full-disclosure-uk January 2009 archive
Main Archive Page > Month Archives  > full-disclosure-uk archives
full-disclosure-uk: Re: [Full-disclosure] Barack Obama <-- No

Re: [Full-disclosure] Barack Obama <-- Not Appropriate

From: j-f sentier <j.sentiar_at_nospam>
Date: Thu Jan 22 2009 - 23:38:22 GMT
To: "andrew.wallace" <andrew.wallace@rocketmail.com>, full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk


yeah totally, i work for fucking IRAN punk, if i'm agains free israeli bull-shit, and n3tcr4p , then i'm ureleet or Iran propaganda or something EVIL. this prove your closed-mind side which in this case turns in a fucking brown noze.

2009/1/22 andrew.wallace <andrew.wallace@rocketmail.com>

> Remember in the Palestine war thread he accused you for working for
> Mossad and being paid to post on full-disclosure. Though he
> propagandas against n3td3v constantly to turn the world against me or
> something. Maybe its j-f sentier who is paid to be here and propaganda
> against things. He may not be a terrorist but he uses terrorist like
> tactics to turn hatred on. j-f sentier's defence will be, 'but
> 'Ureleet' done it so it must be ok to join in'. If 'Ureleet' told you
> to jump off a bridge would you do it?
>
> Andrew
> Intelligencer &
> Founder of n3td3v
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Avraham Schneider
> <avri.schneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The fact that he bears the same name as me, does not mean it's me.
> >
> > I don't spam propaganda - I invalidate yours.
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 12:16 AM, j-f sentier <j.sentiar@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> which propaganda ?
> >>
> >> you're spamming propaganda everytime you post.
> >>
> >> But i understand why now :
> >>
> >> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1049327.html
> >>
> >> "The footage also shows an Israeli soldier, believed by the military
> >> police to be Corporal Avraham Schneider, picking up stones and
> participating
> >> in the disturbance, instead of preventing it. "
> >>
> >> Everything is clearer than ever.
> >>
> >> 2009/1/22 Avraham Schneider <avri.schneider@gmail.com>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 9:35 PM, <A.L.M.Buxey@lboro.ac.uk> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>> > I called for John Cartwright to setup a non-technical cyber security
> >>>> > political full-disclosure mailing list some time ago, nothing was
> >>>> > setup.
> >>>>
> >>>> because he didnt want to - and theres no demand?
> >>>>
> >>>> > What are the solutions for splitting up full-disclosure into
> technical
> >>>> > and non-technical conversation unless two seperate mailing lists are
> >>>> > created?
> >>>>
> >>>> go off and create a yahoo or google mailing list for such drivel
> >>>
> >>> I second that. If he wants to have a list for different types of
> >>> discussions, the best choice is to just open one yourself.
> >>>
> >>> As for getting 'traffic' there, I doubt people would stop posting here
> >>> and start posting there (as nothing would stop them from posting it
> here).
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> and let FD go back to what it was a few years back - readable and
> >>>> useful!
> >>>
> >>> FD is un-moderated and as such people can post whatever they want
> >>> (security related or not).
> >>>
> >>> Usually, people would avoid annoying others with non-security related
> >>> topics - but in the case of js-sentiner and co., one can expect some
> spam.
> >>>
> >>> Sometimes, when they decide to attack others (either with propaganda,
> or
> >>> just because they are bored) , those attacked have two options - either
> a)
> >>> ignore it or b) respond with non-security related posts and defend
> >>> themselves (or oppose their propaganda).
> >>>
> >>> As far as readibility is concerned, that can easily be accomplished by
> >>> either white or black list filters - i.e. if you only care about a
> certain
> >>> vendor's patch notifications, put a filter to get them and blacklist
> the
> >>> rest; if you care not to get any andrew wallase/avraham schneider/js
> >>> sentier/whatever/whoever conversations - set a filter for that - and
> you are
> >>> back with a readable FD.
> >>>
> >>> Just keep in mind that your posts requesting FD to go back to being
> >>> readable, are not computer security related either (at least without
> >>> wickedly twisting the meaning of the phrase 'computer security').
> >>>
> >>> So for the same reason you find it OK to post your request (and it is),
> >>> andrew finds it OK to posts his (and it is).
> >>>
> >>> Not trying to defend n3td3v or anything - but there's some hypocricy
> >>> here.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ala
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> >>>> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> >>>> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> >>> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> >>> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>



Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/