Gentlemen, Please stop feeding the Trolls.

Several posters is right, and only several. It's pretty obvious that one of them has used at least 4 different posting aliases.

I have been told that an AOL addy allows 8 email names?
--Shiva-- nuk pu nuk

snipped-for-privacy@abuse.net >Newsgroups: alt.locksmithing >Date: 19 Jul 2003 17:03:47 GMT >Lines: 13 >Message-ID: <bfbtlj$t6c$1@63.78.119.162> >References: snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com > snipped-for-privacy@mb-m11.aol.com> >Reply-To: snipped-for-privacy@pcis.net >NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.78.119.162 >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564 >X-No-Archive: yes > > > >> >> >> >>Several posters is right, and only several. >>It's pretty obvious that one of them has used at least 4 different posting >>aliases. >> > I have been told that an AOL addy allows 8 email names? > >

No doubt about it Phil, "real trolls" can be a pain, but I really did not see any stereotypical trolls taking part in the discussion regarding Matt Blaze.
What I did see were different opinions being presented by those who wish to identify themselves and those who wish to maintain anonymity through the use an alias. In an open and public forum, I believe that's positive. After all is said and done, what should really count are the relative merits of the arguments on both sides of an issue, not the personalities.
While the limited number of views expressed by newsgroup "regulars" clearly do not represent a broad sampling of opinion within the security industry, they do represent a small court of public opinion for a discrete segment within the trade of locksmithing.
Understandably, because of it's clear locksmith industry focus, alt.locksmithing currently represents a heavily "stacked deck" of opinion against anyone who challenges any defensive trade position. Even though most regular contributors within this newsgroup are strongly polarized toward one inflexible point of view, I believe both sides of the issue have been adequately presented for consideration despite abiding disagreement.

You have used....what...about 5 or 6 so far? LOL

NEW MOVIE COMING SOON TO THEATRES NEAR YOU!
"FOUR CRIES ACHE" Starring Ray Zarumpus and directed by Javier K. Caneeda II
It's the poignant yet humorous story of a small town locksmith named Perry Noya who thought he knew it all, but was forced to keep it a secret when he discovered that neurotics build castles in the sky; psychotics live in them, and psychiatrists collect the rent. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll wet your pants!
DON'T MISS IT!

Cool. I have an idea for a film myself. It's about a pathetic loser who has no idea what he is talking about and no practical knowledge whatever about the subject in question who posts his views to newsgroups under numerous aliases each one patting the other on the back. He does so either because he simply has no life or because he suffers from Multiple personality disorder. I haven't decided which yet. :). LOL

Putyourspamhere, I don't post with my name or shop name, honestly, because I've seen the reaction to others with opinions similar to mine. I'm a working locksmith and I and my shop depend on good relations with others in my area. This issue is just so polarizing for some reason.
As a locksmith, I have always believed that we have to safeguard sensitive information. The Blaze incident has made me revaluate what I think is really sensitive and what might not be, and which we can talk with the public about. I'm worried that a lot of the reaction here and in the trade rags is could be interpreted by the public as "you can't trust locksmiths to tell you about your security." I've had to defend myself against that to several (good) customers since the Blaze article came out, and I think I would have lost them if I had reacted the way some folks here have. That's all I'm saying.
> No doubt about it Phil, "real trolls" can be a pain, but I really did not see > any stereotypical trolls taking part in the discussion regarding Matt Blaze. > > What I did see were different opinions being presented by those who wish to > identify themselves and those who wish to maintain anonymity through the use an > alias. In an open and public forum, I believe that's positive. After all is > said and done, what should really count are the relative merits of the > arguments on both sides of an issue, not the personalities. > > While the limited number of views expressed by newsgroup "regulars" clearly do > not represent a broad sampling of opinion within the security industry, they do > represent a small court of public opinion for a discrete segment within the > trade of locksmithing. > > Understandably, because of it's clear locksmith industry focus, > alt.locksmithing currently represents a heavily "stacked deck" of opinion > against anyone who challenges any defensive trade position. Even though most > regular contributors within this newsgroup are strongly polarized toward one > inflexible point of view, I believe both sides of the issue have been > adequately presented for consideration despite abiding disagreement. > > > > >Subject: Gentlemen, Please stop feeding the Trolls. > >From: cashcroft snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com > >Date: 7/18/03 11:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time > >Message-id: snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com > > > >Hi guys. There are several posters that I suspect are trolling. jumping > >onto the so-called controversy of of Mr. Blaze. They can be > >characterized by being in possession of the amazing ability to tell us > >the thought process that Mr. Blaze used to publish his paper. They also > >have spent a lot of words telling us what a marvelous person he is and > >while walking on water deigned to grace us with a little bit of his vast > >store of cerebral powers. > >either these guys are lurkers that finally found a subject too > >compelling to stay silent on or..............you've (and I admit I have > >too) been had. > > > >Respectfully, > >Phil > >

Putyourspamhere, I didn't realize in my previous reply that I was replying to a forgery of your account (putyourspamBhere). Sorry for the misunderstanding, no offense intended. Although I do stand by my comments: We should be more realistic about what is sensitive and what isn't, and I think one way of telling the difference is when people outside the trade are talking about a subject.
> >Subject: Re: Gentlemen, Please stop feeding the Trolls. > >Path: lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!audrey-m1.news.aol.com!not-for-mail > >Lines: 43 > >X-Admin: snipped-for-privacy@aol.com > >From: snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (Putyourspambere) > >Newsgroups: alt.locksmithing > >Date: 21 Jul 2003 18:22:43 GMT > >References: snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com > >Organization: AOL > >Message-ID: snipped-for-privacy@mb-m01.aol.com> > > > > > > > >No doubt about it Phil, "real trolls" can be a pain, but I really did not see > >any stereotypical trolls taking part in the discussion regarding Matt Blaze. > > > >What I did see were different opinions being presented by those who wish to > >identify themselves and those who wish to maintain anonymity through the use > >an > >alias. > > You have used....what...about 5 or 6 so far? LOL

Get real... I am a alarm installer.
He is just a dick.. don't worry about it.
-Graham
Someone named snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (CA Locksmith) Proclaimed on 26 Jul 2003 21:17:56 -0700,

Not to beat a dead horse, but say about me what you want, an AOL user I'm not.
It does seem that there's someone from AOL using many different account names and posting on this issue, but that's not me. I have this address, plus my shop account (we have our own .com domain now), and that's it.
Maybe you're looking so hard for things to disagree with with anyone who disagrees with you about the Blaze thing that you're finding demons when there are none. I responded to the wrong message, that's not a crime, is it? Putyourspambhere, who I thought was you, seemed to be saying that this was a locksmith vs. the general public issue and I was disagreeing with him. Whether you accept it or not, I am a locksmith who honestly questions whether the way we've always thought about sensitive information on defeating locks. I don't know who he/they are at AOL, but that's someone else. You can disagree with me or them all you want about what's sensitive and what isn't, but I'll thank you not to make crazy accusations that make no sense.
I wish you luck.
> >Subject: Re: Gentlemen, Please stop feeding the Trolls. > >Path: > >lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news > feed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail > >From: snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (CA Locksmith) > >Newsgroups: alt.locksmithing > >Date: 26 Jul 2003 21:21:10 -0700 > >Organization: >Lines: 32 > >Message-ID: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com> > >References: snipped-for-privacy@mb-m01.aol.com> > > snipped-for-privacy@mb-m23.aol.com> > >NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.94.107.139 > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > >X-Trace: posting.google.com 1059279671 22520 127.0.0.1 (27 Jul 2003 04:21:11 > >GMT) > >X-Complaints-To: snipped-for-privacy@google.com > >NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Jul 2003 04:21:11 GMT > > > > > > > >Putyourspamhere, I didn't realize in my previous reply that I was > >replying to a forgery of your account (putyourspamBhere). Sorry for > >the misunderstanding, no offense intended. Although I do stand by my > >comments: > >We should be more realistic about what is sensitive and what isn't, > >and I think one way of telling the difference is when people outside > >the trade are talking about a subject. > > > > > >
> >> >Subject: Re: Gentlemen, Please stop feeding the Trolls. > >> >Path: lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!audrey-m1.news.aol.com!not-for-mail > >> >Lines: 43 > >> >X-Admin: snipped-for-privacy@aol.com > >> >From: snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (Putyourspambere) > >> >Newsgroups: alt.locksmithing > >> >Date: 21 Jul 2003 18:22:43 GMT > >> >References: snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com > >> >Organization: AOL > >> >Message-ID: snipped-for-privacy@mb-m01.aol.com> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >No doubt about it Phil, "real trolls" can be a pain, but I really did not > see > >> >any stereotypical trolls taking part in the discussion regarding Matt > Blaze. > >> > > >> >What I did see were different opinions being presented by those who wish > to > >> >identify themselves and those who wish to maintain anonymity through the > use > >> >an > >> >alias. > >> > >> You have used....what...about 5 or 6 so far? LOL > > > > Your response would be logical to some of the things I have posted. Of course > that's not what you responded to or what you quoted in the post you now refer > to. > > The question is why did you respond to the putyourspambhere post at all? It is > essentially in complete agreement with your previously stated opinions on the > issue at hand, as are all the other putyourspambhere aliases posts. Yet you > seem to be justifying/arguing your position to putyourspambhere. For who's > benefit I wonder? > > What a coincidence that you and putyourspambhere and all his/her other aliases > all agree with one another, pat each other on the back, had never posted on any > other subject to Usenet, and all post from AOL. The last especially, when you > consider that probably less than 1 in 50 Usenet posts originate from AOL (most > AOL users post on local message boards and don't know Usenet exists). Gee what > are the odds.

I suggest you re-read the first post you made on this subject. You've been making so many posts apparantly you have forgotten your original position.