SillyDog701

[Antony]

And I reminded Ron that many people have shell access

Yes, you did, including me.

Yes.

But my question still remains unanswered, "shell access to what" Mr Shen?

What was not answered?

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.

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

He suggested such attack could be done from a server, and I reminded Ron that many people have shell access. I assume there are many other servers around (not just SillyDog701 server), which I assume was a common knowledge.

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.

Your name was mentioned (in reply to Ron Williams' accusation of me attacking his server) as part of for example.
And you, Mr Garcia, always reads my words in a very bad way. For example, when I was expressing my (and SillyDog701's) deepest concern about your safety. You read none of those, instead of accusing me of insinuating. I think you need to consult with your good pal, DrDean for your excessively suspicious mind.

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

But not shell access to HIS server. Me having shell access to MY server has nothing to do with the attack to Ron's server, or YOU having shell access to YOUR server also has no bearing on the attack to his server. Only shell access to HIS server would be cause for alarm.

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

[Ron Williams]

and I reminded Ron that many people have shell access

But not shell access to HIS server. Me having shell access to MY server has nothing to do with the attack to Ron's server, or YOU having shell access to YOUR server also has no bearing on the attack to his server. Only shell access to HIS server would be cause for alarm.

With antony being on hard terms, antony could begin a DoS from his server with shell access.

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

[JayGarcia]

Every server owner or server customer has shell access and even Antony isn't THAT stupid do launch a DoS attack using his own shell access. Since I own my own co-located server I can grant shell access to any of my customers well also. The real tattle tale is the log, doesn't lie, even if an IP is spoofed. The IP trail leads back ...........

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

[Antony]

and I reminded Ron that many people have shell access

But not shell access to HIS server. Me having shell access to MY server has nothing to do with the attack to Ron's server, or YOU having shell access to YOUR server also has no bearing on the attack to his server. Only shell access to HIS server would be cause for alarm.

I have no idea about you, Mr Garcia, and Ronnie Williams II's relationship, and I am not interested to know.
I never mentioned that you had shell access to HIS server.

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

[JayGarcia]

I never mentioned that you had shell access to HIS server.

I know you didn't and I didn't say you did or hint that you said I did.

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

[Antony]

and I reminded Ron that many people have shell access

But not shell access to HIS server. Me having shell access to MY server has nothing to do with the attack to Ron's server, or YOU having shell access to YOUR server also has no bearing on the attack to his server. Only shell access to HIS server would be cause for alarm.

With antony being on hard terms, antony could begin a DoS from his server with shell access.

Me on hard terms? My apologises of not knowing you have such psychic power. For your information, I couldn't be happier to know our good friend, Mr Jay Garcia resumed to active posting. This indicates our good friend, Mr Jay Garcia, absconded safely to Longview, and returned unharmed.

antony could begin a DoS from his server with shell access.

Be VERY careful with your false accusation. You could face severe civil charges.

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

[Ron Williams]

antony could begin a DoS from his server with shell access.

Be VERY careful with your false accusation. You could face severe civil charges.

Antony, I said you COULD not that you did. Quit picking at things that dont exhist.

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

[Mandrake]

Irrelevant. You can still be charged with personal slander and libel for these false accusations.

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

[Antony]

I forgot to reply to this.

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.

SillyDog701 Message Centre welcomes opinions and contributions from everybody, unlike other forums that membership would get removed for no reason, or purely depending on someone's mood.

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

[JayGarcia]

unlike other forums that membership would get removed for no reason, or purely depending on someone's mood.

Hmm, I can't think of any forums that remove users for "no reason" or "on someone's mood". Can you name one, if so, please inform us.

And the name is <enter name here>

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

[Lorraine]

Yes, secnews.netscape.com namely,

snews://secnews.netscape.com/netscape.test.multimedia

in fact all of the SECNEWS/newsgroups. I had done absolutely nothing untowards the other newsgroups.

I haven't been in NTMM for several weeks now, but I was still being removed even when I had Mozilla suite 1.6 and 1.7.8.(I think that was the latter one)
I just use OE/IE now.
-Lorraine

UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)

[Lorraine]

unlike other forums that membership would get removed for no reason, or purely depending on someone's mood.

Hmm, I can't think of any forums that remove users for "no reason" or "on someone's mood". Can you name one, if so, please inform us.

And the name is <I'll bite, snews://secnews.netscape.com/netscape.test.multimedia>

UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)

[JayGarcia]

The Netscape News Server is not a "forum". I specifically asked for the name of a "forum". Antony knows exactly where I'm headed with this.

And OT: I wonder why you can't edit or delete your posts here on THIS forum. At one point, recently, you could at least edit your own post/reply, etc. I don't think you ever could "delete" one IIRC.

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

[Ron Williams]

Irrelevant. You can still be charged with personal slander and libel for these false accusations.

As I said it was not an accusation just a possibility. There is no slander or libel there. Also read the definition for slander and libel. Notice if there was anything to charge, it would be libel. Let me take an excerpt. "A communication in writing is termed "libel" while one made via the spoken word is termed "slander"."

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