SillyDog701

[Fulvio]

Antony, this would be serious. so, why not test it?
This is what I posted a few minutes ago at the end of a message:

' If you do not know the correct string for the User Agent, check the Sillydog.org message boards . The user agent is posted below the message."

I did this on purpose, and it came up the way I posted it.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)

[Antony]

Thanks for testing.

I don't think they would really censor the word "sillydog". But might be someone changed the original post to remove the reference.

I think I should drop the ufaq case.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.5.5 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.11

[Lorraine]

Antony:
I agree, drop it. It is just ridiculous and everyone will
think that you are a real "Sillydog"

It's no use arguing in those groups as they all gang up on you anyway You can't win no matter what!


Forget about it and give them the benefit of the doubt.
You'll feel much better.
-Lorraine

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)

[Antony]

Jay Garcia answered in this newsgroup post:

I didn't write that or censor it. The user that posted it did. I'll
delete the post if that makes you happy as I don't approve of it either.
You're getting awful close to being banned Antony.

Then there's response.

Just to set the record straight, I posted the original message, which referenced SillyDog, but I did NOT edit it, nor authorize anyone else to do so.

--
Jim
People who know all the answers never have all the questions

And now that referred topic has been removed.

And the ufaq.org shows me this page:

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.5.5 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.11

[Fulvio]

I agree. They are nasty.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) (CK-SillyDog)

[Lorraine]

//

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)

[Antony]

Antony:

I'm pretty sure that Jay G. didn't ban you with that message. It's disgusting.

In this newsgroup message,

If Antony would have truly been banned then he would have automatically
seen this instead of the 404 he did see:

http://www.ufaq.org/banned.jpg

"Banning" is deliberate. "Denying" access was accidental and immediately
rectified.

And again,

SillyDog701's response is not denying anybody and not banning anybody in return.

And case dropped.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.5.5 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.11

[Don_HH2K]

I just did a Google search for 'GoofyMutt site:ufaq.org' and got these results. It appears that they've been doing that a number of times now. As for your banning message, it's beyond me how or why they did that.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041107 Firefox/1.0

[Antony]

Thanks Don.

Just to make a record, ufaq.org once censored the word "sillydog" to "goofymutt", as evidenced by Google's cache.


(use the word replacement, now apparently reverted back.)

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.5.5 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.11

[Al]

Damn UFAQ is REALLY NASTY! I think Antony should make something for people go give their emails out and tell them that UFAQ is really bad.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041108 Mozilla Firefox/1.0

[Edward]

And now that referred topic has been removed.

And the ufaq.org shows me this page:

That image shows their immaturity.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041107 Firefox/1.0

[Edward]

Thanks Don.

Just to make a record, ufaq.org once censored the word "sillydog" to "goofymutt", as evidenced by Google's cache.


(use the word replacement, now apparently reverted back.)

...which also shows their immaturity.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041107 Firefox/1.0

[beanboy89]

Wow, ufaq is being very unprofessional about this whole thing. That is why I tend to stay away from ufaq unless it is absolutely necessary. Sillydog701 is a very professional and friendly site.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910

[Antony]

So the following up story...

There are enough evidence to prove what Jay said were less than truth.

I have no intention to frame Jay Garcia, but I am going to state evidence.

The word censoring feature censors "sillydog" to "goofymutt".

Again, thanks to Don Duchini's [sdp=47894]post on Google search of 'GoofyMutt site:ufaq.org'[/sdp]. I posted following to netscape.netscape7.windows newsgroup:
(secnews ref link)

Of course, you can't censor a word in only one post, but seems like not just one post...

From Google's search:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Goofymut ... l&filter=0

Time for you to remove all reference to SillyDog701?

Then, Jay replied following (secnews ref link)

Somebody, not me, is playing a joke on you Antony. I have no such censor
enabled on the UFAQ. SillyDog701 shows up as SillyDog701 everywhere that
I know of on the UFAQ. Maybe there's somebody at Google that "has it in
for you", time to invesitgate and punish the perpetrator.


-- Jay Garcia Netscape Champion - Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Mozilla Champions - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org
Posting Guidelines - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org/guidelines.html

So, according to Jay, Google was making fun on me, not UFAQ or Jay Garcia. You be the judge.

I then attached the screenshot, and Jay replied (secnews ref link)

Graphic easily manipulated, I don't buy that one bit. There is no censor
on the UFAQ to change SillyDog to anything else.

Antony was not born yesterday. When Antony bring up evidence, he won't use false statement/evidence. You can judge on this. It is very clear who lied.

SillyDog701 uses phpBB, and UFAQ uses phpBB module under phpNuke. Antony know how phpBB works pretty well.

The IP banning issue
The more he tried to cover up, the worse it would be.

I know how you viewed the .htaccess file, doesn't take a genius to
figure that out. But the person that got it for you also edited it in
such a way as to provoke you to attack me and the UFAQ. And THAT
person's IP is in the log and it IS who I thought it may be but I won't
publish that fact. We'll just keep that our little secret won't we.

The original .htaccess file contained only ONE line, and THAT line was:

deny from 218.214.3.*

And after I realized that your IP was included in that block, the last
two lines read:

deny from 218.214.3.*
allow from 218.214.3.230

The .htaccess file has since been erased and other measures are in place
to deny/ban access as you know first hand. And YOU or anybody else
cannot see it.

Good Bye and Good Luck, you won't hear from me again on this server.
Support is the number ONE priority !!

Let's examine that.
Firstly, he did not use [tt]deny from 218.214.3.*[/tt] as he claimed in [tt].htaccess[/tt] file.
I posted the entire [tt].htaccess[/tt] to the newsgroup, he then changed the protecting from using [tt].htaccess[/tt] to [tt]hosts.allow[/tt] which is a better method. Congratulation to Jay (and UFAQ) but credit to me.

And after I realized that your IP was included in that block, the last two lines read:
[tt]deny from 218.214.3.*
allow from 218.214.3.230[/tt]

It was not true, as I also retrieved that file myself. Before he unbanned me.

Did he use [tt]hosts.allow[/tt] and use [tt].htaccess[/tt] as a dummy file as he claimed? No.

In snews://secnews.netscape.com:563/cnfulf ... tscape.com
Jay said the deny file is of following...

In fact, here are the entries in the deny list file:

deny from 68.212.194.209
deny from 218.214.3.*
allow from 218.214.3.230
deny from 216.139.176.61
deny from 81.70.90.64
deny from 172.17.213.12
deny from 66.34.199.1

which was clearly not the syntax of [tt]hosts.allow[/tt].

And use [tt].htaccess[/tt] as dummy for hackers? ridiculous explanation. Only certain group of people would believe that.

Antony has been managing web servers for years, although SillyDog701 was not started as early as UFAQ.org but Antony knows a lot over those years.

SillyDog701 may not be endorsed by Netscape.com, but SillyDog701 has been working very hard, and to provide a true friendly environment.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.5.5 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.11

[Alice]

In case anyone was wondering, I had nothing to do with the transposition of "goofymutt" for "sillydog" in any of the UFAQ forum posts in google's search results or in google's cache, even though I posted the original message.

Is all this Silly or Goofy? Maybe so.

Immature and unprofessional ? Probably.

Nasty? I don't think so.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910