.  Jim Gilogly does I think, Atilla T Hun, no doubt lots of
others, several past or present list members are post grad students
studying for PhD's (and no doubt being distracted from their PhD
topics by reading cpunks).

I won't bother discussing my academic qualifications; it doesn't
really seem necessary to discuss them on list.

People's comments have value independently of their qualifications.
It can be largely orthogonal to their paper qualifications.  A lot of
people in the computer field got their qualifications in other fields.
Paul Kocher for instance if you look at his resume seems to have a BSc
in Biology or something, however this clearly doesn't get in his way,
as he does pretty high level crypto consulting (RSADSI, Netscape,
etc).

Anyway, perhaps it's time for a repost of the potted sequence of
events I constructed of the events as I was able to verify them at the
time.  Uh... dig dig, I'll find it in a bit.

Adam
-- 
Now officially an EAR violation...
Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

I wrote:

> However another aspect to this argument over credentials is a comment
> that arose when another person with a PhD who used the title "Dr" in
> his From line subscribed to the list.  That person was Fred Cohen.
> His above average education in having his PhD didn't seem to reflect
> in his posts, and several people commented on this fact.  It seems to
> be that listing qualifications in From fields is asking for rude
> comments, or it seems to attract criticism :-)
> 
> I can say I like the practice.
    ^^^

typo, I meant to write "I _can't_ say I like the practice".

And yes, Jim Choate, re moderation re-runs some of us do have too much
time on our hands :-)

We make this time by not sleeping much, jeeze it's 1:30am and I'm just
starting to get going on the GAK compliancy argument in another thread
again, and I've got an article submission deadline for tomorrow also,
which I haven't even started yet!

Adam
-- 
Now officially an EAR violation...
Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

on or about 971013:0133 
    Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk> was purported to have 
    expostulated to perpetuate an opinion:

+I wrote:

+> However another aspect to this argument over credentials is a comment
+> that arose when another person with a PhD who used the title "Dr" in
+> his From line subscribed to the list.  That person was Fred Cohen.
+> His above average education in having his PhD didn't seem to reflect
+> in his posts, and several people commented on this fact.  It seems to
+> be that listing qualifications in From fields is asking for rude
+> comments, or it seems to attract criticism :-)
+> 
+> I can say I like the practice.
+    ^^^

+typo, I meant to write "I _can't_ say I like the practice".

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

    as I always refer to my degree of {in}competence:

        PiledHigherDeeper

    in Zuerich is was Hr. Dr. Prof....  but then, the Swiss love 'em.

    as for Cohen, he was a fraud, and will always be a fraud. he was
    defrocked of his professors gown for some irregularity.

    he was fun to attack though <g>


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: latin1
Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be

iQCVAwUBNEJxT704kQrCC2kFAQG93AQAsaqNFV30tbmOmanknXUwLXWTk8vN1Gpy
QQVUq/+yNJHRvoIusYclewZVJc5/29VIrDTVs8NYAh9hjiwoaHpSW82SAaIsz2eX
JS2Cr+8i4/QsV/lDWsykJT00QcP9lommpg4zJ3BNtwblKdfXAnQy9NDuxlCFGOtZ
ZEM5m+nL2gs=
=rNOp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Adam Back writes:

> Dimitri Vulis <dlv@bwalk.dm.com> writes:

> > did _not appear on the "unedited" list. Nevertheless at least one
> > lying C2Net shill from Hewlett Packard claims that my articles
> > appearing on the unedited list on January 30th prove that I wasn't
> > being filtered from "unedited" one week later.
> 
> Some thing's just can't be proven.  That logic clearly doesn't flow.

For the record, I made no such claim.  In fact, my exact words were:

[me:]
> Since obviously none of us who were on the -unedited list can say for 
> sure whether we received everything sent to it, I can't say with 
> certainty this never happened.  But....
> This is the problem with being known as a liar.  Nobody is inclined to
> believe what you say without substantitation.  So I still don't see any
> reason to believe that anything was "censored" from the unedited list.

But Dimitri has claimed that there were "numerous people" who were 
CC'd to the message that is alleged to have disappeared from -unedited.
I'm sure they'll all be chiming in to back him up just like John Young 
did. :-)


-- Jeff (C2Net shill?  now if I can only get Sameer to pay me for it)

Jeff Barber <jeffb@issl.atl.hp.com> writes:
> > Dimitri Vulis <dlv@bwalk.dm.com> writes:
> > > did _not appear on the "unedited" list. Nevertheless at least one
> > > lying C2Net shill from Hewlett Packard claims that my articles
> > > appearing on the unedited list on January 30th prove that I wasn't
> > > being filtered from "unedited" one week later.
> > 
> > Some thing's just can't be proven.  That logic clearly doesn't flow.
> 
> For the record, I made no such claim.  In fact, my exact words were:
> 
> [me:]
> > Since obviously none of us who were on the -unedited list can say for 
> > sure whether we received everything sent to it, I can't say with 
> > certainty this never happened.  But....
> > This is the problem with being known as a liar.  Nobody is inclined to
> > believe what you say without substantitation.  So I still don't see any
> > reason to believe that anything was "censored" from the unedited list.

One additional reason to believe that at least some things were
disappearing from the unedited list was Attila's claim that some of
his posts weren't getting through to the unedited list also.

Notice that I don't say why they were disappearing because that is
almost difficult to prove at this point.  I detailed Attila's claims
in the post you are replying to.

> But Dimitri has claimed that there were "numerous people" who were 
> CC'd to the message that is alleged to have disappeared from -unedited.
> I'm sure they'll all be chiming in to back him up just like John Young 
> did. :-)

Mailing lists are pretty vulnerable to spoofing in various ways.  At
the time of the attack, an additional possible class of spoof which
may or may not have been occuring would have been:

For someone to use the list of subscribers available for the lists
homed at majordomo @ toad.com to fuck with peoples minds.  For example
by sending messages with forged From & other headers making them
appear as if they did come from toad.com to all subscribers, or some
subset of them.

That would allow one to construct some very interesting problems: for
example Sandy apparently passing to the edited list something which
seemed violently out of character, but sending it to everyone but him,
so that he would deny seeing it even, and look like every one else as
if he were blatantly lying.

Or to generally mess with who you sent to for different lists and
combinations of lists.  This would allow you to construct all sorts of
apparently independently confirmable conspiracy theories.

I'm not sure some of these things weren't happening.  There are a few
current and former list members who delight in this kind of clever
prank.

Reckon you could do something about some of these attacks by adding
signatures on outgoing mail from the mailing list, and by posting
regular message digests of posts to the list to make it harder for
people to deny service to one individual.

Even unsubscribing and subscribing other people was not prevented
originally with toad, but there are existing methods to solve this
problem in that newer versions of majordomo allow nonces to be sent
for confirmations of these things.  Doesn't stop recursive list
subscriptions, nor subscribing one list to another (because the
attacker can see the nonce appear in the list).

Adam
-- 
Now officially an EAR violation...
Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

Adam Back wrote:
> Mailing lists are pretty vulnerable to spoofing in various ways.  At
> the time of the attack, an additional possible class of spoof which
> may or may not have been occuring would have been:
> 
> For someone to use the list of subscribers available for the lists
> homed at majordomo @ toad.com to fuck with peoples minds.  For example
> by sending messages with forged From & other headers making them
> appear as if they did come from toad.com to all subscribers, or some
> subset of them.
> 
> That would allow one to construct some very interesting problems: for
> example Sandy apparently passing to the edited list something which
> seemed violently out of character, but sending it to everyone but him,
> so that he would deny seeing it even, and look like every one else as
> if he were blatantly lying.
> 
> Or to generally mess with who you sent to for different lists and
> combinations of lists.  This would allow you to construct all sorts of
> apparently independently confirmable conspiracy theories.
> 
> I'm not sure some of these things weren't happening.  There are a few
> current and former list members who delight in this kind of clever
> prank.

Many weird things happened during the course of the list censorship, not
the least of which was that every time someone on the list pointed out
apparent discrepancies between what was announced as being done and
reality, the mechanizations behind the list would change to become
more obscure.
More than one list member called this bullshit when I pointed it out, 
then shit a brick  when they researched the matter themselves, and 
found it to be true.

I was subscribed to all three lists at one time or another, and was
also subscribed from more than one account. I also had another list
member forward me their archive of posts from the lists.
There was a variety of interesting things which one could divine from
the different 'versions' of the list that appeared from these three
sources, one of which was that some controversial posts seemed to
go out from toad.com to *only* the person who sent it (or to people
who were cc:'d on the post), making it appear to the sender that 
their post had gone out to everyone on the list.
I had already suspected this from the fact that some rather outrageous
posts seemed to go unnoticed on the list, and I had confirmed it to
a certain extent by cc:'ing and bcc:'in certain individuals, but an
analysis of all the posts in my possession, from different sources,
confirmed it beyond doubt.

Although a variety of individuals could confirm various details of 
what I have described, the 'facts' are still pretty much meaningless
to those who did not personally do the footwork themselves.
Much the same applies to the Corporate Message Recovery of the new
alien-PGP being discussed on the Cypherpunks list.
Your best weapon is your nose. When something smells bad, it usually
is. All of the analysis I did of list posts served mainly to convince
myself that my original deductions, based on far less information,
were correct.

My main problem with the new product is that it trades on the name and
reputation of PGP to promote a product which serves a totally different
market and need.
It is similar to my using the status of a long-established
"TruthMonger's
Crazy Ramblings" mailing list to promote "TruthMonger's Trustworthy
Health
Products Mailing List" to the three list subscribers. (Or the use of
John
Lennon's music to sell sneakers...<barf> <barf>)

The *real* question is: "Does the packaging have a picture of an actor
in
a white smock, with a stethescope around his neck, a big-breasted nurse,
licking her hot, wet lips, and a child, petting a dog?"
If it does, then buy all of the company's stock that you can get your
hands on.

TruthMonger

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> 
> Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk> writes:
> >> > Unfortunately I wasn't on cypherpunks-unedited at the time, but I
> >> > thought that it was immediate send out from toad.com without going via
> >> > Sandy.
> >>
> >> Going over my notes I see that at least one of my submissions - the
> >> one quoting the C2Net lawyer letter in its entirety - didn't appear
> >> even on cypherpunks-unedited.
> >

Just where was the Lawyer's letter?  Did it have any telephone number
on it?  I want to call that guy and make sure it was really from him.

> >I think I saw this claim made before around the time of the "moderation
> >experiment".
> >
> >The only ways I can see that this could have happened are either that:
> >
> >  i)  John Gilmore started editing cypherpunks-unedited at Sandy/C2net's
> >      request
> >
> >  ii) cypherpunks-unedited was edited all along by someone (John or Sandy)
> >

Are John and Sandy still sucking and fucking each other?

> >i) is sort of feasible, perhaps there are others who were on unedited
> >and were counting who could confirm this.  Toto I think was.
> 
> Apparently a 'bot was installed on toad.com to discard my submissions from the
> "unedited" list _after my article which prompted the C2net threatening lawyer
> letter did make it through the "unedited" list (but was censored from the
> "flames" list by C2Net).
> 
> >ii) is hard to believe because the fact that something is edited shows
> >-- when the editor is sleeping you get lag.
> >
> >I'm fairly sure I didn't see the C2 legal letter you posted yesterday
> >before.
> 
> I'm sorry to have to return to this topic that's been beaten to death and
> causes me intense nausea. I figured I'll comment on two more attempts to
> revise history by lying C2Net shills from Hewlett Packard and Oracle.
> 
> Please recall that C2Net created 3 lists on toad.com:
>  unedited
>  flames
>  C2Net-approved
> 
> At one point, all my submissions to cypherpunks appeared on "unedited" and
> then on "flames" with about a 3-second delay, indicating a 'bot at work. The
> 'bot was scrubbed when C2net decided that my writings were not suitable for
> auto- forwarding to the "flames" list either. For about a week, numerous
> articles by myself, Tim May, et al appeared on "unedited" but not on "flames".
> 
> Howver toward the end of the "moderation experiment" apparently a 'bot on
> toad.com was filtering my submissions from the 'unedited' list as well. My Jan
> 30th announcement that C2Net filtered out of the flames list _did show up on
> the unedited list. However my following articles, like the one quoting C2Net's
> threatening lawyer letter (which I cc'd to numerous people, including JYA,
> who, not surprisingly, declined to put it on his archive) did _not appear on
> the "unedited" list. Nevertheless at least one lying C2Net shill from Hewlett
> Packard claims that my articles appearing on the unedited list on January 30th
> prove that I wasn't being filtered from "unedited" one week later.
> 
> Another lying C2net shill, Jason E. Durbin, a technical writer for Oracle,
> just wrote in news.admin.net-abuse.policy:
> 
> }For those unfamiliar with the tactics Vulis uses when attempting to
> }destroy moderated fora, take a look at the current, ongoing thread
> }called "Stronghold" (and other variations on same) on the Cypherpunks
> }mailing list archived at:
> }
> }http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/current/date.html#start
> }
> }It summarizes (including Vulis' take on the situation) Vulis' attack
> }on the mailing list itself via a feigned attack on the Stronghold
> }security server.
> }
> }In summary, make such an annoyance of yourself by whatever means
> }necessary (posting binaries, running an insultbot, making false
> }accusations, etc.) to get yourself threatened with banishment, then
> }rally the free speech advocates by painting yourself as the innocent
> }harmed party even though no banishment occurred.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> }
> }Interesting insights into how Vulis attempts to manipulate his victims
> }into damning themselves while making him look like a victim.
> }Interesting reading.
> 
> "No banishment occured" - more bizarre lies from C2Net and their supporters.
> 
> Oh, and I don't recall sending binaries to this list either.
> 
> This reminds me of the claim by Rich Graves, another C2Net/Cygnus shill, that
> I'm sending "hundreds" of articles a day to this mailing list.
> 
> You may recall that the same C2net/Oracle shill Jason Durbin has been
> following up on my Usenet articles in sci.crypt, comp.unix.questions, etc
> with lies and libel: claiming, e.g., that I "lie about my credentials",
> that I don't even have a master's degree, etc. Is C2Net paying Jason Durbin
> to badmouth my academic credentials?
> 
> >From Jason Durbin's Net.Scum page:
> 
> Jason E. Durbin, jdurbin@nl.oracle.com, jed@poisson.com,
> slothrop@poisson.com, jed@best.com, jed@netcom.com.
> 
> Jason claims to work for Poisson Corporation, 8 Avocet Drive, #211, Redwood
> Shores, CA 94065, tel +1 415 637 0435, JD503.
> 
> In real life, Jason is a lowly technical writer for Oracle Corporation, 500
> Oracle Parkway, Redwood City, CA 94065, tel: +1 800 345 3267, +1 415 506 7000,
> (+1 605 506 7000), fax: +1 415 506 7200.
> 
> Jason's manager in the technical writing department is:
> Sanford Dreskin
> Mail Stop:  MS-40P12
> Office tel: +1 415 506 2181
> Office fax: +1 415 506 7228
> Home tel: +1 510 376 9526
> Home addr: 859 Augusta Drive, Moraga, CA 94556-1051
> 
> In what ways are Durbin and the Hewlett-Packard liar affiliated with C2Net?
> 

Yes, this c2Net needs investigated as a troublemaker.

> ---
> 
> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
> Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps