🚀 go-pugleaf

THIS UNWANTED GARBAGE ORIGINATED FROM AND BROUGHT TO YOU COURTESY OF:

PATRICK PARIS -- PUNK
PATRICK PARIS -- PIECE OF SHIT
PATRICK PARIS -- SYPHILITIC PERVERT
PATRICK PARIS -- SHITBAG FLOODER




Thrasher Remailer <thrasher@reece.net.au> wrote:

> >
> > On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 23:49:22 +0000, Wolfgang Wolferwitz wrote:
> >
> > > A simple VB script would prevent us from having to read the rambling of
> > > this sick mind. It is becoming a right pain in the proverbial having to
> > > sift through all the chaff just to read the occasional article written
> > > by someone with a sane mind.
> >
> > Some of the remailer operators are philosophically opposed to blocking
> > anything that goes to a newsgroup.  God knows what their reasons are, but
> > they actually believe that every sort of rubbish should be passed on.
> 
> What do you think should be passed on?
> Only things that you agree with, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

<<==========>>

Subject: Re: Proof inside that claiming "no logs" is bullshit!

admin01@privacy.li_not wrote...
> Nomen Nescio wrote:
> > "Hello, I am the owner of privacy.li. Today i saw some extra visitors,
> > so i checked where they came from and arrived here."
> > 
> > http://www.privacy.li/forum/viewtopic.php?t=308
> > 
> > No logs, huh?  Then how did you know there were "extra visitors" and
> > where they came from.  No logs=Bullshit!  You quite obviously log or you
> > would have absolutely now way to know any of this!
> > 
> 
> 
> Well, you guys are really either stupid or someone pays you to spread
> this FUD.
> 
> Can you imagine that privacy.li has a website at http://www.privacy.li,
> which of course uses traffic analysis of its WEB SURFING VISITORS, to
> see where they come from, what draws most interest, what key words are
> scoring high, etc. Any business out there which is not doing this basic
> analysis has no clue about what web visitors are interested in, and
> therefor could not better or enhance their service...
> 
> However, this analysis is NOT matched with any individuals, but only in
> a generic and general summary.
> 
> And to stretch your imagination a little bit further ->
> 
> In contrast to mere web visitors stands the service we offer:
> 
> We offer SSH2-accounts (Privacy-Tunnel) with full TOR entry points on
> our servers (TOR-servers running, usage optional) for privacy loving
> folks, and we DO NOT LOG ANY of the following:
> 
> 1. we do NOT log your surfing behaviour, like which sites you visit
> 2. we do NOT log your email content
> 3. we do NOT log your traffic as in how many bytes you transferred
> 4. we do NOT log how many emails you sent or received
> 5. we do NOT log your chats like those in IRC and other IM-clients
> 6. we do NOT backup any of your data
> 
> So, we have perfect deniability, if we ever would get asked to produce
> evidence about a client. What we don't know, we can not produce - it's
> that easy!

No, it isn't and you don't.  Now the question is, seeing as you admit to
logging some things but not others, how about telling us exactly what
you do log?  You claimed no logs at all, you have logs.  Are you going
to be a man and now list what you do log or are you going to keep up the
charade of the no logs claim?

- A former supporter, now very disillusioned and also sorry for bashing
those who were obviously right.

<<==========>>

Subject: Re: Why can't THRASHER admin stop objectionable posts?

Borked Pseudo Mailed <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:


That said, I trust the people that wrote GNU Privacy Guard (gnupg) without looking 
at it the wrong way.��It's�negative�is�in�having�to� explain it, but I think Steve 
just goes into more detail on his site, it may appear, but for missing the 
discussion of potential security advantages of such a product, if used properly. 
Any advertisement of this, or any other "services" run by an incompetent moron who 
has had to obtain a new public communications services, like Mr. Savoni,to make 
passport photocopies of every customer seeking to use it. 

> > 
>