SillyDog701

[JayGarcia]

Hmmm, so you fail to understand WHY I registered that domain?? Antony registered UFAQ.NET with no plausible or reasonable explanation as to why. I registered "sillydog701.org" to get his attention and that was the ONLY reason for me registering the domain as well as some others. I wanted UFAQ.NET for obvious reasons and this entire charade was a means to finally get it by offering to swap domains ... and we ultimately did just that.

Now, you want to talk about "ethics" and "cybersquatting" ??? Ask Antony why HE registered and "cybersquatted" UFAQ.NET .... okie dokie? And he, et al, want to charge ME with "cybersquatting" ?? Get the facts straight.

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

[Pu7o]

I already did. And he explained. Plus, he redirected UFAQ.net to UFAQ.org. You, redirected Sillydog701.org to UFAQ.org. It's not the same.

And in your case, it wasn't one domain, it was three. Or did you forget http://sillydog.us and http://sillydog.info?

UserAgent: Opera/8.50 (Windows NT 5.2; U; en)

[Pu7o]

Well it's been a very interesting debate, but I really should go to sleep. Bye everyone.

UserAgent: Opera/8.50 (Windows NT 5.2; U; en)

[JayGarcia]

You're missing the point. Antony REGISTERED the domain UFAQ.NET but was not re-directed until I found out and mentioned it and when I asked, he failed to reply. THEN he redirected it claiming all the bunk about protecting the UFAQ. Man if you believe that line I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.

It was then that I registered all of the domains AND redirected to UFAQ.ORG in order to get his attention. The rest is history ..... Dems da facts.

The question that lacks an answer is WHY did he register it in the first place. I have my theory but without proof I won't say.

Nitey nite.

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

[JayGarcia]

You'll also notice that Antony has disabled the EDIT button again, wonder why. All I have to do is post a new message. Hmm, you don't think he wants to capture your FIRST words to hold it against you some day do you ?

The whole thing in a nutshell is that Antony got caught when he registered UFAQ.NET and failed to come up with a reasonable answer and also didn't give me the opportunity to obtain that domain. It was then that he launched his hate campain against yours truly when I called him on it. Why do you think he refused at first to transfer the domain to me? That's when I chose to register domains with "sillydog" in the name, to get HIS attention and ultimately proceed to swap domain names. And " I " am the ONE that's UNethical ?? sheesh

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

[Ron Williams]

Antony lies and says its a different person when in reality it is himself. Thats why, can't he admit it?

I did not lie to you. I only said,
"Admin" is another administrator, I won't say who, not JayGarcia "he's not an admin" and it's nobody you know.
which was actually words borrowed from Jay Garcia... on the account of word censoring he conducted.

When did I lie to you?

"Admin" is another administrator, I won't say who, not JayGarcia "he's not an admin" and it's nobody you know.

Read your own Moderators statement. "It's bleedingly obvious the "Admin" account is Antony"

Well I did not know you until I came to SD701, now I am sad that I did.

I did not lie to you.

You did find out one thing, the "Admin" account was originally named "ants," but that's not good enough.
It's not a secret, as most of you would know, SillyDog701 couldn't have today's achievement without supports from all our members. The same thing goes to the server end. Antony is not afraid to admit that he does not know everything, (but he knows VPN very well.) Antony does have a good friend who is expert in UNIX. And he consults with his friend from time to time. "Admin" is used by that UNIX expert, he does not post much, but provides lots of technical assistance.

Again, I should mention since "admin" is another administrator, then admin is another person. You own moderator says "It's bleedingly obvious the "Admin" account is Antony" so stop and think.

I will answer your question directly, I did not refer to you at all.

Wow here is a huge lie. Read what you wrote, "SillyDog701 does not censor Jay Garcia's UFAQ." You are making a clear reference to him. For example, UFAQ.org is in essense Jay Garcia's UFAQ, but on the site it is "The Netscape Unofficial FAQ" Or you could say "Netscape UFAQ". But you had to make another reference to him. I had to re-iterate this.

Antony lies and says its a different person when in reality it is himself. Thats why, can't he admit it?

Ron, you're destroying your own reputation. What's the big deal on who "Admin" is? It's not as if "Admin" did anything wrong...

Admin backed Antony Shen up. Then Antony tries to say it is someone else. Thats a total lie and I hate liars.

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.

I made an error in my BBCode on my previous post. I have edited it. If a moderator does not mind could they delete my matching post above this.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.10) Gecko/20050716 Firefox/1.0.6

[JayGarcia]

Unethical behaviour on my part has been mentioned over and over ad nauseum.

So let's bring up the banning of Antony as an example. At first, yes, Antony was banned on the UFAQ, it was my doing, I did it .. on purpose. It was only meant to last for a day or so but I forgot about it. A while later, don't remember how long it was, Antony decided to make a big deal about here in this forum. I denied it simply because I had forgotten about it. But then I did remember doing it and I told Antony exactly that. So what do you think Antony did to "prove" his point. He enlisted the aid of one of his cohorts to UNETHICALLY access my .htaccess file, send it to Antony after which Antony posted it for all the public to see. For those of you that don't know what a .htaccess file is, it is a file that contains IP addresses that are denied access to my UFAQ and yes, his IP was in the list but later removed. Although the file is accessible, someone has to KNOW that it's there AND how to access it. Antony does, of course. My point is that Antony had no business snooping around my server as it is a code of ethics between ISP's and administrators that you JUST DON'T DO THAT sorta thing.

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

[Pu7o]

You'll also notice that Antony has disabled the EDIT button again, wonder why.

I don't think it was ever re-enabled since the cybersquatting issue.

So let's bring up the banning of Antony as an example. At first, yes, Antony was banned on the UFAQ, it was my doing, I did it .. on purpose.

Then would you care to explain why you did it?

UserAgent: Opera/8.50 (Windows NT 5.2; U; en)

[JayGarcia]

I don't think it was ever re-enabled since the cybersquatting issue.

Most certainly was enabled as I "edited" a few posts here in the last couple of days.

Then would you care to explain why you did it?

Nobody believes most of what I say anyways but I did it basically as a harmless prank that was only supposed to last 48 hrs. But like I said, I forgot all about it and didn't re-enable access .... And before I was allowed an explanation, Antony decided to go off the deep end about it and I just let it ride as it didn't make any difference what I said anyways. If you look up paranoia in the dictionary you'll see Antony's picture there for visual reference ...

It makes no difference to Antony what is actually true or false because once his mind is made up then EVERYthing he says is true in his mind only. And I can cite many examples, DrDean is a really great example, she's a real person living in real Canada that accesses the net through my VNC from time to time to preserve privacy and anonymity. Antony, to this day, refuses to admit that to be the truth even though he really knows better in his heart and soul.

One classic example is that some of his posts were deleted on the Netscape Secnews Server. I have no idea how or why and I AM the server admin/moderator - chief cook and bottle washer. But ... he accused Chris Ilias of somehow doing it as well as others of doing it even though I explained that it must have been some glitch or gremlins as WE just don't cancel or delete someone's post for no reason. And there was NO reason to dispose of ANY of Antony's posts. That incident is what touched off most of what has transpired here. And once "paranoia" set it really hard, there was no explanation to Antony that mattered as his mind was and probably still is made up ...

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

[Pu7o]

A prank? It must have happened at least twice, since he was banned at two different times, in two different ways (one with a simple "Access denied" message, and another with the image of a burning skeleton or something like that)

It makes no difference to Antony what is actually true or false because once his mind is made up then EVERYthing he says is true in his mind only. And I can cite many examples, DrDean is a really great example, she's a real person living in real Canada that accesses the net through my VNC from time to time to preserve privacy and anonymity. Antony, to this day, refuses to admit that to be the truth even though he really knows better in his heart and soul.

Your stories change a lot. Originally, DrDean was supposedly connecting from a VPN and for that reason was using your IP address. Now you change your story and mention a VNC connection instead. If you were tellling the truth, why did you feel the need to suddenly change your story?

UserAgent: Opera/8.50 (Windows NT 5.2; U; en)

[JayGarcia]

Antony was banned in two different venues, one by .htaccess AND the other by way of my protection module. Once the IP was removed from the .htaccess file he also had to be UNbanned in the protector module. Both operations did not take place at the same instance in time. You're being a little too picky.

Now, I suggest you go investigate VPN's and VNC clients in order to make an intelligent rebuttal. Hint .... You access a Virtual Private Network by means of a Virtual Network Connection client and the VNC viewer application that I use is from RealVNC http://www.realvnc.com ... The VPN is set up in my router using forwarding thru a 4-digit port number. DrDean, et al, accesses my VPN by using the same VNC client/viewer - RealVNC. The bottom line is if I mention VPN in one sentence and VNC in another, it basically means the same thing for posting purposes.

You done yet?!

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

[Lorraine]

Jay wrote:One classic example is that some of his posts were deleted on the Netscape Secnews Server. I have no idea how or why and I AM the server admin/moderator - chief cook and bottle washer. But ... he accused Chris Ilias of somehow doing it as well as others of doing it even though I explained that it must have been some glitch or gremlins as WE just don't cancel or delete someone's post for no reason.

Now come on Jay, you know that isn't true. I can't believe that you just wrote that. Is this really Jay Garcia? Mozilla Champion? I repeatedly was removed and you said it was the bot. But I know it wasn't the bot.
This is after I was reinstated. You know what I mean.

(Edit, BBCode corrected by Admin)

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

[Lorraine]

The flipping Edit has been removed too. I know it was there because I always use it.

So I clicked the wrong button and didn't preview so WYSIWYG

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

[JayGarcia]

You too, 'eh? Pay close attention to what I said:

WE just don't cancel or delete someone's post for no reason

But I know it wasn't the bot.

And I know that it was .. so there!

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

[JayGarcia]

The flipping Edit has been removed too. I know it was there because I always use it.

Well now ... welcome to Antony's freedom of speech forum. You can say whatever you want, just don't make a mistake or Antony will use it against you some day, no matter if you correct it in a second post.

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