Archive-name: net-anonymity/part4
Last-modified: 1994/5/9
Version: 1.0

ANONYMITY on the INTERNET
=========================

Compiled by L. Detweiler <[email protected]>.


<6.1> What preceded the first deployment of R. Depew's ARMM?
<6.2> Was R. Depew's first ARMM `automated censorship'?
<6.3> Was anon8785's posting of Depew's address cowardly/justifiable?
<6.4> How should the first Depew ARMM incident be remembered?
<6.5> What preceded the second incarnation of R. Depew's ARMM?
<6.6> What was the Second Depew ARMM Fiasco?
<6.7> How should the Second Depew ARMM Fiasco be remembered?

<7.1> What caused the Helsingius server shutdown?
<7.2> What were sentiments on the Helsingius shutdown?
<7.3> Was the `net personality' involved in the Helsingius shutdown?
<7.4> Was the `net personality' not responsible for the shutdown?


_____
<6.1> What preceded the first deployment of R. Depew's ARMM?


 Richard E. Depew <[email protected]>:

 > Julf's anonymous server seems to me to be contributing to the
 > erosion of civility and responsibility that have been the
 > hallmarks of the more traditional parts of USENET.  More than
 > that, Julf has refused to even discuss a compromise to his
 > position that all hierarchies should be open, by default, to his
 > server.
 >
 > I am testing a shell script to carry out "Automated Retroactive
 > Minimal Moderation" in response to Julf's (and your) suggestion
 > that the only way to control anonymous posting to groups that
 > don't want it is through moderation.  It cancels articles posted
 > from anon.penet.fi. I've tested it on recycled postings with a
 > "local" distribution and it works nicely.  I propose to arm
 > "ARMM" with an unrestricted distribution for the "sci" hierarchy
 > this weekend if Julf doesn't accept the proposed compromise or a
 > reasonable alternative by then.

 Francisco X DeJesus <[email protected]>:

 > this ARMM script is another bad idea. If there is a way to  simply
 > "ignore" control messages (cancels, at least) from the specific
 > site where this bass-ackwards non-service to the net is
 > originating from, please let me (and every other news admin who's
 > not an expert but wants to do something about this) know...

 Karl Krueger <[email protected]>:

 > Fascinating idea, both in programming and in application of
 > ethical values.  So this shellscript will, in essence, not only
 > affect your own users but also users netwide?  And you make a
 > threat to Julf as well?  This sounds a lot like terrorism:  "I'm
 > going to blow up your citizens (read: users) if you do not agree
 > to my demands!"  "Minimal Moderation" in the sense of ARMM is
 > like calling a missile "Peacekeeper".
 >
 > Censorship is not the way to go about things, neither is the
 > "ARMMing" of cybernetic missiles.  It is a difficult problem, the
 > only solution to which is to rely on the precedent: freedom.

 Perry E. Metzger <[email protected]>:

 > My site pays for news, and would prefer to get it uncensored by
 > Mr. Depew. We pay to get a full newsfeed for our money, not just
 > one with those messages Mr. Depew thinks are o.k. for us to read.

 Rick Harrison <[email protected]>:

 > Anyone who would volunteer to render a "service" such as
 > cancelling other people's messages must be a control freak.

 Mike Schenk <[email protected]>:

 > And for canceling all postings from the anon server. This is, in
 > my opinion a very severe case of censorship. While, I am aware
 > that the net is not a real democracy I've always thought that it
 > wasn't a police state either.

 Richard E. Depew <[email protected]>

 > I am writing to inform you that if Julf, [email protected], does
 > not soon block anonymous postings ... then I will activate an
 > "Automated Retroactive Minimal Moderation" script that will
 > cancel postings ...
 >
 > Rest assured that there is nothing personal in this.  I have not
 > read your postings, and I have no reason to believe that they
 > were out of line in any way ...

 David Sternlight <[email protected]>:

 > I support the automatic cancelling of anonymous posts to those
 > newsgroups whose members vote in the majority so to do.

 Michael L. Kaufman <[email protected]>:

 > Ah, but that is not what Mr. Depew was advocating.  Mr Depew wants
 > to cancel all anonymous post to newsgroups that don't vote not to
 > cacel them. The difference is important. He has a view and he is
 > not saying, "if your group agrees with me, this is what I will
 > do." He is saying, "I am just going to assume that everyone
 > agrees with me unless I hear otherwise." Furthermore, he chose
 > not to wait and see how the various votes would go.

 Brad Templeton <[email protected]>:

 > There are laws ... which prohibit users from deleting files on
 > computers when they do not have authorization to do this.
 >
 > It's ... clear that many site admins consider only the poster and
 > a few other people at most authorized to cancel a posting.
 >
 > So if you cancel like this, you may well ... be committing a
 > computer intrusion offence.

 Richard E. Depew <[email protected]>:

 > There shouldn't be much controversy over this, but there will be
 > anyhow.  :-)

 David Clunie <[email protected]>:

 > I presume that cancel messages can be cancelled ... though I
 > haven't experimented with this yet, but it looks like I might
 > have to. In fact I think I will probably just turn off response
 > to cancel messages totally if you go ahead with this scheme, and
 > I encourage other news administrators to do the same ... they
 > were a bad kludge in the first place and still are. It seems to
 > me they are rarely used for other than controversial purposes
 > like you are proposing (I don't like other people's postings so I
 > won't let anyone else read them).
 >
 > I hope you are prepared to take responsibility for what is going
 > to happen to your institution's news and mail servers if you go
 > ahead with this plan.
 >
 > ... you are way out of line here Richard, regardless of how many
 > smileys you tack on the end of your message.

 Richard E. Depew <[email protected]>:

 > That (disabling cancel messages) would be unfortunate.  They have
 > many legitimate uses.  Cancelling inappropriate postings is one
 > of these legitimate uses.
 >
 > ARMM, the "Automated Retroactive Minimal Moderation" script, has
 > been activated ...


_____
<6.2> Was R. Depew's first ARMM `automated censorship'?


 <[email protected]>:

 > RICHARD DEPEW imposes automated CENSORSHIP on the Net.
 >
 > For the past few weeks, there has  been  an  on-going  debate  in
 > news.admin.policy  concerning  anonymous  postings  to newsgroups
 > which have not invited such postings. It is an understatement  to
 > say there has been disagreement.
 >
 > This debate has recently resulted in the automated CENSORSHIP  of
 > postings  by  one of the principles of the debate. This system of
 > automated CENSORSHIP, called  ARMM,  the  "Automated  Retroactive
 > Minimal  Moderation" script, has been activated (Sat, 13 Mar 1993
 > 14:28:00 GMT) by Richard E. Depew ([email protected]). ARMM
 > automatically cancels or deletes postings which it "judges" to be
 > in-appropriate or un-acceptable.

 Catherine Anne Foulston <[email protected]>:

 > It is NOT censorship, any more than a private individual sneaking
 > into the library and cutting objectionable (to him) articles out
 > of all the magazines is censorship.  It's a form of vandalism,
 > perhaps sabotage, and it's obnoxious, but it is not censorship.
 >
 > Could whoever did that news-server-wide cancel script, that would
 > let me filter out these anon-cancels, please repost it?  Certain
 > anonymous posters are obnoxious and annoying, but not as much so
 > as someone cancelling articles not their own for no other reason
 > than that the articles are anonymous.  I'd like to filter out
 > those cancels from my site.

 David Condon <[email protected]>:

 > The person who proposed forging cancels, and who actually did
 > forge a few, is a news admin of some sort. By virtue of having a
 > higher level of both access and expertise than the average user,
 > that makes his act more akin to a _librarian_ vandalising books
 > than Joe Random Patron doing so.  Virtually all librarians would
 > consider such an act an egregious breach of professional ethics,
 > and most would not hesitate to call it "censorship," even if
 > purists assert that that term is only appropriate when carried
 > out by the state.

 Karl Krueger <[email protected]>:

 > M. Richard Depew has, by his own admission, created a weapon
 > capable of eradicating all messages from a certain site.  I use
 > the term "weapon" in the cybernetic sense - it "kills"
 > information, not people.
 >
 > M. Depew seems to believe this to be his responsibility,
 > somehow... his contribution to the safety and continued security
 > of the USENET, maybe?  He proposes that he be allowed to keep and
 > bear (and fire) a weapon capable of rendering many people
 > "unpersons", in the sense that they are not free to post their
 > opinions.

 Richard E. Depew <[email protected]>:

 > Roy,
 >
 > Please cancel your recent article entitled: Subject: Re: RICHARD
 > DEPEW imposes automated CENSORSHIP on the Net.
 >
 > That title is libelous. My "civil disobedience" had nothing to do
 > with censorship.  You have simply fallen for the lie of an
 > anonymous slanderer. A public apology would be greatly
 > appreciated.

 John Stanley <[email protected]>:

 > Your "civil disobedience" was conducted under the guise of
 > "moderator of the sci hierarchy" (an official position), and
 > caused the removal of material you considered objectionable. That
 > is, sir, a definition of censorship.
 >
 > It was automated, and it happened on "the Net".
 >
 > The ONLY remaining point in question is whether you really are
 > Richard Depew. If you admit to that, then the Subject: above is
 > true.

 Richard E. Depew <[email protected]>:

 > Well, I see the articles are still there ...
 >
 > To prove that I *did* learn something from the brouhahah that
 > surrounded the introduction of ARMM, I am giving "a two week
 > notice" that if those articles are not canceled within the next
 > 24 hours, I am going to escalate.  I'll take comments on my
 > proposed escalation and promise to reconsider if anyone can make
 > any *good* arguments against my plan.
 >
 > I hate to do this, because I understand that my name already is
 > "mudd" and any further disturbance is likely to lead to my total
 > discrediting.
 >
 > I've got this *great* new idea.  I call it the UDP, for USENET
 > Depew Penalty. If these people don't cancel their articles soon,
 > I'll invoke the UDP:
 >
 > I'll ban them from my Christmas Card List!

 <[email protected]>

 > I presume you are going to post to ALL sci groups telling them
 > that this "service" now exists and that  their only way of
 > "declining" is to prove to YOU that they have had a vote whereby
 > the majority have said that they accept anonymous posting.
 > Cancelling posts of others seems to me to be a breach of
 > netiquette (especially if  people in the groups concerned are not
 > informed of this cancelling).

 Jim Cowling <[email protected]>:

 > Even if you disgree with the label "censor" or "censorship", you
 > must agree to this statement:
 >
 >   Richard Depew's ARMM system prevents the UseNet community from
 >   reading publicly-posted messages without their consultation.
 >
 > This alone is ethically and morally bankrupt, and illegal on so
 > many levels that I wouldn't be surpirsed if I could press felony
 > charges immediately, even as a foreginer.

 John Stanley <[email protected]>:

 > Dick, when will you get the point?
 >
 > Nobody elected you moderator of any group, much less an entire
 > hierarchy. Stop pretending that it was OK for you to try to be
 > one.
 >
 > If you start your ARMM demon again, I am positive there will be
 > more than one person starting their own. You WILL NOT like who
 > they target.
 >
 > If you think the anonymous "problem" is bad, just wait until the
 > ARMM wars start.

 David Weingart <[email protected]>

 > (Had I been on the Net when ARMM was active, I certainly would
 > have been less polite...how DARE anyone decide what I should and
 > should not read in an unmoderated group)
 >
 > No, I'm not an admin, just a net.head, and I consider the concept
 > of ARMM to be disgusting.

 Richard E. Depew <[email protected]>

 > I owe an apology to "an4312":
 >
 > You, sir or madam, are the second civilian to be caught in the
 > cross-fire between Julf and myself.  I tried to warn
 > non-combatants off the battle field, but failed in your case.
 >
 > I apologize.
 >
 > Do you require immediate medical attention?
 >
 > Let's assess the damage.  One real posting to the "sci" hierarchy
 > was cancelled.  I've apologized to the author.  His priceless
 > prose has been delayed from public view for a few hours.  Is this
 > *really* something that you want to get me fired for doing?


_____
<6.3> Was anon8785's posting of Depew's address cowardly/justifiable?

 <[email protected]>:

 > If you do not think Richard E. Depew's ([email protected])
 > threat to censor the postings *you* may wish to read by beginning
 > a "canceling war," a good idea, please write directly to:
 > ...
 > Express your concern for this threatened instance of network
 > vandalism and damage to academic freedom throughout the world by
 > a reputed representative of his organization.

 Jay Maynard <[email protected]>:

 > Dick Depew is  accepting full responsibility for his actions. You
 > are not. He is the true man  of courage here. You are the worst
 > sort of coward, starting a battle and  hiding under a rock while
 > the bullets fly.

 Rob Sartin <[email protected]>:

 > The coward asked folks to flood Dick Depew's superiors with mail
 > and phone  calls.

 Richard E. Depew <[email protected]>:

 > You (and most USENET readers)  have seen the cowardly postings by
 > "an8785" calling on readers to contact the chairman of my
 > department and the director of computer services at my
 > institution by mail or phone to complain about me.

 Felix Gallo <[email protected]>:

 > There's nothing 'cowardly' about it.  The postings are simple
 > and factual.  If you like, I'll claim I'm an8785, and take
 > full responsibility for all his or her actions.  It wouldn't
 > bother me a bit.

 Steve Simmons <[email protected]>:

 > Though I disagree with Depews actions, he stood up and took the
 > heat.  an8785 engaged in an act of moral cowardice, and is now
 > hiding behind the shield of anonymity.    Previously my opinion
 > was that the an8785 should simply be disabled.  Given that an8785
 > has actively urged people to take actions to harm Depew and
 > refused to adequately reverse those actions, I now think an8785
 > should be unmasked.  Should Depew come to actual harm, the
 > anonymous service might find itself in interesting waters.

 Karl Krueger <[email protected]>:

 > I disagree.  an8785 did what s/he felt was necessary, and voicing
 > one's opinions (even anonymously) is the better path than not
 > doing so.

 Perry E. Metzger <[email protected]>:

 > In any case, I really can't see anything wrong with someone
 > posting the list of the board of trustees of your institution if
 > they like, anonymously or non-anonymously. If you feel what you
 > are doing is right, then you must be prepared to justify it to
 > people who can stop you.
 >
 > As for "blackmail", I'd say that ironically refering to your own
 > actions in the way described can hardly be construed as extortion
 > under any statute I am familiar with.

 Richard E. Depew <[email protected]>:

 > In other words, anonymous servers with inadequate safegards
 > protect law-breakers from the consequences of their actions.
 > *That* is what I oppose.

 Lazlo Nibble <[email protected]>:

 > I agree that servers that shield lawbreakers are a potential
 > problem.  I *don't* agree with your implied assertion that Julf
 > has shielded anyone who's broken the law (an8785 included) nor do
 > I agree that the existance of that possible problem gives you the
 > right to take unilateral netwide action against all postings
 > issued through anonymous servers.


_____
<6.4> How should the first Depew ARMM incident be remembered?

 Richard E. Depew <[email protected]>:

 > The time has come to share a few of the insights I have gained
 > from this whole messy affair.
 >
 > In *this* note I want to offer an olive-branch to Julf.
 >
 > Someone else said I was on a "quixotic crusade".  *That* struck a
 > responsive chord.  I'll accept that characterization with pride:
 > call me an electronic Don Quixote trying to fight evil and rescue
 > the oppressed in a chivalrous but unrealistic way.  :-)
 >
 > I'd like to call it the confrontation of "Don Quixote and the Guru
 > of anonymity".  The "evil" that I was fighting was not the Guru,
 > but those few sociopaths who were abusing his service.  While I
 > was tilting at windmills, the Guru was meditating on his mountain
 > top.
 >
 > Unfortunately, one of the windmills was an8785.  The scene
 > metamorphosed into "Bambi meets Godzilla" -- **THUMP**.
 >
 > Someone called it the confrontation of the "net-cop" vs. the
 > "net-outlaw".  I think that's a little harsh.  :-)

 Mark Brader <[email protected]>:

 > Well, "net-outlaw" is a little harsh on Julf.  But "net-cop" is an
 > extreme euphemism.  What Dick was playing was "net-vigilante
 > armed with assault weapons", and this sort of thing is simply out
 > of bounds.

 Richard E. Depew <[email protected]>:

 > Out of bounds, sure, but undeniably within long established USENET
 > tradition.  :-)

 Mark Brader <[email protected]>

 > ... one reason I'm posting this is to make it clear that, if
 > "automated moderation" is to be implemented through cancel
 > messages, it is simply not acceptable.  Indeed, I would consider
 > it ample cause for the removal of the cancelling site from
 > Usenet.
 >
 > The fact that Dick was willing to stand behinds his actions is
 > creditable, but it doesn't excuse the fact that the actions were
 > wrong for Usenet, *even if* the anonymous service was everything
 > that Dick thought it was.  The cancels are just too damaging to
 > Usenet's distribution algorithm -- and I would like to see Dick
 > say he agrees with this paragraph.

 Richard E. Depew <[email protected]>:

 > OK, I agree.
 >
 > I made several mistakes, and I have apologized for them.  I have
 > "sentenced" myself to "community service" for a few weeks to try
 > to repair some of the harm I caused.
 >
 > I *would* appreciate a few apologies from the "lynch mob",
 > however.  Few if any of the participants have yet to understand
 > that I was only trying to get Julf to talk about a possible
 > compromise. The mob overreacted very badly two weeks ago.  I was
 > being rude and provocative, but what I got in return exceeded all
 > bounds of decency.

 John Stanley <[email protected]>:

 > What you got in return for your self-appointed moderation of an
 > entire hierarchy was much less than the last auto-cancellor got,
 > and less than you deserve.

 Lazlo Nibble <[email protected]>:

 > In my opinion, you gave up the right to expect decency when you
 > took advantage of the open nature of this electronic community
 > and attempted to unilaterally impose your views of what's right
 > and what's wrong upon it. Your actions deserved the reaction they
 > received, and you're not likely to get any apologies for that
 > reaction.

 Richard E. Depew <[email protected]>:

 > How would you and Julf like to join me and a few other friends in
 > a T-shirt pyramid scheme: ARMMway distributors?  You can have Oz.
 > :-)
 >
 > Our corporate mascot will be a turkey wearing one of these
 > T-shirts.  Our ad will be a poster showing this turkey and our
 > corporate slogan: "How can you soar with eagles when you have to
 > work with turkeys?".  I'd think every system administrator will
 > want one.

 Vincent Fox <[email protected]>:

 > The whole thing I dislike about the Depew vs Anon thing is that
 > both sides were forcing it on me wholesale. If this anon-thing
 > had kept up being spread across all newsgroups, you can bet your
 > ass I would have put a filter on to drop all anon-postings on the
 > floor for *my* server. On the other hand I am apalled at Depew's
 > plan to forge cancels since he also is trying to force his ideas
 > on me. *I'll* make those decisions thank you both very much
 > gentlemen.

 Chuq Von Rospach <[email protected]>:

 > I mean, what Depew is doing is obnoxious, but I can tell him so to
 > his face (and he can tell me to stuff it to my face, if he
 > wishs). On the othe side, though, we have a character
 > assasination attempt going by someone who has no name. That's
 > being an upright citizen?
 >
 > I think both sides are being real twitheads, and both side are
 > showing the worst aspects of USENET culture. May everyone's disks
 > crash, and may the replacements be misrouted to Angola.

 Richard E. Depew <[email protected]>:

 > The clinical trial was successful, at least in temporarily
 > eradicating the pathogen from the patient's brain, but the
 > patient unexpectedly suffered a severe allergic reaction, so I
 > halted the test out of compassion.

 Lazlo Nibble <[email protected]>:

 > Is this what you teach your students?  That it's somehow "okay"
 > for them to spend a few weeks in the lab breeding up "harmless"
 > organisms and then releasing them into the general population?
 > Handing out free samples of a vaccine that kills the thing off
 > doesn't make it right to let it out of the lab in the first
 > place.

 Richard E. Depew <[email protected]>:

 > Julf and I have been engaged in bilateral negotiations to forge a
 > "peace treaty" between us.
 >
 > USENET is a cooperative anarchy.  If enough of you do your part,
 > we are confident that we can apply the important lessons we have
 > learned from recent events and set a better example for future
 > anonymous servers and automated moderation demons.
 >
 > I am a humble servant of the net.  I have learned my lesson.
 >
 > Time to cobble up Edition 4 of ARMM in case any group ever votes
 > to use it.

_____
<6.5> What preceded the second incarnation of R. Depew's ARMM?

 Richard E. Depew <[email protected]>:

 > ARMM has evolved.  Expect a post on the subject shortly.  I am
 > trying to rustle up a volunteer to serve as the "target" of
 > another demonstration.  I expect you will find the latest
 > incarnation of ARMM to be acceptable.

 Lazlo Nibble <[email protected]>:

 > You just absolutely refuse to get the point, don't you Richard?
 > Unless you have an explicit consensus that ARMM is welcomed by
 > the people it is going to affect, you have absolutely no business
 > activating it on this network. Period.  *You don't have any right
 > to make these decisions for the rest of us!*

 Richard E. Depew <[email protected]>:

 > Spoken like a true fanatic, Lazlo.
 >
 > I should have expected that my attempt to calm things down would
 > frighten the extremists.

 John Stanley <[email protected]>:

 > I haven't the slightest doubt that I will find the latest
 > incarnation of ARMM to be as totally repugnant as your first
 > attempt at self-appointed moderation.
 >
 > It seems that you have now proven that you still think that ARMM
 > is a good thing and are continuing to try to get it accepted.
 >
 > You just still don't get it, do you Dick. You didn't have, and
 > still don't, the right to decide to cancel postings that you
 > don't like.

 Lasse Hiller|e Petersen <[email protected]>:

 > If I can have a wish, I'd wish you'd delete your ARMM and never
 > write one again, and certainly never activate one. It is not and
 > will never be the right way to deal with general anonymous
 > servers.

 Richard E. Depew <[email protected]>:

 > I've decided to follow in the honorable tradition of the
 > pioneering microbiologists who tested their hypotheses, and their
 > possibly pathogenic isolates, and their experimental vaccines, on
 > themselves!  (As you probably know, several of them died from
 > their own experiments.)
 >
 > I have just now armed ARMM5 to "minimally moderate" my own posts,
 > and nobody else's.   This moderation will be restricted to the
 > single newsgroup, news.admin.policy.
 >
 > I don't, at the moment, see how anyone can object to *this*
 > demonstration, but I expect *someone* will find a way.  :-)

 Juha Laiho <[email protected]>:

 > What do you think about this approach? At least it looks ok to me,
 > if it's used properly. No more final cancellation of messages,
 > but some way to put a warning in the beginning of a message. Now
 > forget any possible personal hatred for the creator of that
 > software, and think about the idea.

 John Stanley <[email protected]>:

 > Hmmm. It sounds like Mr. Depew is not only planning on cancelling
 > other people's articles, but taking the article and editing it
 > and then forging it back onto the net.
 >
 > This is supposed to be better?

 Ken Weaverling <[email protected]>:

 > *Please*, I humbly request that you not activate this ARMM thing.
 >
 > I have not posted on this subject. I, like many other sys admins,
 > do not have a lot of time to twiddle with things.  In fact, I
 > don't have ANY time. My users are always at my thoughts, I am
 > understaffed, and I can't keep up.
 >
 > Asking me to learn what ARMM is, how to alter my feed files to
 > accept,  not accept, ignore, or whatever it does, is asking a
 > lot. A REAL LOT.
 >
 > I, as many other news admins, will not do anything.  This means
 > that by default, your ARMM whatever it is will operate and do its
 > nasty deeds. I feel that the "cure" is far worse than the
 > disease.
 >
 > Somehow, in the grand scheme of things, this is wrong.

 G. Lee Owen <[email protected]>:

 > Mr. Depew, I've just read your "evolution of ARMM" and I think I
 > have a fairly good grasp of what you are trying to say.  It seems
 > to me that ARMM has evolved to the point of overkill.
 >
 > I think ARMM has evolved into a rube goldberg machine, an
 > overcomplicated solution, where all we need to do is sit down,
 > discuss what we all want anon sites to do, and formalize a
 > consensus.
 >
 > I admired the cooperation that [email protected] and red@redpoll
 > reached a few days ago.  Lets work further on that model, and
 > reach a constructive compromise.


_____
<6.6> What was the Second Depew ARMM Fiasco?


 Richard E. Depew <[email protected]>:

 > Friends (if I have any left at this point),
 >
 > <Blush>
 >
 > You have undoubtedly noticed the flood of ARMM posts that I caused
 > last night.
 >
 > I made mistakes in both implementation and testing. That was truly
 > bone-headed implementation error! I seem to have a real talent
 > for spectacular screw-ups!
 >
 > I agree, though, that my fate is richly deserved.  The net loony
 > bin seems to be the safest place for me right now.
 >
 > Thanks for your understanding.  It was an honest mistake.

 Francisco X DeJesus <[email protected]>:

 > The problem isn't you screwing up, it's you screwing EVERYONE ELSE
 > up.

 Joel Furr <[email protected]>:

 > In the sober light of day, I'm laughing as I re-read the comments
 > on the March 30 ARMM Massacre.  Last _night_, on the other hand,
 > I had a mental image of a machine sitting atop a hill, making a
 > low droning sound, releasing infinite numbers of Frankenstein's
 > Monsters on the surrounding environs.  Frankenstein's Monsters
 > here, Frankenstein's Monsters there, lurching about
 > stiff-leggedly, arms outstretched, and all muttering the same
 > word over and over: ARMM ARMM ARMM ARMM ARMM.

 Duke Robillard <[email protected]>:

 > So, do you suppose Dick has now sent out more bogus messages than
 > every bad anon post every made, combined?

 Richard E. Depew <[email protected]>:

 > Nope.  Nowhere close.  However, I expect to make it into the "top
 > 25 posters by number of articles" list for the first time.  There
 > is just no way I can compete in volume, however. Hmmmm... maybe
 > ARMM6 should carry a GIF file...

 Karl Krueger <[email protected]>:

 > What is the reason for this nonsense?
 >
 > ...  a destructive cyberspatial act on a massive scale has
 > occurred.
 >
 > I assume that it is not deliberate viciousness, because I believe
 > M. Depew to be well-intentioned, if a little misguided.  It seems
 > to me to be a simple bug - ARMM is re-ARMMing its own output.

 <[email protected]>:

 > Who the hell is responsible for this major-league mishap?
 >
 > Please, if I see the letters ARMM again I'm gonna kill someone.


_____
<6.7> How should the Second Depew ARMM Fiasco be remembered?

 Joel Furr <[email protected]>:

 > Alt.fan.dick-depew is hereby newgrouped.  This group is intended
 > to serve as a forum for the MANY, MANY fans of Mr. Richard Depew
 > of Munroe Falls, Ohio, who has made himself famous for:
 >
 > * unilaterally asserting the authority to cancel ANY anonymous
 >   posts made to groups he likes to read
 > * his God complex
 > * spamming news.admin.policy with a robot poster that attempted to
 >   cancel its own articles but failed and instead generated
 >   articles containing subject lines and headers dozens of screens
 >   long.

 Ed Hall <[email protected]>:

 > I'd like to comment, though, that even though Mr. Depew's blunder
 > might seem a bit comic on the morning after, I doubt many people
 > have forgotten the serious side: he was using the mechanisms of
 > the net as his own private toy.  That, in my honest opinion, is a
 > distinctly anti-social act, even in a place known for its
 > anti-social acts--the Net.
 >
 > The whole episode is a bit like a burglar getting stuck in the
 > chimney; we might laugh, but we still want him treated as a
 > burglar.  In Mr. Depew's case, I'd be happy if he just stopped
 > mucking with control messages, both now and forevermore.  If he
 > doesn't--well, I'm sure there are others here who will figure out
 > something.

 Timothy C. May <[email protected]>:

 > My God! You mean you were actually logged-in and reading
 > news.admin.policy as all this was happening? In real time?
 >
 > That's like happening to be outside and looking up as a giant
 > meteor goes overhead...others can *read* about it or see it
 > replayed on t.v., but you actually *experienced* it! You were
 > *there*. (Of course, watch for tens of thousands of false claims
 > as the years go by..."Yep, there I was, logged in, when all of a
 > sudden smoke started comin' out of my computer. Yes sirree, it
 > was a sight to behold.")
 >
 > To mix metaphors by using earthquake terms, what DePew did was a
 > "microMorris," but still an interesting one.

 George William Herbert <[email protected]>:

 > ------------------------------------------------------------------
 > |          Official March 30th ARMM Massacre Scorecard           |
 > |                                                                |
 > |  Dear Mr. Depew:                                               |
 > |                                                                |
 > |  We have determined that you have earned the following score   |
 > |  in the Usenet Activities Contest:                             |
 > |                                                                |
 > |     6488 Supercedes @ 1 point each:              6488 pts.     |
 > |     2 Clueless Newbies (1) @ 30 pts:               60 pts.     |
 > |     28 Flaming Non-newbies (2) @ 25:              700 pts.     |
 > |     Recursive Runaway Award (3) :                 500 pts.     |
 > |     Bonus: New World Record for Largest Cascade: 1000 pts.     |
 > |          Total:                                 8,748 pts.     |
 > |                                                                |
 > |  This has earned you the rank of: Aspiring Usenet Legend       |
 > |                                                                |
 > |  Thank you for your continuing to grace Usenet with your       |
 > |  presence.  Your daemon's antics have made our day here.       |
 > ------------------------------------------------------------------



_____
<7.1> What caused the Helsingius server shutdown?

 <[email protected]>:

 > Being a former sysadmin of two years, I can understand the
 > bullshit the anon.penet.fi server was put through.  The 'gawds
 > above' reacted more out of ego and fear of the FCC than out of
 > fairness.
 >
 > Your service has been appreciated.

 <[email protected]>:

 > Excuse me, but I fail to see why the legal climate in the United
 > States justifies meddling with the administrative policy of a
 > site in Finland.  Could someone explain?

 Derrick J. Brashear <[email protected]>:

 > To all of you who had a hand in the demise of anon.penet.fi in any
 > way shape or form, allow me to congratulate you. You've succeeded
 > in screwing over 10000 legitimate users of the anon server
 > because: a) a few, and I mean a few, posted abusive or
 > inappropriate messages b) people didn't find anonymous messages
 > appropriate outside alt.* and a handful of other groups.
 >
 > Who loses? All the people who used anon.penet.fi for what it was
 > intended for. Yet those responsible will likely escape unscathed,
 > and as of 2 AM US Eastern Standard Time, no "notable usenet
 > personality" has stepped forward to take responsibility for the
 > shutdown of the server.
 >
 > Once again, thank you.

 Jay Maynard <[email protected]>:

 > I am disappointed that the anon server was completely shut down in
 > the manner that actually occurred. While I think Julf's service
 > needed to be cut back, I  would much rather that this have
 > happened of Julf's own free will, becuase he  saw it as the Right
 > Thing, instead of being imposed from outside.

 Jon Noring <[email protected]>:

 > And it seems to me that things were getting settled.  Julf was
 > finally beginning to respond to several criticisms (some
 > justified) as to how he was conducting his service.  Again, this
 > is a blow to Usenet since outside power was used to enforce a
 > certain Usenet structure, rather than letting the users of Usenet
 > decide what is best.  This unfortunately sets a dangerous
 > precedent. It also takes more control of Usenet out of the hands
 > of the users and puts it in the hands of the control-phreaks.

 Dave Hayes <[email protected]>:

 > This is truly the proof by example of the elitist nature of
 > USENET. It is also an example of "my way is the only way and the
 > right way"-itis.  Most news administrators of this type exist as
 > such only to feed their egos, and not as they are in a position
 > of service.

 Lazlo Nibble <[email protected]>:

 > I know everyone's calling for the head of the "personality"
 > involved, but I'd like to hear a little more about what *exactly*
 > is making it "politically impossible" for anon.penet.fi to
 > continue operation.  The above paragraph paints things in tones a
 > little too scandalous to take seriously without more evidence --
 > it strikes me as quite possible that a routine complaint
 > (*conincedentally* from Net Personality <X>) reached someone in a
 > position of power over penet who decided that the service was
 > causing too much controversy for the site.  No conspiracies
 > there.

 <[email protected]>:

 > I too would be very interested in knowing what really happened. I
 > don't care who the "extremely highly regarded net personality"
 > would be, but it would be nice to know what kind of "situation"
 > was "created".
 >
 > Just for the record: It was sad that the anon server went down in
 > flames, but it was not without reason. I think there is a case
 > for a pseudonym service on Usenet, but it will take some more
 > thinking and discussion to figure out how it should work. I think
 > we are a bit wiser after Julf's experiment and that we should use
 > the knowledge we gained in a positive way.

 Tom Bryce <[email protected]>:

 > I don't believe it for a damn minute when people say abuse of the
 > anonymous posting service was what caused anon.penet.fi to be
 > shut down.
 >
 > It's just a lesson in power, the net administrators don't like
 > having certain things taken out of their control and power and
 > the user be damned, they're going to keep things in line. Tough
 > shit, I say. You don't have to know who I am, and if I'm abusing
 > the network anonymously, take the proof to the admin- instrator
 > of the anonymous service, and have them lock me out.
 >
 > Julf's posting was way too apologetic. You've nothing to apologize
 > for, I hope you or someone else gets another one going.

 Karl Kleinpaste <[email protected]>:

 > Generally, these server deaths have been due to abuses by an
 > extremely small number of maladjusted individuals who have done
 > something sufficiently heinous to attract the attention of Those
 > Who Matter.  TWM is a context-sensitive group, and has consisted
 > of, at various times and in relation to various anonymous
 > servers: the facilities management group of the site in question;
 > politically powerful individuals with influence regarding the
 > network connection of the server host; large numbers of irate
 > users inundating the server or its adminstrator in mail.

 <[email protected]>:

 > I have SEEN Mr. Big's letter to Julf, and I have SEEN the articles
 > pulled out of talk.politics.mideast.  If you read that group, you
 > know it's about 451 degrees in there.  The articles consist
 > mostly of a nym fighting with some guy at a big University. ...
 > there was nothing you wouldn't expect to find there, and the fact
 > that one of the participants was a nym was totally irrelevant,
 > and certainly violated no laws, or even Usenet decorum, such as
 > it is, Mr. Big's self-important,, inflated opinion to the
 > contrary notwithstanding.
 >
 > Mr. Big's gripe has nothing to do with the content of the
 > articles, that's all bullshit, just a sham.  The only thing he
 > cares about is that one of the flamers is a nym.  I agree with
 > whoever called him a bigot and a hypocrite.



_____
<7.2> What were sentiments on the Helsingius shutdown?

 Ze Julf <[email protected]>:

 > The anonymous service at anon.penet.fi has been closed down.
 > Postings to netnews and mail to arbitrary addresses has been
 > blocked. To enable users who know each other only by their anon
 > ID's to arrange alternate communication paths, mail to anonymous
 > users will still be supported for two weeks. After this period
 > all database entries will be deleted.

 Solomon Yusim <[email protected]>:

 > I think it is also outrageous and deeply embarrassing to the whole
 > net community as to the secretive, back-handed, and authocratic
 > measures of how this shutdown had happened.

 Leonard Norrgard <[email protected]>:

 > This stinks.  I'm sure something could've been worked out without
 > going to this extreme.  I'm sorry to see it happen, and in this
 > way.

 Howard S Shubs <[email protected]>:

 > I think that the loss of this anonymous server is a shame.

 David A. Clunie <[email protected]>:

 > This is very sad.
 >
 > Having been the victim of a similar attack on my anonymous server
 > I sympathize.
 >
 > Even your most vocal detractors in this group would seem to regard
 > this as an unfortunate outcome.

 Hannu Sepp{nen <[email protected]>:

 > Demanding him to reveal the net person(s) behing the shutting down
 > of anon.penet.fi is not the point; there are always people around
 > that use their power for forcing... I'm concerned about the fact
 > that such forcing can be done, anonymously... It can be done,
 > because that person has a clear target, Julf. If the idea of
 > anonymous servers is supposed to be kept alive, it requires
 > several sites running such, in different organizations, in
 > different countries... That would be the only way to avoid what
 > happened to Julf?

 Dr. Cat <[email protected]>:

 > I do have to say I'm most sorry for a good friend of mine who had
 > a very pressing need to use an anon service in the near future,
 > for personal reasons I can't go into.  If anyone knows of any
 > alternatative anon servers she could use instead, please email me
 > information on them.  Julf's was the only one I knew about.

 Rob Knauerhase <[email protected]>:

 > I'm constantly amazed at all the people who are outraged that the
 > anon server has gone down, but are unwilling to do anything about
 > it.  For crying out loud, Karl Kleinpaste's sources are available
 > -- you don't even have to be sophisticated endough to write it or
 > even understand it -- get them and put one up yourself.  If
 > you're not a sysadmin, then start campaigning the admins on your
 > machine.  But _please_ stop whining that this one is gone.

 <[email protected]>:

 > I, too, thank Julf, and am sorry to see the anon server go.  There
 > are subjects of discussion for which anonymity is appropriate
 > (e.g. sexual abuse, suicide, etc.).  Abuse of the service is
 > regretable, but i think an alternative way of handling that
 > beside shutting it down could have been found.

 Richard E. Depew <[email protected]>:

 > It was never my aim to completely shut down anon.penet.fi.  I was,
 > and remain, a proponent of compromise - of setting some
 > reasonable limits on the uses of anonymity.  It was fanatics like
 > yourself who insisted on "all or nothing" that brought down
 > anon.penet.fi.

 Lazlo Nibble <[email protected]>:

 > I do not insist, and never have insisted, on an "all or nothing"
 > approach to anonymous posting.  My fanaticism is limited to the
 > idea that *you*, as an individual, have no business determining
 > what people at other sites can read unless the people in charge
 > of those sites expressly empower you to make that decision.

 Paul Hughes <[email protected]>:

 > I wanted to register my formal complaint with anyone who felt it
 > was a valid, justified action in closing the anonymous server.  I
 > object to the treatments Julf and the remaining non-abusive
 > members of the anonymous community have had to endure...ranging
 > from simple categorization to near slander.  I also believe many
 > people are hurt by this recent event.  All of the abuse and
 > recovery groups, alt.sex, alt.sex.wizards, and even the a.b.p.e
 > group (whose usage of  the anon server was of questionable merit
 > anyway), I predict, will find at  least temporary slow downs in
 > net.traffic due to people afraid to ask for help because of
 > private concerns that need only be their own.  Educational,
 > healthy purposes for posting anonymously are now going to
 > frighten many back into a hiding period, wishing for a new server
 > to free them to speak with people who can identify with their
 > problems.

 Bert Medley <[email protected]>:

 > In any case, if I were a person who did not believe in such a
 > service, I would have used a Kill file rather than shut the
 > service down.  THERE ARE MANY VALID REASONS FOR SUCH A SERVER TO
 > EXIST.

 Dana Tyler <[email protected]>:

 > To: [email protected]
 >
 > Sorry to hear what has happened to your server. I think the net
 > community as a whole will suffer from it's loss. Posting to
 > alt.personal groups as well as other risque groups such as
 > alt.sex.movies will slow to nothing. I think the people of the
 > world have a right to express thier opinions while revealing
 > their identity. It eliminates pressure from one's peers to
 > conform to norms of scociety. I'll really miss it.

 Richard M. Hartman <[email protected]>:

 > This is too bad.  I have been perhaps one of the most vocal
 > against your service, but I have ALWAYS maintained that it was
 > not anon postings per se that I was against, as the MANNER in
 > which the service had been started, and the lack of strong policy
 > statements.

 Richard E. Depew <[email protected]>:

 > The Guru was leaving his mountain.
 >
 > I was shocked.  I was disappointed.  I was saddened.  I was also
 > proud of Julf for the way he admitted errors and took
 > responsibility. He has nothing to be ashamed of.  A few of his
 > users betrayed him.
 >
 > A hurried exchange of email showed that several of my allies felt
 > the same way -- that *this* wasn't what we had been arguing for
 > -- we didn't want a complete shut-down, what we wanted was to
 > make the anonymous service more accountable and thereby more
 > acceptable.

 Alexander Chislenko <[email protected]>:

 > I could hardly overstate my respect to Julf's work. I expect that
 > any future textbook on the history of the Net will mention
 > [email protected] and Julf personally.

 Ze Julf <[email protected]>:

 > I'm probably not the only one who has been really surprised at the
 > very strong reaction in support of anonymous services that the
 > suspension of the anonymous posting service at anon.penet.fi
 > caused. This proof of support  (evidenced, among other things, by
 > the fact that I have received more than 350 personal mail
 > messages since the announcement of the suspension of the service.
 > Of these, only 6 have been against resuming the service) have
 > vastly improved my chances of resuming full operation. I really
 > want to thank everybody who expressed their support for the
 > service, both on news and in e-mail.  I don't have the words to
 > express how much I appreciate it!


_____
<7.3> Was the `net personality' involved in the Helsingius shutdown?

 Ze Julf <[email protected]>:

 > Due to the lawsuit-intensive climate in the US, many anonymous
 > services have been short-lived. By setting up anon.penet.fi in
 > Finland, I hoped to create a more stable service. Anon.penet.fi
 > managed to stay in operation for almost five months. The service
 > was protected from most of the usual problems that had forced
 > other services to shut down. But there are always going to be
 > ways to stop something as controversial as an anon service. In
 > this case, a very well-known and extremely highly regarded net
 > personality managed to contact exactly the right people to create
 > a situation where it is politically impossible for me to continue
 > running the service.

 Jay Maynard <[email protected]>:

 > I call for the "net personality" responsible to come forward and
 > accept  responsibility publicly for this action, and explain his
 > reasoning (which may  well be valid, but we won't know until we
 > hear it).

 Dave Hayes <[email protected]>

 > There is no such thing as a "highly regarded" reputation...anyone
 > who did this act is a net.asshole and deserves any condemnation
 > he or she gets. They obviously are not acting for the good of the
 > USENET community.

 David A. Clunie <[email protected]>

 > Tell us who the bastard was this time ! He or she may have been a
 > "very well-known and extremely highly regarded net personality"
 > but they won't be for much longer.

 Leonard Norrgard <[email protected]>:

 > *I* expect to see this person step forward and and admit it, if
 > they're that well-respected.

 Howard S Shubs <[email protected]>:

 > Who and what happened?  Why didn't you give this info in public?
 > Is the person who stopped you ashamed of his/her actions?

 <[email protected]>:

 > I'll add some fuel to the flame war at this point. Julf is making
 > a very vague statement, aiming at a group of people. He does not
 > state what really happened, that would probably have been easy
 > without telling us the identity of this "extremely highly
 > regarded net personality".
 >
 > I don't know _why_ Julf doesn't reveal the identity of this
 > person, but the way he phrased his article it looks like he's
 > attacking some kind of backbone cabal or high profile person. On
 > the other hand, Julf may have had only good intentions by not
 > telling us the identity. However, that doesn't justify his
 > description of the prson as an "extremely highly regarded net
 > personality."

 H Keith Henson <[email protected]>:

 > I wish to express my appreciation to Julf for running
 > anon.penet.fi. It is a shame that those opposed could not evolve
 > better ways to cope than just shuting him down.  I also request
 > that the person(s?) who did so would step forward and engage in
 > discussion as to why they felt this to be necessary.

 Dr. Cat <[email protected]>:

 > I'll add my voice to those who want to know who did this to Julf,
 > and why. Further, I would really like to know HOW it was done.
 > It sounds like there may have been some heavy-handed,
 > manipulative user of power involved.  But certainly I'm willing
 > to hear the "well known net personality" give their side of the
 > story before passing judgement.

 Pat Myrto <[email protected]>:

 > Other than some folks being irritated by some anon postings, what
 > was the problem?  Surely not as irritating as some un-named
 > individual dictating that only activity that *HE* approves of may
 > occur on the net...
 >
 > Surely this person does not want to hide behind anonymity
 > _himself_, does he, seeing as he apparantly strongly opposes
 > others using it? Actions are a much stronger indicator of where
 > someone is at than statements, and it would be nice to know who
 > is, in effect, dictating overall net.policy, and who gave him
 > this authority...

 <[email protected]>:

 > if the people responsible for shutting down the service decline to
 > indentify themselves, that would be an example of blatant
 > hypocrisy.

 <[email protected]>:

 > I think that the highly regarded net personality should announce
 > his name here.  Surely it would be hypocrisy of the highest order
 > for him to try to remain anonymous?

 Eddy Robinson <[email protected]>:

 > I find it highly ironic that so many people were flamed for
 > advocating anonymity, whether they used it or not; and now Julf
 > is referring to a "net-personality" presumably in a diplomatic
 > attempt to preserve that person from a flamefest. If this centres
 > around a particular poster (as opposed to the 500th complainant
 > about anonymity or something), then I fail to see why they do not
 > "have the courage of their convictions" and stand up to take the
 > credit.

 Tom Gift <[email protected]>:

 > Isn't it just a wee bit hypocritical that the alledged net
 > luminary who is quoted as saying there's no legitimate need for
 > anonymity is him(her)self not willing to publicly take
 > responsibility for his/her actions in this mess?

 Alexander Chislenko <[email protected]>:

 > I find it very ironic that people who forced Julf to shut down the
 > anonymous service, choose to stay  *anonymous* themselves. Looks
 > like they think that their reasons for using anonymity in this
 > case are more legitimate than any other reasons anybody else
 > might ever have.

_____
<7.4> Was the `net personality' not responsible for the shutdown?

 Tarl Neustaedter <[email protected]>:

 > A reality check; The "net personality" didn't shut Julf down. At
 > most, such a person could ask others (who do have power over
 > Julf) to review Julf's policies and make their own decisions.
 > From Julf's article, that appears to be what happened.

 Michael Friedman <[email protected]>:

 > Will you conspiracy theorists please make some effort to get a
 > clue? Julf is almost certainly lying or, at the very least,
 > distorting the truth.
 >
 > In fact, Julf's new announcement that his service is resuming
 > clearly indicates that he made the decision to eliminate the
 > original service.
 >
 > In short, Julf, I think you lied.

 John Kennedy <[email protected]>:

 > I happen to think it's amazingly funny.  Here you have a whole lot
 > of people, fighting tooth and nail for a service and this
 > mysterious net entity manages to get it shut down.
 >
 > Suddenly, you have people you've never seen crawling out of the
 > woodwork crying foul, and demanding to know said net-person's
 > name. Some of these are almost certainly people who used the
 > anonymous service to protect their _own_ identity from just this
 > sort of abuse.  _Regardless_ of how this person behaved, he
 > deserves his anonymous status, don't you think?

 Elioc S. Nevets <[email protected]>:

 > He has the right to complain; he has the right to remain
 > anonymous. Maybe he didn't make himself known to the USENET
 > community at-large because he knew people like you wouldn't be
 > able to understand that all he did was complain, that he did not
 > shut down the anon.server, and that he has not authority to.
 > Just because he exercises his right to free speech, standing up
 > for what he believes in, and complains, doesn't mean he has to
 > submit himself to public debasement.

 <[email protected]>:

 > This is getting so boring.
 >
 > Julf, with some admirable restraint, gives us the bare outline of
 > what happened to convince him that his anonymous server machine
 > should be shut down.
 >
 > Everyone *now* jumps in to say that the person who triggered this
 > action is a net.idiot (or other unkind epithets), some of them
 > being the same folks who were jumping on Julf's case for being
 > too liberal with the way he ran the machine.

 Michael Friedman <[email protected]>:

 > I'm saying we can't trust him because he lies...
 >
 > Oh, and does anyone still believe his claim about some important
 > net-person getting his server shut down?  If so, how do you
 > explain his sudden ability to restart it?

 Jon Noring <[email protected]>:

 > to: "somebody"
 >
 > I am writing you to get your opinion and advice concerning
 > universal anonymous posting services such as anon.penet.fi which
 > was recently closed down.  Of course, I am aware from several
 > net.people that you, for whatever reason, played a major role in
 > this particular closing...
 >
 > ...  When I first heard of the closure, I was upset and fired off
 > a post, before getting the facts, saying not-so-nice things about
 > the so-and-so net.personality who was instrumental in the closing
 > of anon.penet.fi.  But...
 >
 > ...you must have had a good reason for doing so that had to remain
 > unstated.  Thus, I apologize for my statements, since I now
 > realize that there must be more to this closure than meets the
 > eye.  Julf even alluded to that as well in his e-mail to me - but
 > he's been very tight-lipped about specific details...
 >
 > (p.s., I'm sure you know by now that there are a lot of angry
 > people out there in Usenetia who would hang you from the highest
 > tree if they knew you were the famous net.personality (as Julf
 > called you) - but of course they don't yet know the background
 > information.)

 "somebody":

 > Despite what you may have heard, I did not play a "major" role --
 > I sent one mail message to Julf urging him to shut the service
 > down.  I did what any other person with knowledge of the net
 > might do, too -- I cc'd the administrator of his service
 > provider.  The shutdown occurred because of some interaction
 > between Julf and the admins -- probably aided by mail from other
 > objectors.  I played no active role in the events.

 John Stanley <[email protected]>:

 > I would hate to contradict a well-known net authority, but sending
 > mail is an active role.

 Ze Julf <[email protected]>

 > A lot of people have also asked me to reveal the exact events and
 > names that caused the suspension of the service. I don't feel
 > that that would serve any useful purpose at this point, as things
 > have turned out pretty favourable and any public flame wars would
 > only mess things up again. I once again repeat that I'm convinced
 > the individuals involved acted out of their regard for the best
 > of the net, and didn't realize the special circumstances that
 > caused their actions to have such an impact.


* * *

This is Part 4 of the Anonymity FAQ, obtained via anonymous FTP to
 rtfm.mit.edu:/pub/usenet/news.answers/net-anonymity/ or newsgroups
 alt.privacy, alt.answers, news.answers every 21 days.
Written by L. Detweiler <[email protected]>.
All rights reserved.

You are viewing proxied material from infinitelyremote.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.