I Still Hate Motorists, Even Though I've Just Changed My Site To Attempt To Cover It Up
 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Brian G wrote:
I've been a regular if hardly prolific contributor to this newsgroup for
a number of years. In recent times I've posted very rarely, mainly
because the traffic has all but been taken over by a few pathetic but
persistent rolls. My killfile now seems to have more entries than
Yellow Pages, yet still this morning when I logged on I was faced with a
mess of posts from dumbclucks using ever sillier names to head up their
drivel. If only a few no doubt well-meaning trollwarriors had simply
left them alone to get bored and lonely when they first began to erupt
like pus from their suppurating sores, the group might have been able to
continue its useful life. Ho hum.

Well, you'd have thought so, but judith has been almost completely
ignored for a period of weeks now and still posts here regardless. Of
course, had we plonked her rather than tried to answer her questions
in
the very begininng this might not be the case, but her original
questions did not appear to be trolling - it's only afterwards that
one
discovers her long-standing (and self-admitted) MO of starting out
reasonable and then deliberately adopting a contrarian position in
order
to provoke and indefinitely prolong an argument. This kind of problem
is hard to fix without killfiling all newbies.

Guy
- --
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFI+gCaHBDrsD+jvN4RAlfQAJ9Mryk5iYwoeLajEvBF9u EGUuTBYwCfUMqr
zpyiCSOn/9/utsXD2zamTE8=
=rRLR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

I Still Hate Motorists, Even Though I've Just Changed My Site To Attempt To Cover It Up
 

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 20:30:47 +0100,
Phil W Lee phil wrote:
"Just zis Guy, you know?" considered Sun, 19
Oct 2008 09:51:19 +0100 the perfect time to write:

*** PGP SIGNATURE VERIFICATION ***
*** Status: Bad Signature
*** Alert: Signature did not verify. Message has been altered.
*** Signer: Guy Chapman (0x3FA3BCDE)
*** Signed: 18/10/2008 16:28:26
*** Verified: 19/10/2008 20:30:01
*** BEGIN PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE ***


Easy to see the forgeries now.

I'd have expected that forging a signature with intent to deceive would
be an offence. However, I'm not sure under what legislation it would
fall.

Electronic Communications Act 2000 (c. 7) made electronic signatures
legally recognised but doesn't appear to make any changes to the
criminal code. Some countries, when they implemented the European
directives on electronic signatures, made explicit changes to the
criminal code to make forging electronic signatures an offence. Maybe
the UK didn't need to, or maybe the EU directive didn't require it, or
maybe there's some other legislation that I'm not aware of.

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://www.woodall.me.uk/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

I Still Hate Motorists, Even Though I've Just Changed My Site To Attempt To Cover It Up
 

On 2008-10-19, Tim Woodall wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 20:30:47 +0100,
Phil W Lee phil wrote:
"Just zis Guy, you know?" considered Sun, 19
Oct 2008 09:51:19 +0100 the perfect time to write:

*** PGP SIGNATURE VERIFICATION ***
*** Status: Bad Signature
*** Alert: Signature did not verify. Message has been altered.
*** Signer: Guy Chapman (0x3FA3BCDE)
*** Signed: 18/10/2008 16:28:26
*** Verified: 19/10/2008 20:30:01
*** BEGIN PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE ***


Easy to see the forgeries now.

I'd have expected that forging a signature with intent to deceive would
be an offence. However, I'm not sure under what legislation it would
fall.

Electronic Communications Act 2000 (c. 7) made electronic signatures
legally recognised but doesn't appear to make any changes to the
criminal code. Some countries, when they implemented the European
directives on electronic signatures, made explicit changes to the
criminal code to make forging electronic signatures an offence. Maybe
the UK didn't need to, or maybe the EU directive didn't require it, or
maybe there's some other legislation that I'm not aware of.

If so it would only be one of those silly laws you can easily get away
with breaking-- like speed limits or stopping at red lights on a
bicycle.

[ducks]

I Still Hate Motorists, Even Though I've Just Changed My Site To Attempt To Cover It Up
 

"Tim Woodall" wrote in message
e.uk...
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 20:30:47 +0100,
Phil W Lee phil wrote:
"Just zis Guy, you know?" considered Sun, 19
Oct 2008 09:51:19 +0100 the perfect time to write:

*** PGP SIGNATURE VERIFICATION ***
*** Status: Bad Signature
*** Alert: Signature did not verify. Message has been altered.
*** Signer: Guy Chapman (0x3FA3BCDE)
*** Signed: 18/10/2008 16:28:26
*** Verified: 19/10/2008 20:30:01
*** BEGIN PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE ***


Easy to see the forgeries now.

I'd have expected that forging a signature with intent to deceive would
be an offence. However, I'm not sure under what legislation it would
fall.


Giganews AUP mentions a $50 per message charge to identify and remove
messages sent with altered headers (which includes "to attribute a post to
someone else").

I Still Hate Motorists, Even Though I've Just Changed My Site To Attempt To Cover It Up
 

"Tim Woodall" wrote

I'd have expected that forging a signature with intent to deceive would
be an offence. However, I'm not sure under what legislation it would
fall.

The agreement made when signing on with news.individual

//
User of News.Individual.NET are obliged to abide by the following set of
rules. Disregarding the rules may cause termination of access privileges
without further notice. Amounts paid will not be refunded, neither partly
nor in full.

a.. Sender Address
The e-mail addresses given in "From:", "Reply-To:", and "Sender:" should
be valid (= should not bounce because of invalidity). Using addresses and
name space of other people without their permission is prohibited. (For
more details and ways to protect yourself from SPAM see section 5.3 of our
FAQ.)
..//

//
a.. Violation of a newsgroup's charter
Please inform the author about the usual conventions via e-mail first -
especially if there are particular features in addition or contrary to the
usual rules in de.*. If this does not work, simply add that author to the
kill file / the filter of your news reader.

a.. Problems with the content of postings
Please clarify your differences with the author directly or use the kill
file / filter of your news reader. In serious cases you can consider legal
procedures, of course.

a.. Substantial abuse (SPAM, rogue cancel)
Please turn to in such cases, attaching at least one
complete article header if possible.
//

Has he been given sufficient notice by now?

I Still Hate Motorists, Even Though I've Just Changed My Site To Attempt To Cover It Up
 

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 20:30:47 +0100, Phil W Lee
phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" considered Sun, 19
Oct 2008 09:51:19 +0100 the perfect time to write:

*** PGP SIGNATURE VERIFICATION ***
*** Status: Bad Signature
*** Alert: Signature did not verify. Message has been altered.
*** Signer: Guy Chapman (0x3FA3BCDE)
*** Signed: 18/10/2008 16:28:26
*** Verified: 19/10/2008 20:30:01
*** BEGIN PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE ***


Easy to see the forgeries now.


You are as daft as Chapman.

Keep up the good work.




--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment

I Still Hate Motorists, Even Though I've Just Changed My Site To Attempt To Cover It Up
 

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 22:14:37 +0100, "DavidR"
wrote:

"Tim Woodall" wrote

I'd have expected that forging a signature with intent to deceive would
be an offence. However, I'm not sure under what legislation it would
fall.

The agreement made when signing on with news.individual

//
User of News.Individual.NET are obliged to abide by the following set of
rules. Disregarding the rules may cause termination of access privileges
without further notice. Amounts paid will not be refunded, neither partly
nor in full.

a.. Sender Address
The e-mail addresses given in "From:", "Reply-To:", and "Sender:" should
be valid (= should not bounce because of invalidity). Using addresses and
name space of other people without their permission is prohibited. (For
more details and ways to protect yourself from SPAM see section 5.3 of our

Spot on - that's what Chapman got a slapping for.

He used to forge the address .




--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment