The moon isn't full but you're all crazy

On 28 Aug 2005 18:00:43 -0700, "Candace" wrote:

Charlie Wilkes wrote:

Well Candace, you had me going, sort of, until your second post when
you forgot to change your headers.

Well, I don't even know how so that limits me, I guess. I don't think
it mattered anyway since I signed it "Candace." That's what I get for
doing it at 4am.

No, you posted with Candace in the header and signed the post Bobbi.
You must know how to change headers because the first post had a Bobbi
header.

I did use a sock in this group once, however, for two posts on July
23. I don't think anyone even noticed.

Yeah, it's a drag not being outed.

Does everyone in here read every freaking header? It must take forever
to get through the posts.

This is the first group I have ever encountered where I find myself
doing that. Our occasional friend "Nomen" got spoofed, right down to
a fake pgp signature. Of course I fell for it because I don't check
pgp signatures, but maybe I should start. I still have a copy of pgp
2.6.2 that I actually know how to use, but have no need to do so..

Charlie

Charlie Wilkes wrote:

No, you posted with Candace in the header and signed the post Bobbi.
You must know how to change headers because the first post had a Bobbi
header.

Yes, you're right, I'm getting totally confused now. I used a
different email address. But I guess the IP address was the same
Magic Mood Jeep's post. I knew the IP would be AOL's on both of them
but there is more info there than I was cognizant of originally. I
didn't think it would matter if they both showed AOL since there are
zillions of people on AOL but the rest of it still pointed to me which
I was not aware of.

This is the first group I have ever encountered where I find myself
doing that. Our occasional friend "Nomen" got spoofed, right down to
a fake pgp signature. Of course I fell for it because I don't check
pgp signatures, but maybe I should start. I still have a copy of pgp
2.6.2 that I actually know how to use, but have no need to do so..

Okay, I don't even know what that means. Guess I have a lot to learn
to keep up here. And it used to be such an innocent, forthright
group...well, sometimes it was...only about cats...well, sometimes it
was...

Candace

"Candace" wrote in message
oups.com...
Charlie Wilkes wrote:

Well Candace, you had me going, sort of, until your second post when
you forgot to change your headers.

Well, I don't even know how so that limits me, I guess. I don't think
it mattered anyway since I signed it "Candace." That's what I get for
doing it at 4am.

I did use a sock in this group once, however, for two posts on July
23. I don't think anyone even noticed.

Yeah, it's a drag not being outed.

Does everyone in here read every freaking header? It must take forever
to get through the posts.

Candace


Candace,

I would like to suggest that you (and others) completely eliminate any use
of socks. Pick one username and stick to it. It may seem humorous to post
under an anonymous name, but in may opinion, the real result is that it
destroys the writer's credibility. That is unfortunate, too, because you
have a lot to contribute to this newsgroup.

MaryL

MaryL wrote:

I would like to suggest that you (and others) completely eliminate any use
of socks. Pick one username and stick to it. It may seem humorous to post
under an anonymous name, but in may opinion, the real result is that it
destroys the writer's credibility. That is unfortunate, too, because you
have a lot to contribute to this newsgroup.

Okay, it's not really working for me anyway. Thank you for the
compliment. I do have to say, however, that I find the whole header
thing very interesting and have learned a little about it from this
group...not nearly as much as others but a little.

Candace

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:43:52 -0500, MaryL wrote:


"Candace" wrote in message
oups.com...
Charlie Wilkes wrote:

Well Candace, you had me going, sort of, until your second post when
you forgot to change your headers.

Well, I don't even know how so that limits me, I guess. I don't think
it mattered anyway since I signed it "Candace." That's what I get for
doing it at 4am.

I did use a sock in this group once, however, for two posts on July 23.
I don't think anyone even noticed.

Yeah, it's a drag not being outed.

Does everyone in here read every freaking header? It must take forever
to get through the posts.

Candace


Candace,

I would like to suggest that you (and others) completely eliminate any use
of socks. Pick one username and stick to it. It may seem humorous to
post under an anonymous name, but in may opinion, the real result is that
it destroys the writer's credibility. That is unfortunate, too, because
you have a lot to contribute to this newsgroup.

MaryL


If they are not to embarrassed to do it, why not use their own names?
or a contraction of same? MLB

"mlbriggs" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:43:52 -0500, MaryL wrote:


"Candace" wrote in message
oups.com...
Charlie Wilkes wrote:

Well Candace, you had me going, sort of, until your second post
when
you forgot to change your headers.

Well, I don't even know how so that limits me, I guess. I don't
think
it mattered anyway since I signed it "Candace." That's what I get
for
doing it at 4am.

I did use a sock in this group once, however, for two posts on
July 23.
I don't think anyone even noticed.

Yeah, it's a drag not being outed.

Does everyone in here read every freaking header? It must take
forever
to get through the posts.

Candace


Candace,

I would like to suggest that you (and others) completely eliminate
any use
of socks. Pick one username and stick to it. It may seem humorous
to
post under an anonymous name, but in may opinion, the real result is
that
it destroys the writer's credibility. That is unfortunate, too,
because
you have a lot to contribute to this newsgroup.

MaryL


If they are not to embarrassed to do it, why not use their own names?
or a contraction of same? MLB


It may not have anything to do with embarrassment, some people here feel
its ok to threaten posters by phone calls and nasty e-mails. These same
people feel its ok to contact family members, their kids and employers,
hey some even go so low as to contact employers of family members, go
figure. (I was in a usenet group where this actually happened over a
debate of birth control/non birth control, the husband was contemplating
a vasectomy and worked as a teacher in a private catholic school, note I
said worked, he no longer does (: ) So to avoid this people use socks
when making a point that they know will not be accepted be a certain few
here. This also explains why many people do not use their own names.

In light of this perhaps socks are used to avoid this kind of trouble
following them. And some use socks to get through killfiles. Others
use them just because they can.

But hey Candace, it was fun when you were "socking it". not all socks
are harmful. You just have to choose the sock wisely!

On 29 Aug 2005 18:51:25 -0700, "Candace" wrote:

MaryL wrote:

I would like to suggest that you (and others) completely eliminate any use
of socks. Pick one username and stick to it. It may seem humorous to post
under an anonymous name, but in may opinion, the real result is that it
destroys the writer's credibility. That is unfortunate, too, because you
have a lot to contribute to this newsgroup.

Okay, it's not really working for me anyway. Thank you for the
compliment. I do have to say, however, that I find the whole header
thing very interesting and have learned a little about it from this
group...not nearly as much as others but a little.

Candace

The main things to look at are the last server(s) in the path
statement and the IP if available. Sometimes you need to convert the
IP from hex to decimal. Those are the elements that most people can't
change, although it can be done by techies who understand the type and
configuration of their host. But it causes errors in batch processing
and will really **** off the admins if they find out.

You really can't get anything from an anonymized header, even though
once in awhile someone claims otherwise. All you can tell is it came
from a remailer used by untold numbers of people scattered throughout
the world...

But you can always pour down a stiff drink and make a wild-assed
guess.

Charlie

"mlbriggs" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:43:52 -0500, MaryL wrote:


"Candace" wrote in message
oups.com...
Charlie Wilkes wrote:

Well Candace, you had me going, sort of, until your second post when
you forgot to change your headers.

Well, I don't even know how so that limits me, I guess. I don't think
it mattered anyway since I signed it "Candace." That's what I get for
doing it at 4am.

I did use a sock in this group once, however, for two posts on July 23.
I don't think anyone even noticed.

Yeah, it's a drag not being outed.

Does everyone in here read every freaking header? It must take forever
to get through the posts.

Candace


Candace,

I would like to suggest that you (and others) completely eliminate any
use
of socks. Pick one username and stick to it. It may seem humorous to
post under an anonymous name, but in may opinion, the real result is that
it destroys the writer's credibility. That is unfortunate, too, because
you have a lot to contribute to this newsgroup.

MaryL


If they are not to embarrassed to do it, why not use their own names?
or a contraction of same? MLB


That's basically what I do. I use a contraction of my name, but I do not
include my last name because I think it is better to maintain some privacy
on the Internet (for reasons such as those described by Trish in this thread
plus possible identify theft and monetary scams).

MaryL

MaryL wrote:
Candace,

I would like to suggest that you (and others) completely eliminate any use
of socks. Pick one username and stick to it.

Just FWIW, I forget to log out of my gmail account and then I post in
Google and voila - I am here under another address. Oh well. Probably
screws up whomever it is that uses this group for sociology research,
LOL...

It may seem humorous to post
under an anonymous name, but in may opinion, the real result is that it
destroys the writer's credibility. That is unfortunate, too, because you
have a lot to contribute to this newsgroup.

MaryL

Personally, I though Candace's attempt at soxing was cute. Sexy Soxy,
and all.

-L.

Trish wrote:
It may not have anything to do with embarrassment, some people here feel
its ok to threaten posters by phone calls and nasty e-mails. These same
people feel its ok to contact family members, their kids and employers,
hey some even go so low as to contact employers of family members, go
figure. (I was in a usenet group where this actually happened over a
debate of birth control/non birth control, the husband was contemplating
a vasectomy and worked as a teacher in a private catholic school, note I
said worked, he no longer does (: ) So to avoid this people use socks
when making a point that they know will not be accepted be a certain few
here. This also explains why many people do not use their own names.

That's utter bull**** and you know it. People use socks to stir up
**** because they are cowardly assholes and grow a spine under an
assumed name. Your friend Mary is the A #1 culprit, despite all of her
bellowing about "free speech" and asserting that (and I quote)
"whatever happens in Usenet is okay by me. All of it, any of it, I just
love a free-for-all. " She's a ****ing hypocrite and she knows it.
The first mention of her name, she ran away with her tail between her
legs because she was embarassed.

-L.