New hacker's tool for fighting Internet censorship
The "About Me" subheading on this blog says, "My biggest motivation for creating this blog was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums," so obviously the subject of Internet censorship is a very important one to me. For several months, I used "anonymous proxies" (e.g., hidemyass.com) and false names to get around Panda's Thumb's efforts to block my comments, but I finally gave up because the PT staff was trying to block my ideas as well as me. Also, I found that some websites -- e.g., Wikipedia -- have developed the ability to detect and block anonymous proxies. This was a particular problem in my efforts to wage edit wars on Wikipedia. One could of course ask a friend to forward a message, but that would require bothering a friend. However, software has now been developed that can turn any computer into an anonymous proxy. An article in the New York Times says,
Banning commenters is often done by means of IP addresses. One of the problems with IP-address bans is that often several people share the same IP address or IP address range. Anyway, I don't need to get into a long discussion of IP addresses here.
Of course, one of the drawbacks of the "psiphon" program is that the computer you are using as an anonymous proxy must be logged onto the Internet. Another drawback is that the site you are hacking may eventually learn the IP address of the computer that you are using as a proxy and block that address. However, a lot of people are logged onto the Internet most of the time and you could have several Internet users to choose from. Also, "psiphon" of course cannot prevent your comments from being deleted after posting or being held up for "moderation" before posting (but psiphon should prevent your comments from being singled out for moderation).
The "user guide" and the source code are not yet available on http://psiphon.civisec.org/ but should be available soon -- the program is scheduled for release on December 1. I am looking forward to seeing how effective it is as a means of bypassing commenter bans.
By CHRISTOPHER MASON
Published: November 27, 2006
TORONTO, Nov. 21 — Deep in a basement lab at the University of Toronto a team of political scientists, software engineers and computer-hacking activists, or “hactivists,” have created the latest, and some say most advanced tool yet in allowing Internet users to circumvent government censorship of the Web.
The program, called psiphon (pronounced “SY-fon”), will be released on Dec. 1 in response to growing Internet censorship that is pushing citizens in restrictive countries to pursue more elaborate and sophisticated programs to gain access to Western news sites, blogs and other censored material . . . . . . .
Psiphon is downloaded by a person in an uncensored country (psiphon.civisec.org), turning that person’s computer into an access point. Someone in a restricted-access country can then log into that computer through an encrypted connection and using it as a proxy, gain access to censored sites . . . . . .
“Now you will have potentially thousands, even tens of thousands, of private proxies that are almost impossible for censors to follow one by one,” said Qiang Xiao, director of the China Internet Project at the University of California, Berkeley.
Instead of publicly advertising the required login and password information, psiphon is designed to be shared within trusted social circles of friends, family and co-workers. This feature is meant to keep the program away from censors but is also the largest drawback because it limits efforts to get the program to as many people as possible.
The software is also designed to allow users to post on blogs and other Web sites like Wikipedia, which has been a problem for some other anticensorship programs.
Banning commenters is often done by means of IP addresses. One of the problems with IP-address bans is that often several people share the same IP address or IP address range. Anyway, I don't need to get into a long discussion of IP addresses here.
Of course, one of the drawbacks of the "psiphon" program is that the computer you are using as an anonymous proxy must be logged onto the Internet. Another drawback is that the site you are hacking may eventually learn the IP address of the computer that you are using as a proxy and block that address. However, a lot of people are logged onto the Internet most of the time and you could have several Internet users to choose from. Also, "psiphon" of course cannot prevent your comments from being deleted after posting or being held up for "moderation" before posting (but psiphon should prevent your comments from being singled out for moderation).
The "user guide" and the source code are not yet available on http://psiphon.civisec.org/ but should be available soon -- the program is scheduled for release on December 1. I am looking forward to seeing how effective it is as a means of bypassing commenter bans.
Labels: Internet censorship (1 of 2)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 11/29/2006 10:11:00 AM
50 Comments:
Just as a warning to Larry's readers, using computers turned into proxies as access points can be illegal, if the owner has not consented to such use. Many such proxies are set up on company computers without the consent of the company, and anyone accessing that computer, even remotely, is committing a crime (it is stealing from the company - it uses bandwidth, electricity, and processing cycles, which have monetary costs associated with them).
It should also be noted that spamming a website is considered the worst violation of netiquette, short of illegal activity.
Larry's proposed abuse of this system puts at risk people who have legitimate censorship concerns - people who live in countries that actively prevent them from gaining access to information. If Larry and his ilk abuse these anti-censorship programs to spam websites and emails with unwanted information, the owners will begin to filter the new proxies, including sending to each other lists of these proxies to coordinate efforts. Lists which can then be obtained by authorities and used to track down and potentially prosecute those people.
The good news it that the way psiphon is set up, as long as nobody in the group begins spamming operations, it is unlikely to trigger filtering. Thus, spamming groups will be selected against.
W. Kevin Vicklund said...
>>>>> Just as a warning to Larry's readers, using computers turned into proxies as access points can be illegal, if the owner has not consented to such use. <<<<<
No warning is necessary. The psiphon program can only be used on computers that have downloaded it.
>>>>>Many such proxies are set up on company computers without the consent of the company, and anyone accessing that computer, even remotely, is committing a crime <<<<<
No, it is not a crime. If the proxy is not protected, then anyone has the right to use it.
>>>>> It should also be noted that spamming a website is considered the worst violation of netiquette, short of illegal activity. <<<<<<
No, the worst violation of netiquette is the arbitrary censorship of comments.
>>>>> If Larry and his ilk abuse these anti-censorship programs to spam websites and emails with unwanted information, the owners will begin to filter the new proxies, including sending to each other lists of these proxies to coordinate efforts. <<<<<
The psyphon proxies are supposed to be undetectable.
>>>>> Lists which can then be obtained by authorities and used to track down and potentially prosecute those people. <<<<<
Wrong. It's all perfectly legal.
>>>>>> Just as a warning to Larry's readers, using computers turned into proxies as access points can be illegal, if the owner has not consented to such use. <<<<<<
>>>No warning is necessary. The psiphon program can only be used on computers that have downloaded it.<<<
The person downloading it may not be the owner, and may therefore be illegally installing it. An example of this would be an employee setting up his office computer as a proxy machine without approval from the company.
>>>>>Many such proxies are set up on company computers without the consent of the company, and anyone accessing that computer, even remotely, is committing a crime <<<<<<
>>>No, it is not a crime. If the proxy is not protected, then anyone has the right to use it.<<<
If a proxy has been illegally set up, using it is illegal. You do not have the right to use stolen goods, even if you are unaware that they were stolen.
>>>>>> It should also be noted that spamming a website is considered the worst violation of netiquette, short of illegal activity. <<<<<<
>>>No, the worst violation of netiquette is the arbitrary censorship of comments.<<<
Sorry, but that is nowhere near the top of the list. The owner of a blog has the right to control who participates and the content appropriate for the blog.
>>>>>> If Larry and his ilk abuse these anti-censorship programs to spam websites and emails with unwanted information, the owners will begin to filter the new proxies, including sending to each other lists of these proxies to coordinate efforts. <<<<<<
>>>The psyphon proxies are supposed to be undetectable.<<<
You obviously don't understand the technology. All this is doing is allowing you to get onto the internet via a proxy and detectable the same way. The difference is that the list of proxies are "members only" and are therefore not public. IP banning will still work on the proxy itself, and administrators can still pass around the IP addresses of abusers.
>>>>>> Lists which can then be obtained by authorities and used to track down and potentially prosecute those people. <<<<<<
>>>Wrong. It's all perfectly legal.<<<
The last bit that you referenced was referring to people in countries who have made it illegal to access certain websites. If the authorities in those countries can get lists of psichon proxies, they can then track people accessing those proxies and prosecute them for accessing illegal websites. It was not in reference to people using illegal proxies.
Yes, Larry. That means that people in China can get arrested for the sole offense of reading your blog. Psiphon is intended to give those people a way to get access to your blog without being detected. Yet you are advocating using psiphon in a way that could risk exposing those same people to detection.
The chief hypocrite wades into the mud again.
> My biggest motivation for creating this blog was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums <
Rather than the censorship that you practice on this blog.
> For several months, I used "anonymous proxies" (e.g., hidemyass.com) and false names to get around Panda's Thumb's efforts to block my comments <
And yet you continue to lie on this blog as to why you were expelled.
> Also, I found that some websites -- e.g., Wikipedia -- have developed the ability to detect and block anonymous proxies. <
It is a shame that assholes like you make this necessary.
> This was a particular problem in my efforts to wage edit wars on Wikipedia. <
Contemptable slime!
> One could of course ask a friend to forward a message <
But you have no friends.
> No, it is not a crime. If the proxy is not protected, then anyone has the right to use it. <
Your demonstrated ignorance of law is so complete that you can be used in the same way as a compass that reliably points South with the North needle.
The troll demonstrates again that he is a contemptable bottom feeder.
Kevin says,
>>>>>The person downloading it may not be the owner, and may therefore be illegally installing it. <<<<<
I think that most people today have their own home computers and Internet connections -- they don't have to hijack their employers' computers and/or connections.
>>>>The owner of a blog has the right to control who participates and the content appropriate for the blog. <<<<<
Arbitrary censorship of blog comments is very bad netiquette.
>>>>>IP banning will still work on the proxy itself, and administrators can still pass around the IP addresses of abusers. <<<<<
Abuse will be difficult or impossible to detect and there will be thousands of abusers, making detection even more difficult. And how are these IP addresses going to be passed around?
>>>Arbitrary censorship of blog comments is very bad netiquette.<<<
Not according to the lady who wrote the book on Netiquette
"Censorship" on the net
One of the remedies noted above for errant flamers is appealing to the culprit's sysadmin or to the newsgroup moderator to have network privileges revoked. This will no doubt elicit cries of "censorship!" from some. Sorry. Currently, no network service that I'm aware of is run as a democracy. While scorn is rightly heaped on such services as Prodigy -- which monitor discussion group content ruthlessly for anything that could be construed as remotely offensive -- there is such a thing as Going Too Far in almost any group. Privately owned and managed groups do have a right to monitor and censor their contents.
I showed you my source that says it is perfectly acceptable to moderate as the owner sees fit. Care to show me a source that says moderating comments is bad netiquette? Or is this yet another of your unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable assertatations?
PS My source also says that it is appropriate to report improper activities to the moderator.
larry fafarman said...
>> Kevin says,
>>>>>The person downloading it may not be the owner, and may therefore be illegally installing it. <<<<< <<
>> I think that most people today have their own home computers and Internet connections -- they don't have to hijack their employers' computers and/or connections. <<
And once again, larry, you insist on demonstrating how little knowledge or concern you have for anything that isn't all about you. There are a wide range of reasons that someone would decide that they wanted to hijack their employers' computers and internet connections. Didn't you learn anything from your earlier run ins with the internet reality police?
Many viruses/worms/trojans also create proxy networks, in case you'd blocked that bit of knowledge from your mind. Remember, we discussed it while you were trying to play computer expert a while back.
>> >>>>The owner of a blog has the right to control who participates and the content appropriate for the blog. <<<<< <<
>> Arbitrary censorship of blog comments is very bad netiquette. <<
And a phenomenon that you have yet to demonstrate has ever actually happened to you. In fact, it has been shown over and over again that you have richly deserved every instance of censorship that has been imposed upon you.
Oh, and given your history of abuse, who exactly do you think you are to have any say in what is or is not good netiquette?
>> >>>>>IP banning will still work on the proxy itself, and administrators can still pass around the IP addresses of abusers. <<<<< <<
>> Abuse will be difficult or impossible to detect and there will be thousands of abusers, making detection even more difficult. And how are these IP addresses going to be passed around? <<
I can ban people based on what subnet they are on, blocking people from AOL, or a specific part of AOL, for example. I can institute a whitelisting policy, whereby only those on my whitelist can post. I can set up a Real-Time block list, which rejects anythings submitted from computers that are known bad, based on whatever factors I decide I want to use. If I so choose, I can simply trace back to whatever poor slob you've hijacked and tell them what you're doing. If I feel so inclined, I can report the incident to the proper authorities (it may be fraud, trespassing, theft or a combination these), since I know who you are. If I have the processing resources available, I can simply institute a policy of blocking malformed or forged packets.
More than likely though, I'll just get a hearty laugh at the thought that you, with your overweaning vanity and overwhelming belief that everyone simply MUST want to read your latest bit of foolishness, are leaving yourself open (assuming that you haven't already fallen victim to) the very same worms/viruses/trojans that created many of the proxies you will just blindly traipse into because various people on the internet DO NOT WANT TO TALK TO YOU.
All in the name of Larry trying to prove to the world that he truly is the world's biggest infant.
Bravo, larry, on making the completely unwarranted comparison of people who have a real and legitimate use of this mechanism (living in repressive regimes, etc), and you, the world's most desperate attention whore.
You're pathetic, larry. But then, this is nothing new for you.
>>>I think that most people today have their own home computers and Internet connections -- they don't have to hijack their employers' computers and/or connections.<<<
And yet Larry is one of those people who wouldn't be able to turn their home computer into a psiphon proxy. In fact, I have a broadband connection, and I wouldn't be able to host a psiphon proxy because my ISP requires me to use DHCP. This means that my IP address can change without notice and without me being aware of the change - it is not static.
>>>Abuse will be difficult or impossible to detect and there will be thousands of abusers, making detection even more difficult. And how are these IP addresses going to be passed around?<<<
Abuse will be just as easy to detect as it currently is, and the IP addresses will be passed around the same way they currently are. It's been 10 years since I was a sysadmin (at a major research university, I might add), so I'm not up-to-date on the latest tools of the trade, nor would I give that knowledge into the hands of the enemy, as it were.
It sounds like Larry is gearing up for another round of Whacko-Troll. It will end the same way as the others.
The difficulty in detection that the article is talking about is not the difficulty a website's moderator will have in detecting a psiphon proxy, it is the difficulty an outside monitoring or censoring agency will have in seeing a user going to a restricted site. Of course, once the monitoring agency discovers that a particular website is actually a psiphon proxy...
Kevin Vicklund said,
>>>>>>I showed you my source that says it is perfectly acceptable to moderate as the owner sees fit. <<<<<<
Note that I referred to "arbitrary" censorship. I said nothing about censoring truly abusive comments and commenters.
Rob Serrano said,
>>>>> There are a wide range of reasons that someone would decide that they wanted to hijack their employers' computers and internet connections <<<<<<
That has nothing to do with whether the psiphon program is good or bad, legal or illegal.
>>>>> Arbitrary censorship of blog comments is very bad netiquette. <<
And a phenomenon that you have yet to demonstrate has ever actually happened to you. <<<<<
I was initially blocked by Panda's Thumb for no reason at all -- I just happened to share the same IP address as someone who the PT staff wanted to ban for using multiple names. PT really wanted to ban me anyway because like Gov. Schwarzenegger said, "I'm always kicking their butts -- that's why they don't like me."
Ed "It's my way or the highway" Brayton kicked me off his "Dispatches from the Culture Wars" blog because he didn't like my literal interpretation of a federal court rule.
>>>>> Bravo, larry, on making the completely unwarranted comparison of people who have a real and legitimate use of this mechanism (living in repressive regimes, etc), and you <<<<<
I believe in the principle, "if the shoe fits, wear it."
Kevin Vicklund again --
>>>>> And yet Larry is one of those people who wouldn't be able to turn their home computer into a psiphon proxy. <<<<<<
We don't know that yet -- the psiphon website has not yet posted the user guides.
>>>>> The difficulty in detection that the article is talking about is not the difficulty a website's moderator will have in detecting a psiphon proxy, it is the difficulty an outside monitoring or censoring agency will have in seeing a user going to a restricted site. <<<<<
If the use of a psiphon proxy can be detected by the receiving website, then psiphon may be too risky to use -- the website could be a decoy set up by the monitoring or censoring agency.
>>>>>> Lists which can then be obtained by authorities and used to track down and potentially prosecute those people. <<<<<<
>>>Wrong. It's all perfectly legal.<<<
Help! I'm being held on a neutron star!
> I was initially blocked by Panda's Thumb for no reason at all <
> PT really wanted to ban me anyway because like Gov. Schwarzenegger said, "I'm always kicking their butts -- that's why they don't like me." <
Delusional as always. The reasons that the asshole was thrown off of many blogs has been abundantly illustrated on this thread alone. As for "kicking their butts", the pathetic troll has lost every argument on his own blog. Why should we believe that he has ever won one anywhere else?
Ed "It's my way or the highway" Brayton kicked me off his "Dispatches from the Culture Wars" blog because he didn't like my literal interpretation of a federal court rule.
>>>>> Bravo, larry, on making the completely unwarranted comparison of people who have a real and legitimate use of this mechanism (living in repressive regimes, etc), and you <<<<<
I believe in the principle, "if the shoe fits, wear it."
Kevin Vicklund again --
>>>>> And yet Larry is one of those people who wouldn't be able to turn their home computer into a psiphon proxy. <<<<<<
We don't know that yet -- the psiphon website has not yet posted the user guides.
>>>>> The difficulty in detection that the article is talking about is not the difficulty a website's moderator will have in detecting a psiphon proxy, it is the difficulty an outside monitoring or censoring agency will have in seeing a user going to a restricted site. <<<<<
If the use of a psiphon proxy can be detected by the receiving website, then psiphon may be too risky to use -- the website could be a decoy set up by the monitoring or censoring agency.
Thursday, November 30, 2006 12:03:23 AM
Neutron said...
It looks like part of Larry(?)'s rant is appended to my post.
>>>Note that I referred to "arbitrary" censorship. I said nothing about censoring truly abusive comments and commenters.<<<
You are a truly abusive commenter.
>>>That has nothing to do with whether the psiphon program is good or bad, legal or illegal.<<<
That's not the point. Psiphon itself is neither god nor bad. It is the use to which it is placed that makes it bad. Placing it on employer owned equipment without permission is illegal. Placing it on your own home computer is not. Using a virus or the like to place it on someone else's computer is illegal. Using a psiphon proxy that has been placed illegally is also illegal.
>>>I was initially blocked by Panda's Thumb for no reason at all -- I just happened to share the same IP address as someone who the PT staff wanted to ban for using multiple names. PT really wanted to ban me anyway because like Gov. Schwarzenegger said, "I'm always kicking their butts -- that's why they don't like me."<<<
What really happened is that in a very short period of time, comments were made by four different user names, but all of them came from the same IP address. PT and its precursors have had problems in the past with people posting under multiple identities. The four names from the same IP address activated a PT policy to ban the IP address, with the explicitly stated assumption that if it was actually four different people on dynamically assigned addresses, it should only be an inconvenience to them untilthey were automatically shifted to another address. This is considered a perfectly acceptable strategy for administrators to use to filter out abusive posters. It should be noted that Larry had prior to the accidental ban violated four of the six posted rules, and several times had accused PT of censoring him when PT was not in fact censoring him. I should also point out that I had several times had my IP address change to a banned address, but unlike Larry, I didn't go on a vindictive rampage.
>>>Ed "It's my way or the highway" Brayton kicked me off his "Dispatches from the Culture Wars" blog because he didn't like my literal interpretation of a federal court rule.<<<
No, Ed kicked you off because you were continuing the abusive behavior you exhibited on Panda's Thumb. Besides, your interpretation was non-literal, faulty, and your proposal didn't even meet the standards of your interpretation.
>>>>>> Bravo, larry, on making the completely unwarranted comparison of people who have a real and legitimate use of this mechanism (living in repressive regimes, etc), and you <<<<<<
>>>I believe in the principle, "if the shoe fits, wear it."<<<
The shoe isn't fitting, Larry. The software isn't being designed so that you can scream at people who don't want to hear you.
>>>>>> And yet Larry is one of those people who wouldn't be able to turn their home computer into a psiphon proxy. <<<<<<
>>>We don't know that yet -- the psiphon website has not yet posted the user guides.<<<
The FAQ has enough technical data to allow me to make that determination.
>>>>>> The difficulty in detection that the article is talking about is not the difficulty a website's moderator will have in detecting a psiphon proxy, it is the difficulty an outside monitoring or censoring agency will have in seeing a user going to a restricted site. <<<<<<
>>>If the use of a psiphon proxy can be detected by the receiving website, then psiphon may be too risky to use -- the website could be a decoy set up by the monitoring or censoring agency.<<<
Again, not the point. An abuser can be detected by the simple fact that he is abusing. Once it is determined that someone is abusing a site, normal steps can be taken to prevent the abuse, and that abuse can be reported and distributed. If a certain psiphon proxy is being used to post abusive contents, it will quickly become banned, just like any other IP address. And because it requires a trust network, private abuse rings using psiphon will quickly be eliminated as the individual IP addresses are identified. So, Larry, how many friends with static IP addresses do you have that are willing to let you remotely access their computer so that you can be an abusive commenter and thus risk getting their own legitimate online activities censored?
This reminds me of when Larry(?) threw a fit because some people had asked him to remove them from lists that he was sending "news" about his smog fee activities. Several of them were actually on his side but were tiring of his antics. Lacking common sense, the dimwit decided that they were deliberately trying to antagonize him by asking to be removed and accelerated his activities.
Can anyone deny that he needs mental help?
n fact, I have a broadband connection, and I wouldn't be able to host a psiphon proxy because my ISP requires me to use DHCP. This means that my IP address can change without notice and without me being aware of the change - it is not static.
But wouldn't something like DynDNS pretty much get around that? Many routers can be set to notify DynDNS or simlar services when the WAN address changes, and there are also utilities you can run that check the WAN address often and notify the appropriate site when it changes.
I hope this latest post of Larry's cures those of you who think that mental ilness is a joke.
I see you've been bothering Ed Brayton again under an assumed name.
To be Frank, I don't think Larry could Marshall up an argument that wasn't immediately identifiable...
Good grief Larry, why the hell would you want to comment on sites that are sick of hearing from you? It's not much different than crashing parties and trying to kill everyones fun. Seriously, do you think that somehow you'll make friends or influence people with this kind of bullshit? It just pisses people off and will turn those who might be willing to adopt your position off entirely - actually, that might not be a bad idea.b
> It just pisses people off and will turn those who might be willing to adopt your position off entirely - actually, that might not be a bad idea. <
I have at times thought that Larry(?) is intentionally trying to look like an ignorant asshole for the purpose of turning off anyone who might be sliding towards creationism. Larry(?) is a closet Darwinist.
>>>>> I see you've been bothering Ed Brayton again under an assumed name. <<<<<
Who in the hell is Frank Marshall? Ed has been told that different people can have the same IP address.
> Ed has been told that different people can have the same IP address. <
You are not detected because of your IP address. You are detected because of your characteristic blather.
Dear Larry,
Just stopped in to see what was up. Same old stuff, I see.
Miss me?
Love,
JanieBelle
>>>>>> You just never learn, do you Larry? And stop lying. <<<<<
Ed, what makes you think that every commenter on your blog who disagrees with you is Larry Fafarman posting under a false name?
> Ed, what makes you think that every commenter on your blog who disagrees with you is Larry Fafarman posting under a false name? <
<< What makes you think that everyone who disagrees with you is Ed Brayton? >>
ViW, the "logic" is impeccable.
If "Frank Marshall" was detectably really Larry(?), then indubitably "W. Kevin Vicklund" can be -- nay, must be -- Ed Brayton.
How can you be so dense as not to see that?
First of all, as far as I know, Ed doesn't pay attention to Larry's blog, so asking him here doesn't serve any purpose other than rhetorical.
Second, There are many people who post on Ed's blog that Ed disagrees with. Only a few have been banned for being Larry. They have all posted from Larry's IP address, they all sound exactly like Larry, and they all use the verbatim arguments of Larry. Oh, yeah, and Larry has this proven and admitted penchant for posting under false identities.
Stop lying, Larry. You are making yourself into a bigger asshole than you normally are. And that's saying a lot.
Just want to congratulate Larry for tolerating continual abuse, mostly from uninformed or fanatical Darwin-fans. And they are usually both.
You're doing a fine job, Larry. But I doubt that debating Darwin-believers accomplishes much. And in time, they may begin to revise their views on their own.
Nobody bit. You see we can tell the difference.
Oh, Larry.
You commented, but didn't say hello. I'm rather hurt.
Say something nice about my eyes, and I'll forgive you.
Kisses!
Jim Sherwood said...
>>>>>Just want to congratulate Larry for tolerating continual abuse, mostly from uninformed or fanatical Darwin-fans. And they are usually both.<<<<<
Thanks for your support, Jim.
JanieBelle said...
>>>>> You commented, but didn't say hello. I'm rather hurt. <<<<<<
Well, you made a rather nasty comment about me on the Aetiology blog. But you apologized and I forgive you.
Voice In The Wilderness said...
>>>>>> Nobody bit. You see we can tell the difference. <<<<<
Bit what? What difference?
> Bit what? What difference? <
As usual, most of the thread goes over your head.
Aw, Larry, you forgot to thank me for defending you.
As for what we didn't bite, jim sherwood was trying to get us to accuse him of being you. However, we could tell that it wasn't you (though I think the more cynical of us have contemplated the possibility that you had someone write that for you to try to entrap us). Not even the Voices, who I think have rather kneejerk reactions to the postings here, fell for it.
> Not even the Voices, who I think have rather kneejerk reactions to the postings here <
Perhaps it is because Larry(?) is so predictable?
Nope.
I.e., did not fall for it.
Hey, Larry(?)!
Even if she is confused about her gender identity, flirt with Janie Belle! Sheesh!!
< Say something nice about my eyes, and I'll forgive you. >
Janie Belle, it'd help if you pointed us toward a portrait of you. Is the picture in your profile of you? If so, you're beautiful. If not, you're still beautiful.
> Even if she is confused about her gender identity, flirt with Janie Belle! Sheesh!! <
You know that Larry(?) isn't interested in girls.
Hi Chaperone.
"Even if she is confused about her gender identity,"
I'm not confused at all. I'm all woman, buster. I just happen to like people more for what's between their ears than what's between their legs.
"flirt with Janie Belle! Sheesh!!"
Yeah, Larry. It wouldn't kill ya. I don't bite... at least not hard...unless of course I'm in the throes...then I draw blood.
"Janie Belle, it'd help if you pointed us toward a portrait of you. Is the picture in your profile of you? If so, you're beautiful. If not, you're still beautiful."
Such a wonderfully lovely thing to say. I like you already.
No, the portrait in my profile is a painting by John Collier. It's called Lilith, which is appropriate.
My Lover Kate's profile sports another portrait by Collier called "Lady Godiva". Also appropriate, since she's more than a little bit of an exhibitionist. (That particular condition is contagious, BTW. Just so y'know.)
The closest you'll get to a picture of me is found here. Enjoy.
"You know that Larry(?) isn't interested in girls."
HEY! That's out of bounds. I find that remark both irrelevant on its face, and at the same time offensive in its use as an insult.
Piss off.
"You know that Larry(?) isn't interested in girls."
> HEY! That's out of bounds. I find that remark both irrelevant on its face, and at the same time offensive in its use as an insult. <
There is something Freudian in your perceiving it as an insult. I was just stating a relevant fact when someone suggested Larry(?) flirting.
You seem to protest too much.
> HEY! That's out of bounds. <
I can't see your concern. You bring up the quite irrelevant issue of your sexuality as one of the first statements on your blog.
Voice's comment was meant to be taken as Larry lacking a sex drive, rather than a comment on his sexual preference. Does that clarify things, Janie?
Janie said:
< I just happen to like people more for what's between their ears ... >
It's odd that you suggest being admired for your "eyes" and your mind, but link to a picture of your legs.
BTW, I don't have a phobia for snakes (at least, not for the non-poisonous ones). I am, however, quite dismayed that you identify with Lilith who is described as a "paramour of Satan". (I should've guessed that the picture was not innocuous.)
Alright, I admit. I may have gotten a bit bent over nothing.
However.
(there's always a however, no?)
It was not just commentary on Larry's sexual preference, or lack thereof, that pissed me off.
It was sexual preference (or lack thereof) being used as an insult. I'm perhaps overly sensitive to such things.
If Voice in the Urbanness meant it in no such way, then I am to blame for going off half-cocked (not as unusual as I'd care for).
Sherry, the statement on my blog is there in answer. It wasn't originally to be found anywhere on my blog. There was a short period of time a while back where I was regularly inundated with crap from fundies about my relationship with Kate. So it is my opening statement now to piss in their cheerios.
:)
Oh Dear Chaperone. You are so cute, aren't you? Sorry, that's as close to a picture of me as exists on the web, and I'm afraid it will always be so.
I do admire people more for their gray matter, for their kindness, for all those things that I want to emulate, than I ever will for their sexual apparatus.
But I do so love to be flattered for my looks, it's true. Even by people who have never laid eyes on me.
"There is something Freudian in your perceiving it as an insult. I was just stating a relevant fact when someone suggested Larry(?) flirting."
I take this as a confession that you are in fact both voices?
Relax, dear one. I was terribly upset over this misunderstanding, but having followed your commentary for some time (on and off), it's unlikely that I'd be peeved with you for long.
Take that at face value.
Kevin (may I call you that, or do you prefer W.?)
Thank you for straightening me out. It was very kind of you not to fire back with scathing commentary on the vacuousness of blondes or somesuch.
And finally back to Chaperone.
Indeed, that portrait was chosen very carefully for my avatar. Not, however for the reason you suggest.
In the old legends, Lilith was not Satan's Paramour firstly. She was Adam's wife before Eve. Lilith was made of the dust of the earth, the same as Adam, rather than from one of his ribs. She was co-created and co-equal to Adam. When Adam told her to get on her back so he could do the horizontal mambo on top of her, she said, "I will not lie below". It was not what he asked of her, but why he felt he could demand it of her.
Lilith refused to be treated as a lesser being, and left Adam with his pecker in his hand (serves his dead ass right). It was only then that she sought the company of fallen angels, and that part of the story is much younger than the rest, by the way. It was added to make sure that women didn't get any crazy ideas about being equal. When they did anyway, the entire story was purged from the pantheon.
Lilith was the first feminist, you might say, and that good sir, is why the Lilith Fair is named for her.
Now, leaving ancient Judeo-Christian mythology in the past where it belongs, there is a valid lesson here that we can still carry forward.
"I will NOT lie below."
Thank you, and good evening.
> I take this as a confession that you are in fact both voices? <
Close but no cigar. I was the one who posted this. I once began to post a follow up to something that VIW had said and accidentally keyed in "Voice in the Wilderness" rather than "Voice in the Urbanness". Since that the autofill has "Voice in the Wilderness" pop up as a choice. There was another time that I did this and VIW protested only mildly in that he agreed with what I said. In this case we have heard no response from him.
Larry(?)'s brother, Real Dave, knows who I am and with the clues I have given, Larry(?) would have to be a complete idiot not to know. Then again that seems to describe him perfectly. I believe that Real Dave also knows who VIW is but unlike me, he has not yet confessed.
Oh what tangled webs...
It serves you all right for when there was like Larry, Moe, and Shemp Farfarman all posting...
God, that was funny.
Kisses to all you fake people.
;)
> Kisses to all you fake people. <
I think that the prize should have gone to Larry(?) himself. His brother Dave posted on Panda's Thumb which caused Larry(?) to fall off the edge. He then posted under his brother's name both there and here, denouncing real Dave as a fake. He continues to call him a fake here and at the same time phones him raging about the posts. It is one of the funniest parts of this blog.
Of course Ed Brayton, was able to quickly prove who was the real Dave and who was the fake but Larry(?) characteristically pretended that he had not been conclusively outed as the fake.
I knew that VIU had posted at least twice as me and I believe his explanation but there have been at least three other posts that I assumed were his. There was also one that was obviously Larry(?)'s.
Larry(?) also posted at least once as Bill Carter. Perhaps we are all Bill Carter?
VIW,
What are you doing up at this hour in the morning? I see that Larry(?) is also up but then he doesn't have a life.
I may have accidentally posted under your name more than twice by accident but I only noticed these two times because somebody (you in one case) called attention to it. If I clear the cookies I think that it will eliminate the autofill problem. At least I will be more careful.
There was one post under my name that I didn't post. It looked a little like Larry(?)'s work but was not as dumb as is normal for him so I was never sure.
This is reminiscent of a time in college. The Archbishop of Canterbury visited UCLA and made a ridiculous speech. Dave wrote a note that was published in the Daily Bruin criticising one of the more absurd statements made by the Archbishop and was immediately attacked by the religious fanatics.
He answered these for a few rounds but seemed to tire of it and stopped replying. I then sent a few notes to the paper which were published attacking his arguments in such an absurd way that I thought that he would be baited into responding.
When he didn't, I then sent in a rebuttal of my own comments under Dave's name which was also published. I was able to repeat this cycle for a few more rounds before tiring of it myself.
Dave never said anything about the later letters. I don't know if he didn't see them or whether he just saw the futility of the battle.
> I'm surprised, perhaps dismayed, that I have forgotten the entire incident. <
The Archbishop's comment to which you objected was something like "God made man that he might venerate him." or the like. You replied that if a man were to build a bunch of robots and set them to work worshiping him that he would likely be placed in a rubber room.
> BTW, I think that you should not have pretended to be me in the Daily Bruin discussion. <
I was hoping to egg you into continuing the discussion. Perhaps a bad idea.
You will forgive me for it and I will forgive you for your spamming.
Post a Comment
<< Home