Jay Garcia's response after Hurricane Katrina

[Ron Williams]

I am simply to the point of no return regarding my anger toward Antony Shen. After I angered Antony, several related hacks happened on my website. I must warn you Antony, if things like this continue, I will immediately contact the US FBI and hands over all server access logs and contact your host regarding your illegal behavior. It would be horrible if the FBI confiscated your server for investigation (not in my opinion, but for you and your users it would). Considering you have shell access, you could have your server doing this.

Your accusation is false. SillyDog701 and I do not operate in such manner and have no whatsoever interests on you web server. Allow me to remind you, many people, including Mr Jay Garcia, have shell access as well.

Shall SillyDog701 server being down for no reason, Ronnie Williams II is the prime suspect as he has nominated himself. Ronnie Williams II will face severe civil charges shall any false accusations arise from him.

Regarding my nomination because of your server being down. Antony, you assume this but I would not be the one to take it offline. I do not engage in snooping, hacking, or DoS-ing.

Prove where they are false. And what are you going to sue me because I suggest you are the prime suspect of hacks against my server? Let me make something clear. I have no care for your threats. I find them as udder stupidity because you don't know much about US law. For one thing, making a false but justifyable claim if warrant for the original claim and no legal action can be taken.

SUE ME. You can't get anything. For one thing, I am a minor. Second, you cant sue me if the US FBI confiscates your server and causes downtime to SD701. Why? Because it would be part of an ongoing criminal investigation. Third, you have to prove where you lost money in this. It is not where you get your livelyhood, so you would get nothing. Oh, maybe the average amount of money for that time that you get income for google ads. Also regarding an investigation/confiscation, the FBI has the right to keep the server permanently. Why? Because they can. My mom had a gun, she could not have it when she had a protective order against someone, the police took it. My mom dropped the protective order after this person died. It was dropped 3 years ago, where is it now? Lost. But see, you would have to goto a federal court in the U.S. in essence, you would have to fly here (they dont do video feeds to a persons webcam) get a lawyer (since you dont know U.S. law), pay for the court costs, pay for time you stayed here, pay for a passport, pay for a trip back. With the cost of this, you have lost a bit of money.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 Firefox/1.0.7

[Ron Williams]

Allow me to remind you, many people, including Mr Jay Garcia, have shell access as well.

I am in decent to good terms with Jay Garcia currently. I doubt he will be doing anything like this.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 Firefox/1.0.7

[Antony]

Allow me to remind you, many people, including Mr Jay Garcia, have shell access as well.

I am in decent to good terms with Jay Garcia currently.

Our good friend is a good person. Hope you will learn Mr Jay Garcia's good things.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/412.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/412.5

[Ron Williams]

Allow me to remind you, many people, including Mr Jay Garcia, have shell access as well.

I am in decent to good terms with Jay Garcia currently.

Our good friend is a good person. Hope you will learn Mr Jay Garcia's good things.

From what I have learned, his negatives are much better than your positive actions.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 Firefox/1.0.7

[Mandrake]

I am simply to the point of no return regarding my anger toward Antony Shen. After I angered Antony, several related hacks happened on my website. I must warn you Antony, if things like this continue, I will immediately contact the US FBI and hands over all server access logs and contact your host regarding your illegal behavior. It would be horrible if the FBI confiscated your server for investigation (not in my opinion, but for you and your users it would). Considering you have shell access, you could have your server doing this.

That is utter rubbish. I've disagreed with Antony plenty of times, but he's a man of integrity and would never launch DDos attacks on other people's websites. If I were Antony my response would simply be to permanently ban you from accessing this site altogether.

Besides, do you think the FBI would take you, a little kid, seriously?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 Webtuna/1.0.7 (All your Firefox/1.0.7 are belong to Firesomething)

[JayGarcia]

First of all Antony, I am not interested in your replies as most of what you quoted was between me and Pedro PU7O. He can reply for himself.

However, there are some minor points that need clarifying from a more sane point of view:

hmm, now you start the cybersquatting case.

No, Antony, you started it in your very fist post in the Katrina / Jay Garcia's Welfare thread by including a reference to past incidents. You even mentioned the word "cybersquatting" in THAT post. My how you conveniently "forget".

Today, no apologies from UFAQ.org has been offered, from anyone on behalf of UFAQ.org.

And for the record, there won't be. I don't apologize to people that I don't like and find repulsive.

Interesting, you just did.

Please point me to any place on the UFAQ where I snooped data from someone else's forum and posted it on the UFAQ. Or for that matter, what info did I "snoop" from someone else's forum and post here on Sillydog?

but why did you unethically attack SillyDog701?

Why did you unethically attack Jay Garcia? Remember, it was YOU that started it, not me. You posted for all the public to witness rather than emailing me privately.

Liar!
Antony has explained why UFAQ.net was registered. You simply failed to read.
You did not contact me before I discovered you cybersquatted SillyDog701. Also, nice story, however before it was redirected to UFAQ.org as a courtesy, free of charge, and without Mr Jay Garcia's insulting paragraph, it simply being pointed to blank pages, not to any content of SillyDog701.

Yes, Antony, YOU are the "liar". I tried first to contact you via the Mozdev Champions News Group AND by private email. You "said" you failed to see both messages. I tried very hard to keep it private but YOU made the decision to publicize it, not me. I just found it necessary to respond to the charges. And it was only AFTER it was made known that YOU registered UFAQ.NET that you so conveniently decided to redirect it in order to make people believe that's why you registered it. I have the timeline Antony to prove it, the day it was registered and months afterward it was redirected.

Now, accusing me to access .htaccess. .htaccess is there? When did .htaccess being classified as webserver's secret? Every knowledgeable web administrator knows that.

So, in essence, since most savvy ISP's and Admins know of the existence of the .htaccess file, then you're saying that it's OK to snoop the contents of that file? Do you feel that it is morally and ethically sound to do so without seeking the permission of the file owner? Did you know that some apps require that .htaccess be "open" and not encrypted? Such is so on the UFAQ, it MUST be "open". I found a little trick recently to encrypt the file AND be open for access by the UFAQ application.

You deleted two of my important posts for no reasons. And refuse to admit it

You accused the "Champions" of deleting your posts and Chris Ilias is a "Champion" and you made the accusation directly to Chris in a direct reply to Chris. And I did NOT delete your posts. If you're convinced that I did then prove it or shut up. Remember, ANYbody can cancel posts, not just the admin.

Also, you said I have "shell access" .... Not here I don't. What was the meaning of that statement ???

UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1) Netscape/8.0.3.3

[Ron Williams]

That is utter rubbish. I've disagreed with Antony plenty of times, but he's a man of integrity and would never launch DDos attacks on other people's websites. If I were Antony my response would simply be to permanently ban you from accessing this site altogether.

It was not a DoS attack. Someone changed all of the images on my website to a picture of a middle finger. They've been changed back though.

Besides, do you think the FBI would take you, a little kid, seriously?

Yes actually. They are required to. Everything that comes in requires a thorough investigation.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 Firefox/1.0.7

[Antony]

...

Cut out the "witch hunt" Lorraine, you're posting silliness again trying in vain to catch me in some typo or whatever like Antony does.

...
I don't think Antony would try to catch anyone with a typo. His command of english isn't good enough to be a teacher of english, altho' he sure writes very well, a lot better than my Chinese.

Lorraine, the person was Mr Jay Garcia.

Mr Jay Garcia is good at laughing at other people's mistakes or typos. See [sdp=63958]this example[/sdp].

Even FBI warns people to donate directly.

Yup, they sure do and please point out where they mention "Jay Garcia" and they "hold no grudges" and they are glad that I am safe, etc .... ROTFLMAO !!!!

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/412.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/412.5

[Antony]

That is utter rubbish. I've disagreed with Antony plenty of times, but he's a man of integrity and would never launch DDos attacks on other people's websites. If I were Antony my response would simply be to permanently ban you from accessing this site altogether.

It was not a DoS attack. Someone changed all of the images on my website to a picture of a middle finger. They've been changed back though.

Interesting, I've never have thought of that. I guess I missed it.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/412.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/412.5

[Antony]

Today, no apologies from UFAQ.org has been offered, from anyone on behalf of UFAQ.org.

And for the record, there won't be. I don't apologize to people that I don't like and find repulsive.

For the record, everybody should hear this clear, Mr Jay Garcia's UFAQ.org may insult any other website due to certain people's temper, but no apologies would be offered at any time.

but why did you unethically attack SillyDog701?

Why did you unethically attack Jay Garcia? Remember, it was YOU that started it, not me. You posted for all the public to witness rather than emailing me privately.

domain - ufaq.net when it was under Antony's control, had never pointed to any SillyDog701 contents, (beside black pages).

Unlike domains sillydog.us, sillydog.info and sillydog701.org were all pointed to Mr Jay Garcia' UFAQ.org until discovered by Antony.

I tried first to contact you via the Mozdev Champions News Group AND by private email.

You expect me to check [tt]junk@sillydog.org[/tt] every day?
You do have my special email address, and you refused to use it.

I have the timeline Antony to prove it, the day it was registered and months afterward it was redirected.

Please enlighten us.

Do you feel that it is morally and ethically sound to do so without seeking the permission of the file owner?

Interesting statement. What a joke? Reading a publicly available file needs a special permission from Mr Jay Garcia?

You deleted two of my important posts for no reasons. And refuse to admit it

You accused the "Champions" of deleting your posts and Chris Ilias is a "Champion" and you made the accusation directly to Chris in a direct reply to Chris.

Chris Ilias is a Champion, so what? Did I point him at any stage?
"direct reply"? What the hell are you talking about?
Posting a post to newsgroup in a relevant thread without starting one means direct reply?

And I did NOT delete your posts. If you're convinced that I did then prove it or shut up. Remember, ANYbody can cancel posts, not just the admin.

And you argued at first there were no such posts. Liar. And you do have the ability to see other people's cancelled posts. Verified. (I posted two messages in Netscape secnews, and deleted (or your preferred word, "cancelled") them right after, and you intentionally used those two deleted (or cancelled) message to reply.)

Also, you said I have "shell access" .... Not here I don't. What was the meaning of that statement ???

What was the word "here" meant in your sentence?
You want explanations? Explain why [sdp=63859]your example[/sdp] was just so convenient to slam(*) me, when I only stated fact?

Footnote: (*) "slam" was the word our good friend Mr Garcia used.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/412.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/412.5

[JayGarcia]

And you argued at first there were no such posts. Liar

That is correct because at the time I did not see any cancelled posts and therefore the statement " ... no such posts". If I did not SEE any cancelled posts then I must assume that there were no posts. That's not a LIE, Antony, but rather a statement of truth based on the circumstances. I still, to this day, have no idea what happened to the two original posts that you claim were cancelled. And THAT, is the truth .. if you can handle the truth.

[quote ]JayGarcia wrote:
Quote:
but why did you unethically attack SillyDog701?
Why did you unethically attack Jay Garcia? Remember, it was YOU that started it, not me. You posted for all the public to witness rather than emailing me privately.
domain - ufaq.net when it was under Antony's control, had never pointed to any SillyDog701 contents, (beside black pages).[/quote]

What does you answer have to do with the question or quote? It does not answer

Why did you unethically attack Jay Garcia? Remember, it was YOU that started it, not me. You posted for all the public to witness rather than emailing me privately.

You expect me to check junk@sillydog.org every day?
You do have my special email address, and you refused to use it.

I made a valiant effort to contact you in private on more than one occasion. You can SAY all you want that you didn't receive ANY of my messages if you want but we know better don't we. The fact remains that you NEVER once emailed me privately to discuss ANY of the issues.

Interesting statement. What a joke? Reading a publicly available file needs a special permission

Hogwash, Antony, you know better than to tell us that just because a file is NOT encrypted or is viewable in plain text and/or is NOT a clickable link in a publicly accessible web page or other venue that it is simply OK to snoop it and present the contents to the public. It is UNethical to do so and YOU know it. How many users on your forum know of the existence of the file, what it is used for and how to access it. There are files on YOUR server that I can access quite easily the same way you accessed my .htaccess file, should I post the contents on my UFAQ?

What was the word "here" meant in your sentence?
You want explanations? Explain why your example was just so convenient to slam(*) me, when I only stated fact?

What does that have to do with my quiestion about me having "shell access"?? Please answer the question about why you said I have shell access. Yes, I have shell access but only on MY server and not on yours or anybody else's for that matter.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 Firefox/1.0.7

[Antony]

I still, to this day, have no idea what happened to the two original posts that you claim were cancelled. And THAT, is the truth .. if you can handle the truth.

Ha!
You stated once you knew who deleted those, but you were so afraid to mention who deleted those.

You expect me to check junk@sillydog.org every day?
You do have my special email address, and you refused to use it.

I made a valiant effort to contact you in private on more than one occasion. You can SAY all you want that you didn't receive ANY of my messages if you want but we know better don't we. The fact remains that you NEVER once emailed me privately to discuss ANY of the issues.

You made a "valiant" effort? Sending an email to an account that once was denied to register to your forum, and you even mentioned (that account) in a very awful way in public.

Interesting statement. What a joke? Reading a publicly available file needs a special permission

Hogwash, Antony, you know better than to tell us that just because a file is NOT encrypted or is viewable in plain text and/or is NOT a clickable link in a publicly accessible web page or other venue that it is simply OK to snoop it and present the contents to the public.

When did I present the content in public?

It is UNethical to do so and YOU know it.

UNethical? because that file was in your server?
And your cybersquatting (sillydog701.org, sillydog.us, sillydog.info) and all pointed to your UFAQ.org was ethical?

How many users on your forum know of the existence of the file, what it is used for and how to access it.

I am not responsible for such education. Are you trying to lecture SillyDog701 users?

There are files on YOUR server that I can access quite easily the same way you accessed my .htaccess file, should I post the contents on my UFAQ?

By all means.

What was the word "here" meant in your sentence?
You want explanations? Explain why your example was just so convenient to slam(*) me, when I only stated fact?

What does that have to do with my quiestion about me having "shell access"?? Please answer the question about why you said I have shell access. Yes, I have shell access but only on MY server and not on yours or anybody else's for that matter.

Your sentence was

Also, you said I have "shell access" .... Not here I don't. What was the meaning of that statement ???

and I was not sure where was the word "here" you referred to. How could you expect me to answer the question without clarifying the question first? When did I ever say that you have shell access on SillyDog701 server?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/412.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/412.5

[JayGarcia]

As regards shell access, you said, in a reply to Ron Williams concerning the possibility of unauthorized access to his server:

Your accusation is false. SillyDog701 and I do not operate in such manner and have no whatsoever interests on you web server. Allow me to remind you, many people, including Mr Jay Garcia, have shell access as well.

Were you speaking in general terms that I have shell access to MY server, YOUR server or Ron's server ??? For the record, I have shell access to MY server ONLY. Why did you mention MY name, Mr Shen? Are you suggesting in a round about way that I had something to do with the attack on Ron's server? Be VERY careful of what you say here Mr Shen as regards this particular incident.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 Firefox/1.0.7

[Antony]

As regards shell access, you said, in a reply to Ron Williams concerning the possibility of unauthorized access to his server:

Your accusation is false. SillyDog701 and I do not operate in such manner and have no whatsoever interests on you web server. Allow me to remind you, many people, including Mr Jay Garcia, have shell access as well.

Were you speaking in general terms that I have shell access to MY server, YOUR server or Ron's server ??? For the record, I have shell access to MY server ONLY. Why did you mention MY name, Mr Shen? Are you suggesting in a round about way that I had something to do with the attack on Ron's server? Be VERY careful of what you say here Mr Shen as regards this particular incident.

I am always very careful when replying to you.

You failed to read what Ron Williams said,

Considering you have shell access, you could have your server doing this.

And I reminded Ron that many people have shell access. That sentence was very plain.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/412.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/412.5

[JayGarcia]

And I reminded Ron that many people have shell access

Yes, you did, including me. But my question still remains unanswered, "shell access to what" Mr Shen? Shell Access to MY server or someone else's server and if someone else's server then whose server in particular do you have in mind. You must have mentioned my name specifically for some reason and I want to know why? I mentioned once before that you for whatever reason continue to mention my name in incidents that don't have anything to do with me. This is but one example.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 Firefox/1.0.7