Ray Banana <rayban@raybanana.net> wrote:
>Thus spake "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>

>>>Yes, quite so. I wonder how forgery of a FQDN in Injection-Info:
>>>would be regarded by a reputable News admin.

>>Immediate TOSsing from anywhere but Giganews

>For newsservers that support the current standard RFCs, no "TOSsing" is
>required, as they will not accept Injection-Info: headers from clients
>at all. The problem only exists for outdated server software that is RFC
>ignorant.

I'm sorry to hear that no pain will be involved.

Le 11/01/2024 à 01:23, llp a écrit :

> If I had to answer every one of your misleading messages,
> I wouldn't have enough time :-)

You seem to have a lot of time, maybe you should use it more wisely.
I won't go on with your flame war here, but you are really a troll, this
thread succedeed because nobody knew you here, next time it will be less
easy. EOT.

Le 11/01/2024 08:38, Éric Marillier aka Eric M answered to the anonymous llp :
>
>> If I had to answer every one of your misleading messages,
>> I wouldn't have enough time :-)
>
> You seem to have a lot of time, maybe you should use it more wisely.
> I won't go on with your flame war here, but you are really a troll, this
> thread succedeed because nobody knew you here, next time it will be less
> easy. EOT.

+1

And EOT.

--
Olivier Miakinen

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> >Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>Sn!pe <snipeco.1@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> >>>[...]
>
> >>>>If the author doesn't wish to be forged, then he MUST use an email
> >>>>address on From that belongs to him. If he gets imitated but hasn't been
> >>>>forged, then he SHOULD NOT whine about having been imitated.
> >>>>Abuse has not occurred.
>
> >>>That is exactly my case. I think Ray Banana of Eternal-September
> >>>regards only exact copying of the email address as actionable forgery.
>
> >>As would any News administrator.
>
> >>Frank Slootweg is wrong. Forgery has a long-standing well-accepted
> >>definition about News administrators: Use of someone else's email
> >>address on From. Most News administrators make it against AUP and will
> >>TOS a user who committed forgery.
>
> > I am not 'wrong'. I point out that there's more to *abuse* - and
> >specifically to impersonating another poster - than just forging the
> >e-mail address in the From: of a posting. But it seems that you don't
> >get (don't want to get?) that distinction.
>
> Forgery means misuse of someone else's email address. That against AUP,
> generally. It's a type of abuse that's widely accepted among News
> administrators.
>
> Misuse of a domain, not defined to be forgery, is a similar issue and
> might get one TOSsed.
>
> You cannot point out that impersonation that's not forgery is abuse.

You keep on harping on that address forgery is abuse (which, for the
umpeenth time, it of course is), but that does not mean that something
which is not address forgery is not and can not be abuse.

It has not been spelled out it this nitty gritty way, but it's obvious
from what I wrote, that the forgery of the name/nym of the poster,
combined with the poster's non-address is impersonation. And yes,
impersonation is abuse. Not abuse *of* the net, but abuse *on* the net,
like so many other forms of abuse on the net.

Of course just using the non-address with *another* name/nym, is quite
all right. It would be nice if such a poster used a bit of creativity
and came up with his/her own non-address, but that's all.

> That's not a definition that News administrators accept.

Says you. But that's not my point. It's not only about what a certain
News administrator would accept (and take action on), it's about what a
reasonable person would consider abuse.

> I certainly do get the distinction. Forgery is abuse. Other forms of
> impersonation in which another person's email address is not used is not
> abuse.

I - and I think most people - disagree with your very narrow view on
what is and isn't abuse.

> > To lighten things up a bit:
>
> > If I would start using a real e-mail address (which belongs to me), I
> >could/would be - rightfully so - accused of 'nym'shifting or/and trying
> >to avoid killfiles. So doing The Right Thing (TM) would result in -
> >another form of - abuse.
>
> Wrong

You really should stop shouting "Wrong" etc. about matters which you
clearly do not (fully) understand. (And other slurs like, "completely
wrong", "outrageous", "whining".)

> Nymshifting is morphing within a thread or related threads to avoid
> being kill filed. Of course you can post with your own email address at
> any time. It's yours. No News administrator would TOS you for that.

Sigh! It's not about News administrators TOSsing people. It's about
what people consider abuse.

By the way, the form of nymshifting I see most, is not within a thread
or related threads, but in unrelated threads in the same group and in
threads in other groups. And these nymshifters use e-mail addresses
which are very likely not theirs.

Back to my example: If I start using a real e-mail address (which
belongs to me), I will start popping out of some people's killfiles.
That's considered abusive by many if not most.

> That's absurd.

What's absurd is that you don't seem to understand the meaning of the
plain English word "abuse".

As you also indicated in your other response, I guess we're done.
We're clearly not on the same page. But I'm quite willing to continue,
clarify, etc, if you wish.

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>Sn!pe <snipeco.1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>>>>[...]

>>>>>>If the author doesn't wish to be forged, then he MUST use an email
>>>>>>address on From that belongs to him. If he gets imitated but hasn't been
>>>>>>forged, then he SHOULD NOT whine about having been imitated.
>>>>>>Abuse has not occurred.

>>>>>That is exactly my case. I think Ray Banana of Eternal-September
>>>>>regards only exact copying of the email address as actionable forgery.

>>>>As would any News administrator.

>>>>Frank Slootweg is wrong. Forgery has a long-standing well-accepted
>>>>definition about News administrators: Use of someone else's email
>>>>address on From. Most News administrators make it against AUP and will
>>>>TOS a user who committed forgery.

>>> I am not 'wrong'. I point out that there's more to *abuse* - and
>>>specifically to impersonating another poster - than just forging the
>>>e-mail address in the From: of a posting. But it seems that you don't
>>>get (don't want to get?) that distinction.

>>Forgery means misuse of someone else's email address. That against AUP,
>>generally. It's a type of abuse that's widely accepted among News
>>administrators.

>>Misuse of a domain, not defined to be forgery, is a similar issue and
>>might get one TOSsed.

>>You cannot point out that impersonation that's not forgery is abuse.

> You keep on harping on that address forgery is abuse (which, for the
>umpeenth time, it of course is), but that does not mean that something
>which is not address forgery is not and can not be abuse.

This is a matter of definition. There are terms that are used on Usenet.
There is a lot of unwanted and undesireable behavior, but it's not all
abusive.

> It has not been spelled out it this nitty gritty way, but it's obvious
>from what I wrote, that the forgery of the name/nym of the poster,
>combined with the poster's non-address is impersonation.

And here you misuse "forgery".

>And yes, impersonation is abuse. . . .

Fine. You've declared victory by making up your own definitions. You
win. I concede.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> >Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> >>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>>>Sn!pe <snipeco.1@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>[...]
>
> >>>>>>If the author doesn't wish to be forged, then he MUST use an email
> >>>>>>address on From that belongs to him. If he gets imitated but hasn't been
> >>>>>>forged, then he SHOULD NOT whine about having been imitated.
> >>>>>>Abuse has not occurred.
>
> >>>>>That is exactly my case. I think Ray Banana of Eternal-September
> >>>>>regards only exact copying of the email address as actionable forgery.
>
> >>>>As would any News administrator.
>
> >>>>Frank Slootweg is wrong. Forgery has a long-standing well-accepted
> >>>>definition about News administrators: Use of someone else's email
> >>>>address on From. Most News administrators make it against AUP and will
> >>>>TOS a user who committed forgery.
>
> >>> I am not 'wrong'. I point out that there's more to *abuse* - and
> >>>specifically to impersonating another poster - than just forging the
> >>>e-mail address in the From: of a posting. But it seems that you don't
> >>>get (don't want to get?) that distinction.
>
> >>Forgery means misuse of someone else's email address. That against AUP,
> >>generally. It's a type of abuse that's widely accepted among News
> >>administrators.
>
> >>Misuse of a domain, not defined to be forgery, is a similar issue and
> >>might get one TOSsed.
>
> >>You cannot point out that impersonation that's not forgery is abuse.
>
> > You keep on harping on that address forgery is abuse (which, for the
> >umpeenth time, it of course is), but that does not mean that something
> >which is not address forgery is not and can not be abuse.
>
> This is a matter of definition. There are terms that are used on Usenet.
> There is a lot of unwanted and undesireable behavior, but it's not all
> abusive.

No, not all unwanted and undesireable behavior is abusive, but some is
abusive. You, nor I, get to define for everyone else, what is and is not
abuse.

> > It has not been spelled out it this nitty gritty way, but it's obvious
> >from what I wrote, that the forgery of the name/nym of the poster,
> >combined with the poster's non-address is impersonation.
>
> And here you misuse "forgery".

No, I *use* the English word "forgery". That you restrict the meaning
that term to only the forgery of the (real) address part of the From:
header of a Usenet post, doesn't mean someone can not use that English
word in its normal meaning.

Anyway, in my above (quoted) paragraph the word "forgery", can easily
be replaced by some other wording, such as "misuse", "falsification",
"faking", "fabrication", etc. and still have the same intended meaning,
without using your Forbidden Word (TM).

Some people might not considering (mis)using one's nym as
impersonation. But I think most people will consider misusing one's real
name - such as mine - as impersonation.

Of course you probably won't consider use of "Adam H. Kerman
<ahk@chinet.com.invalid>" as forgery/impersonation, because doing so
would invalidate your position.

> >And yes, impersonation is abuse. . . .
>
> Fine. You've declared victory by making up your own definitions. You
> win. I concede.

Sigh! I don't consider this (or most any Usenet discussion) a contest
of who 'wins'.

And no, I don't make up my own definitions. I just use common meanings
for normal English words, but you - implicitly - refuse to accept those
meanings and keep foot-stamping about the very restricted meaning of
"forgery", *only* in the context of the (real) address part of the From:
header of a Usenet post.

So if I have "won", I've actually "lost".

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>>. . .

>>This is a matter of definition. There are terms that are used on Usenet.
>>There is a lot of unwanted and undesireable behavior, but it's not all
>>abusive.

> No, not all unwanted and undesireable behavior is abusive, but some is
>abusive. You, nor I, get to define for everyone else, what is and is not
>abuse.

Between the two of us, just one of us made up definitions that are not
widely used by News administrators enforcing TOS/AUP with regard to
abuse in order to win an argument.

As you wouldn't stop making up your own definitions, I conceded. We are
not having a discussion but talking around each other in circles. I have
now conceded a second time.

That means you had already won. You've now won a second time. You've won.
There is nothing else for you to say.

All I want from you at this point is to drop it. Don't post another
followup. Just drop it. If you won't drop it, I'll shut the fuck up and
won't post another followup. Either way, I'm ending this.

>. . .

Adam H. Kerman wrote:

> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > No, not all unwanted and undesireable behavior is abusive, but
> > some is abusive. You, nor I, get to define for everyone else,
> > what is and is not abuse.
>
> Between the two of us, just one of us made up definitions that are
> not widely used by News administrators enforcing TOS/AUP with
> regard to abuse in order to win an argument.
>
> As you wouldn't stop making up your own definitions, I conceded. We
> are not having a discussion but talking around each other in
> circles. I have now conceded a second time.
>
> That means you had already won. You've now won a second time.
> You've won. There is nothing else for you to say.

You know when they say art imitates life...

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls_2x.png

:-)

On Tue, 09 Jan 2024 15:27:49 +0000, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> I have nothing to add here, I just have One Night in Bangkok stuck in my
> head:
>
> Abusive cancel and the world's your oyster The bars are temples but the
> pearls ain't free Abusive cancel god in every golden cloister...
> --scott

and just like usenet, even then tough guys tumble

I love that song :D

Le 29/12/2023 à 09:45, Olivier Miakinen a écrit :

> As the originator of the cancels that llp criticizes, I shall add some
> details.

I'm going to add a few more because *unlike you pretend it* you do not
respect conventions.
It's a fact, all you have to do is read the two reference documents for
cancels, written and maintained by Rosalind Hengeveld and Tim Skrivin.

> 1) The administrator and users of the main French server news.free.fr
> are generally very happy that my bot cancels those unwanted messages,
> especially all the spam coming from Google groups.

You talk without any proof, presenting things in a way that suits you.

Admin of news.free.fr? You don't tell the truth. You have no proof of
what you said. Absoluly none.
Users of news.free.fr? Very happy? You don't say the truth.

The truth is located at https://www.aduf.org/viewtopic.php?t=290845
Where Pierre Aribaut reported, on Free Users Associaiton (ADUF), the
cancellation of 4000 of his articles.

As Adam said, it's all about reputation. And these cancellations, made
on impulse, have worked against you and tarnished your reputation.
Your rhetoric won't help you to restore the trust of french users.
You're done because you've made more enemies than friends.

> 2) My cancels are very easily identifiable (by From and X-Cancelled-by)
> and difficult to counterfeiting (by the Path), so that news admins can
> easily accept or refuse them as they want.

Oh, thank you so much!
But maybe you can also add the mandatory Sender header field, since none
of your cancels have one?

Just to follows the conventions you *pretend* to follows...

Either the cancel message *must contain* a Sender header with the
contents of the Sender header of the article canceled, if present, else
its From header. These contents *must* be copied verbatim (just copy and
paste). The From header should then match the X-Canceled-By header.
Source : https://rosalind.home.xs4all.nl/faq-care.html#cancel-message

Points to note: the *Sender* line matches the *original author* of the
message, while the *From* line points at the *canceller*, as does the
'X-Cancelled-By' header. The Message-ID follows the $alz convention,
and the proper pseudo-site is present in the 'Path' header. It should
also be noted that the 'X-Spam-Type' and 'X-No-Archive' headers are
optional, as is all information in the body of the cancel.
Source : http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/cancel/

> Example 'Path':
> ...!paganini.bofh.team!miakibot!byfrom!spamcancel!cyberspam!not-for-mail
> (with possibly 'bysubject' instead of 'byfrom', 'mmfcancel' or
> 'spewcancel' instead of 'spamcancel', but the beginning and the end
> are always the same).

Oh, thank you so much!
But the addition of 'spamcancel' is *pure nonsense*, since 'cyberspam'
is already set and dedicated to this type of articles.

A properly formatted third-party cancel message must contain in its Path
header the !cyberspam pseudosite. This was originally a mark of *spam
cancels only*, but is now required as a mark of any legitimate
third-party cancel.

A third-party cancel message for most reasons *other than spam* should,
in addition to the !cyberspam, also contain an applicable
reason-specific pseudosite, such as: !mmfcancel, !bincancel or !spewcancel.
Source : https://rosalind.home.xs4all.nl/faq-care.html#cancel-message

As a reminder : The commonly accepted pseudo-sites are as follows:

*cyberspam*!usenet Spam / EMP cancels *universal*
spewcancel!cyberspam!usenet Spew cancels
mmfcancel!cyberspam!usenet Make.Money.Fast cancels
bincancel!cyberspam!usenet Binary (in a non-Binary group) cancels
adcancel!cyberspam!usenet Ad cancels (for the biz.* hierarchy only)
retromod!cyberspam!usenet Retro-Moderation cancels
Source : http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/cancel/ (E. How
do I alias out a pseudosite)?

> 3) There is no controversy about canceled spams. About the canceled
> flood, only llp and a few others complain, but the cancellation follows
> a positive vote with the users of the affected newsgroups. Of course
> this positive vote for cancel is because of all the abuses of the
> targeted user.

I won't go into it but using votes to get some sort of approval shows
how *little confidence* you have in what you're doing.
Running a green light is legal. Running a red light is illegal and just
because someone encourage you by saying "go ahead" doesn't make it legal.

It's as simple as that.

> 4) My cancels respect all traditional conventions, including the one
> (specific to the fr.* hierarchy) that a report shall be posted to the
> specific newsgroup fr.usenet.abus.rapports.

It's not true, you don't respect conventions.
You recently canceled a *test article*, witch is typically what you must
not cancel.

Your cancel :
http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CCancel.umsb3a%243mtf%241%40news.usenet.ovh%3E
Original message :
http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3Cumsb3a%243mtf%241%40news.usenet.ovh%3E

It's a simple test message posted on 'fr.test' and there is no reason to
cancel test articles. Absoluly none.
Source : https://rosalind.home.xs4all.nl/faq-care.html#cancel-message
(5.4. What Not To Cancel)

Maybe you can use cleanfeed regex to exclude test groups and conform to
conventions, like this spam and abuse filter does?

test_groups => '\.test(ing)?(?:$|\.)|^es\.pruebas|^borland\.public\.test2'.
'|^cern\.testnews'

Also, the reason you give in your cancels are erroneous.

Example:
Original article :
http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3Cmn.eaab7e7ccddb4ed2.145333%40zorro.eu.invalide%3E
Your cancel :
http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CCancel.mn.eaab7e7ccddb4ed2.145333%40zorro.eu.invalide%3E

Reason given : SPEW Zorro (byfrom)

As a reminder a SPEW is :

- the result of any of a variety of incidents whereby several copies or
corrupted versions of the same article are posted to the same newsgroup,
usually as a result of malfunctioning software.
Source : https://rosalind.home.xs4all.nl/faq-care.html#cancel-message

- a long series of similar articles posted over and over again, due
either to a malfunctioning program or malicious intent.
Source : http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/cancel/ (c. Spew
cancels)

Perhalps you don't like it but the article you canceled is a simple
reply, posted one time, by a human. Nothing more. In fact, you cancel
Zorro for falacious reasons, called censorship. Period.

Regularly, you cancel articles 'by error', showing the world that you
have absolutely no control over what you try to do.
Source :
http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3Cun9ljj%2416r4%241%40cabale.usenet-fr.net%3E

Also, even if it's not critical since no server is using it yet (or it's
time to update!), do you have any valuable reason for continuing to use
the cmsg convention despite the fact that it was removed from the
protocol in 2009?

The convention to interpret subjects starting with the word "cmsg" as a
control message was removed.
Source : https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5536.html#appendix-B

> 5) And before someone asks, yes it would be good if I also issued
> NoCeMs, but the cancels are indeed very useful for some very old
> news servers (such as e.g. news.free.fr and cabale.usenet-fr.net)
> where spam can only be fought by cancel articles.

That's your point of view and you are free to share it.
But you must follows conventions and cancel what is cancelable if you
want to be credible in what you do.

Currently all your cancels are not properly formatted and do not conform
with long-established conventions.

As Rosalind Hengeveld written :
"Before you start canceling, you should at least make sure you know by
heart what you do and what exactly terms mean".

And accept :
"Will the people whose articles I cancel, take it nicely? Some will and
some will not".

And for the one, who claimed that Olivier was more experienced than
another user, just because he is older in the hierarchy : Obviously you
shouldn't have said that. In fact, your server is allowing injection of
badly formatted cancels articles. No responsible admin would authorise that.

But after all, who cares?
Apart from a very small handful of servers, unauthenticated cancels are
no longer processed worldwide and haven't been for ages.

You really are living in a different century... Did you know that we
travel in spaceships?

EOT

Le 16/01/2024 07:06, llp aka victor aka samsung01 took yet another
pseudonym, i.e. Spaceship, to write :
>
> As Adam said, it's all about reputation.

Yes, and nymshifting does not help to build reputation.

> EOT

Yep. EOT.

--
Olivier Miakinen

Some sort of cardboard Spaceship said:

> You really are living in a different century... Did you know that we
> travel in spaceships?

Calm down, Elon.

--
Denis

Serveurs de news et passerelles web : <http://usenet-fr.yakakwatik.org>
Lecteurs de news : <http://usenet-fr.yakakwatik.org/lecteurs-de-news.html>

Le 16/01/2024 à 08:11, DV a écrit :

> Some sort of cardboard Spaceship said:

>> You really are living in a different century... Did you know that we
>> travel in spaceships?

> Calm down, Elon.

LLP was just coming from the Iowa caucus where he voted Trump, this
explains this access of rage :)

On Tue, 16 Jan 24 08:26:37 +0000, Eric M wrote:

> Le 16/01/2024 à 08:11, DV a écrit :
>
>> Some sort of cardboard Spaceship said:
>
>>> You really are living in a different century... Did you know that we
>>> travel in spaceships?
>
>> Calm down, Elon.
>
> LLP was just coming from the Iowa caucus where he voted Trump, this
> explains this access of rage :)

Wow that will shut him up calling him a Trump supporter! Now back to
your trying to support censorship of political opinion on Usenet.

Le 16/01/2024 à 07:52, Olivier Miakinen a écrit :

>> As Adam said, it's all about reputation.
> Yes, and nymshifting does not help to build reputation.

Deleting the best parts that show your incompetence on the subject
(missing sender header field, nonsense spamcancel pseudo-site, usage of
a removed convention and so on...) won't help you either.

Everything is documented, try to learn to read.

Le 16/01/2024 à 09:26, Eric M a écrit :

> LLP was just coming from the Iowa caucus where he voted Trump, this
> explains this access of rage :)

It's not rage, it's the demonstration by examples of the incompetence of
the guy that Ivo sold to us as 'experienced'. What a joke!

victor wrote:

> [...]

As we can see, not only does llp own a spaceship, but he also has clones
to help him spread his holy word. They are French designed though, so
don't expect them to work flawlessly.

--
Denis

Serveurs de news et passerelles web : <http://usenet-fr.yakakwatik.org>
Lecteurs de news : <http://usenet-fr.yakakwatik.org/lecteurs-de-news.html>

Olivier Miakinen avait énoncé :
> Le 16/01/2024 07:06, llp aka victor aka samsung01 took yet another
> pseudonym, i.e. Spaceship, to write :

I use only "usenet.ovh" server to post on news.* or fr.* hierarchies.
You're a liar !

>> As Adam said, it's all about reputation.
>
> Yes, and nymshifting does not help to build reputation.

Neither are your repeated lies.

Instead, try replying to "Spaceship's" excellent message
if you're technically able to do so.

--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh

Le 16/01/2024 à 13:23, DV a écrit :

> As we can see, not only does llp own a spaceship, but he also has clones
> to help him spread his holy word. They are French designed though, so
> don't expect them to work flawlessly.

And this is supposed to help your friend format his cancels correctly?
As always, you have no argument to put forward against the obvious
errors that have been documented.

Nothing, nada, que dalle.
You ring as hollow as a church bell.

Spaceship wrote:

> And this is supposed to help your friend format his cancels correctly?

Stop. You know for a fact that I have *never* participated in this
debate on cancellations, and you will not drag me into it.

What I'm pointing out here is your detestable habit of mobilizing your
various avatars to make people believe that you have lots of supporters,
when it's just you, you and yourself.

By doing so, you demonstrate that no matter what discussion you engage
in, you will never be the one to be trusted.

--
Denis

Serveurs de news et passerelles web : <http://usenet-fr.yakakwatik.org>
Lecteurs de news : <http://usenet-fr.yakakwatik.org/lecteurs-de-news.html>

And this is supposed to help your friend format his cancels correctly?
As always, you have no argument to put forward against the obvious
errors that have been documented.

Nothing, nada, que dalle.
You ring as hollow as a church bell.

Spaceship wrote:

> And this is supposed to help your friend format his cancels correctly?

Stop. You know for a fact that I have *never* participated in this
debate on cancellations, and you will not drag me into it.

What I'm pointing out here is your detestable habit of mobilizing your
various avatars to make people believe that you have lots of supporters,
when it's just you, you and yourself.

By doing so, you demonstrate that no matter what discussion you engage
in, you will never be the one to be trusted.

(Play it again, Sam.)

--
Denis

Serveurs de news et passerelles web : <http://usenet-fr.yakakwatik.org>
Lecteurs de news : <http://usenet-fr.yakakwatik.org/lecteurs-de-news.html>

Le 16/01/2024 à 21:09, DV a écrit :

> when it's just you, you and yourself

Play it again, yacacatik.

On 16/01/2024 07:06, the anonymous hateful llp aka Spaceship had written :
> EOT.

However, on 16/01/2024 21:34, the anonymous hateful llp aka Spaceship wrote :
> [whatever]

Please <news:unk0c2$1om7$1@cabale.usenet-fr.net>.

[fu2: junk]

--
Olivier Miakinen

Olivier Miakinen a écrit :
> On 16/01/2024 07:06, the anonymous hateful llp aka Spaceship had written :
> However, on 16/01/2024 21:34, the anonymous hateful llp aka Spaceship wrote :

Sorry, but I'm not Spaceship, nor Frank, nor Victor, nor any other.
You're a serial liar.

You'd rather attack me and tell lies than respond to your previous
interlocutors who are exposing your lies and inconsistencies.

I am saddened by the spectacle you are giving of the French hierarchy.

Sincerely.

--
llp
Admin of news.usenet.ovh

--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh