Should we be suspicious?

[PA Bear [MS MVP]]

Re: Should we be suspicious?

Sue the friggin' bastard!!

Peter Foldes wrote:
> You friggin idiot. I was 4 yrs old when my family was liberated and was
> brought to the USA from Dachau by the liberating forces in 1946.
> It was enough Dave that what you did by reporting me as a terrorist to the
> Police in the UK. My home and my family was invaded by Canadian and US
> security forces on account of that and made it very uncomfortable for 3
> hrs
> before it was realized that you made a false claim.
> I have no idea what others would have done to you but I think I was and
> still is civilized enough that I still hold my patience and my tongue with
> you.
> You caught me on a bad weekend and as it now winds down so will I
>
> Again. Go on your boat and get a life you sick demented person
>
>
> "~BD~" <~BD~@no.mail.afraid.com> wrote in message
> news:%23j1Z%23SuNJHA.1484@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "VanguardLH" <V@nguard.LH> wrote in message
>> news:gdvugc$dsg$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>> ~BD~ wrote:
>>> So now you're targeting yet another regular netizen. What's the point?
>>> Why do you even care about what someone claims they do or don't have?
>>>
>>> So who's your next target of your ennui?
>>
>>
>>
>> Not bored - concerned. I'm very disappointed with your response,
>> VanguardLH.
>>
>> I haven't told you the full background, nor will I here. I *can* tell you
>> that this 'regular netizen', as you call him, has consistently lied when
>> posting on these Microsoft groups and, indeed, on the Annexcafe
>> newsgroups
>> too. I fully appreciate that only *I* can be sure of that - others will
>> have to make up their own minds.
>>
>> Two things are of concern to me.
>>
>> 1. Cybercrime
>>
>> 2. Terrorism
>>
>> One, of course, can feed the other. Mr Foldes, by his own admission, is a
>> foreign national now living in Canada. 'He' and/or his companions answer
>> every computing query under-the-sun at just about any time of the day or
>> night. He appears to use highly sophisticated equipment too, yet no-one
>> knows anything about him or his business - there's not even a web site to
>> enlighten us. Strange, I think, in 2008.
>>
>> Perhaps the explanation/statement he has made 'here' in these groups
>> today
>> (much of it untrue, BTW) will put your mind at ease. There is obviously
>> no
>> need to worry about the safety of your friends and family ........ is
>> there?
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> --

 

[Andrew Taylor]

Re: Should we be suspicious?

David

I explained to you in VERY concise details, the equipment that Peter has and
why he has it. Why do you persist in questioning the same questions even
though you have had what I believe to be satisfactory answers?

If you read the e-mail I sent to you YEARs ago, this
'Examples include corporate web servers'
this is necessary to Peter's work, as is this -
"Who uses DS-3s? Companies who host high traffic web sites, support web,
hosting, and need high capacity bandwidth on an as-needed basis.

It is not a mis-spelling, it is a typographical error. The 'e' and the 'r'
are next to each other, the 'r' wasn't pressed hard enough.

--
Andrew Taylor
Mississauga - Ontario
Canada
~

"~BD~" <~BD~@no.mail.afraid.com> wrote in message
news:uSamAynNJHA.588@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
> "Peter Foldes" <okf22@hotmail.com> has recently said..
>
> "You should see my W2K3 Enterprise Sever boot. From cold boot to fully
> loaded Desktop 46 seconds including LAN connection"
>
> (his mis-spelling of 'Server')
>
> Wikipedia tells me ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_Server )
>
> "An enterprise server is a computer system which performs an essential
> service for a large organization. Examples include corporate web servers,
> print servers, and databases. A key feature distinguishing an enterprise
> server is that even a short-term failure can cost more than purchasing and
> installing the system. For example, it may take only a few minutes' down
> time at a national stock exchange to justify the expense of entirely
> replacing the system with something more reliable."
>
> Perhaps that isn't true.
>
>
> Mr Foldes has also previously advised that he has a T3 Connection.
>
> Detailed/Technical DS3-T3 Definition
> http://www.realtimet1search.com/news/article_282.php which mentions:
> "Who uses DS-3s? Companies who host high traffic web sites, support web
> hosting, and need high capacity bandwidth on an as-needed basis. Also
> universities/colleges, government offices, and high volume call centers. A
> full DS3 can accommodate many simultaneous users depending on the
> requirements of the business. Generally a DS3 line is installed as a major
> networking channel for large corporations or universities with high volume
> network traffic. This is an always-on, high-speed connection that provides
> a dedicated, stable and reliable link to the Internet, and can support up
> to 500 or more computer users."
>
> I still can't help wondering who he *really* is ............ and what he
> *actually* does.
>
> Does anyone reading here know - or care?
>
> Surely *someone* 'out there' must be curious too!
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>

 

[Andrew Taylor]

Re: Should we be suspicious?

"~BD~" <~BD~@no.mail.afraid.com> wrote in message
news:%23j1Z%23SuNJHA.1484@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

<snip>

> He appears to use highly sophisticated equipment too, yet no-one knows
> anything about him or his business

I do!

 

[VanguardLH]

Re: Should we be suspicious?

~BD~ wrote:

> Perhaps you can point me in the right direction to ascertain the true
> credentials of Mr Foldes?

And where are you are going to divulge your private details to identify
yourself? Usenet is an anarchy. Get used to it. You can't prove that
a web site have valid information about someone and instead have to
assign a trust level to it, just like any other venue of news or
information that comes to you. Why would anyone care about your claims
regarding Peter Foldes history and behavior when no one can verify who
you are and your history?

You claimed that Peter lied in some of his posts. Provide proof by
giving news: URLs or links to Google Groups copies of those posts. Did
you check his history of posts to see through which newsgroups service
he repeatedly uses and other header info to determine if those lying
posts were made by him or an imposter?

http://groups.google.com/groups/pro...AAqJW8xcoCt4Zf67O3gCP4PkdEasx1kiYTQavV7mdW13Q

I took a random sampling of 10 posts from Peter (in newsgroups that I
visit). One was a jibe and the others were somewhat helpful although
perhaps a bit terse (whereas, as you can see, I am a bit verbose). That
was as much effort that I was going to waste in your witchhunt. Prove
your claim that he lies.

Although I don't bother to participate in such lists, there are those
that nominate or compile their "kook list". You can only be or pretend
to be a newbie for so long before the consensus by such folks is that
you are a troll or kook and you get added to their lists. All you've
done so far is go around pointing fingers at others. Well, others can
start pointing fingers at you, too. I'm pretty sure some are now
considering adding you to their killfiles.

 

[~BD~]

Re: Should we be suspicious?


"VanguardLH" <V@nguard.LH> wrote in message
news:ge3jvs$qe$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> Perhaps you can point me in the right direction to ascertain the true
>> credentials of Mr Foldes?
>
> And where are you are going to divulge your private details to identify
> yourself? Usenet is an anarchy. Get used to it. You can't prove that
> a web site have valid information about someone and instead have to
> assign a trust level to it, just like any other venue of news or
> information that comes to you. Why would anyone care about your claims
> regarding Peter Foldes history and behavior when no one can verify who
> you are and your history?
>
> You claimed that Peter lied in some of his posts. Provide proof by
> giving news: URLs or links to Google Groups copies of those posts. Did
> you check his history of posts to see through which newsgroups service
> he repeatedly uses and other header info to determine if those lying
> posts were made by him or an imposter?
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups/pro...AAqJW8xcoCt4Zf67O3gCP4PkdEasx1kiYTQavV7mdW13Q
>
> I took a random sampling of 10 posts from Peter (in newsgroups that I
> visit). One was a jibe and the others were somewhat helpful although
> perhaps a bit terse (whereas, as you can see, I am a bit verbose). That
> was as much effort that I was going to waste in your witchhunt. Prove
> your claim that he lies.
>
> Although I don't bother to participate in such lists, there are those
> that nominate or compile their "kook list". You can only be or pretend
> to be a newbie for so long before the consensus by such folks is that
> you are a troll or kook and you get added to their lists. All you've
> done so far is go around pointing fingers at others. Well, others can
> start pointing fingers at you, too. I'm pretty sure some are now
> considering adding you to their killfiles.
>
>

Thank you for taking the trouble to help me check Vanguard.

It's half-term in the UK and my son, his wife and my 3 grandsons have come
to visit. I'll therefore not have much time for 'computing' for a couple of
days but you may care to review this thread in the meantime.
http://www.stolenknowledge.com/comm...a84-4aaf-b6ec-b34b6f2030c2&lang=en&cr=US&sloc

If you wish, we may take my issue to email. As I believe you may have picked
up already, my 'profile' in Google Groups is 'BoaterDave' and the email
address shown the is valid.

Thanks again.

Dave

 

[~BD~]

Re: Should we be suspicious?

Almost every business nowadays has a web site, Andrew.

Are you able to supply the URL for Peter's business and/or explain the
nature of his business?

He said in this thread "Yes I am using a Server and Yes I have a T3
connection along with a LAN when not using it also for which my business
pays an incredible amount per month for rental of that service". This
suggests to me that 'the business' must be highly profitable - my worry is
that it *may* not be ......... genuine, shall I say.

You will also note in this thread that Peter claims:- "My home and my
family was invaded by Canadian and US security forces".

Can you, as a fellow Englishman, explain why the *US* security services
might have had reason to trespass on Canadian territory to investigate Mr
Foldes? I would have thought that was a no-no.

TIA

Dave

--



"Andrew Taylor" <andrewcrumplehorn@spamcopSUBVERSIVE.com> wrote in message
news:490521da@newsgate.x-privat.org...
> "~BD~" <~BD~@no.mail.afraid.com> wrote in message
> news:%23j1Z%23SuNJHA.1484@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
> <snip>
>
>> He appears to use highly sophisticated equipment too, yet no-one knows
>> anything about him or his business
>
> I do!
>
>

 

[~BD~]

Re: Should we be suspicious?


"PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:u$rGuu8NJHA.1896@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Sue the friggin' bastard!!
>
> Peter Foldes wrote:
>> You friggin idiot. <snip>


Maybe the use of 'friggin' by these two posters was simply coincidental.

I would have thought that the 'real' PA Bear would have a better command of
the English Language. Hmmm.

Dave

--

 

[VanguardLH]

Re: Should we be suspicious?

~BD~ wrote:

> "VanguardLH" <V@nguard.LH> wrote in message
> news:ge3jvs$qe$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>> ~BD~ wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps you can point me in the right direction to ascertain the true
>>> credentials of Mr Foldes?
>>
>> And where are you are going to divulge your private details to identify
>> yourself? Usenet is an anarchy. Get used to it. You can't prove that
>> a web site have valid information about someone and instead have to
>> assign a trust level to it, just like any other venue of news or
>> information that comes to you. Why would anyone care about your claims
>> regarding Peter Foldes history and behavior when no one can verify who
>> you are and your history?
>>
>> You claimed that Peter lied in some of his posts. Provide proof by
>> giving news: URLs or links to Google Groups copies of those posts. Did
>> you check his history of posts to see through which newsgroups service
>> he repeatedly uses and other header info to determine if those lying
>> posts were made by him or an imposter?
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/groups/pro...AAqJW8xcoCt4Zf67O3gCP4PkdEasx1kiYTQavV7mdW13Q
>>
>> I took a random sampling of 10 posts from Peter (in newsgroups that I
>> visit). One was a jibe and the others were somewhat helpful although
>> perhaps a bit terse (whereas, as you can see, I am a bit verbose). That
>> was as much effort that I was going to waste in your witchhunt. Prove
>> your claim that he lies.
>>
>> Although I don't bother to participate in such lists, there are those
>> that nominate or compile their "kook list". You can only be or pretend
>> to be a newbie for so long before the consensus by such folks is that
>> you are a troll or kook and you get added to their lists. All you've
>> done so far is go around pointing fingers at others. Well, others can
>> start pointing fingers at you, too. I'm pretty sure some are now
>> considering adding you to their killfiles.
>>
>>
>
> Thank you for taking the trouble to help me check Vanguard.
>
> It's half-term in the UK and my son, his wife and my 3 grandsons have come
> to visit. I'll therefore not have much time for 'computing' for a couple of
> days but you may care to review this thread in the meantime.
> http://www.stolenknowledge.com/comm...a84-4aaf-b6ec-b34b6f2030c2&lang=en&cr=US&sloc
>
> If you wish, we may take my issue to email. As I believe you may have picked
> up already, my 'profile' in Google Groups is 'BoaterDave' and the email
> address shown the is valid.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Dave

Never used that site nor do I care for webnews-for-dummies interfaces.
One problem with that webnews interface to Usenet is that the headers
for the post cannot be viewed which means I cannot see the list of
References to track threads nor see the Message-ID (to use it in a
Google Groups search). The thread is incomplete and it is hard to
determine the post hierarchy based merely on indentation. Those posts
seem to be in the microsoft.public.security newsgroup so I did a search
on Peter's posts over there.

I could not verify the thread you claim exists based on a link to a
suspect site that tries to pretend it is a Microsoft site. That thread
does not exist on my NNTP server. It cannot be found in a search at
Google Groups. www.stolenknowledge.com is NOT a Microsoft web site.
After reviewing the dearth and almost deliberately covert registrant
information for the domain's registration and even for its nameserver's
domain, I trust NOTHING recorded at that web site. Hell, they won't
even load a web page if you just go to their home page.

According the timestamp for Peter's post at that suspect web site, I
started looking at posts around 9/17/2008 11:51 AM PST in the
microsoft.public.security newsgroup by searching Google Groups on all
posters with author having "foldes" from 1 to 30 September. Since he
doesn't use the X-No-Archive header, his posts will remain at Google
Groups. I don't bother keeping posts in my newsreader that are over a
month old so I had to use Google Groups to see if there was a copy of
the thread in Usenet rather than at some unknown web site that pretends
to be a Microsoft web site. What I found was:

http://groups.google.com/group/micr...754a5f49af4/6917ea81aab0bace#6917ea81aab0bace

You were told back then to stop referring to external forums. This is
Usenet, not a forum. So either point at Microsoft's article ID for
their gatewayed post (i.e., a URL link to the article using Microsoft's
webnews-for-dummies "Communities" gateway to Usenet), provide the news:
URL to the post, or provide a URL link to the Google Groups copy of the
Usenet thread.

Apparently you deliberately attempt to prevent following the discussion
by your repeated changing of the Subject header. You claim that Peter
submitted lying posts. Bitch, insult, and opinion posts are not lying
posts. That are you not well liked by some regular posters doesn't make
them liars. It means they have opinions just like you do.

Perhaps no one has yet provided you with some useful information as to
how you should be posting to Usenet. Read the articles below:

What is Usenet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsgroups
http://www.masonicinfo.com/newsgroups.htm
http://www.mcfedries.com/Ramblings/usenet-primer.asp

How to post to newsgroups:
http://66.39.69.143/goodpost.htm
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
http://users.tpg.com.au/bzyhjr/liszt.html

http://www.newsreaders.com/guide/netiquette.html
http://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc1855.txt

 

[Jordon]

Re: Should we be suspicious?

~BD~ wrote:
[snipped it all]

Why hijack my thread?

--
Jordon

 

[Andrew Taylor]

Re: Should we be suspicious?


"~BD~" <~BD~@no.mail.afraid.com> wrote in message
news:eGrkExAOJHA.1744@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> Almost every business nowadays has a web site, Andrew.

_almost_ being the operable word.
>
> Are you able to supply the URL for Peter's business and/or explain the
> nature of his business?

There is no URL as far as I am aware. If you have a successful business that
is extremely specialised, you wouldn't need to advertise. I have already
explained Peter's business for you David but you choose to ignore honest
answers. For the benefit of others, this was stated in a post on another
server, so it was in the public domain. I happened to save the post as I
found the hardware specs so impressive.

>
> He said in this thread "Yes I am using a Server and Yes I have a T3
> connection along with a LAN when not using it also for which my business
> pays an incredible amount per month for rental of that service". This
> suggests to me that 'the business' must be highly profitable - my worry is
> that it *may* not be ......... genuine, shall I say.
>
Specialised high tech business is profitable. Whether or not it is _highly_
profitable is not for me to say or know. Suffice that Peter makes a living
from it and the business is 'genuine'.

> You will also note in this thread that Peter claims:- "My home and my
> family was invaded by Canadian and US security forces".
>
> Can you, as a fellow Englishman, explain why the *US* security services
> might have had reason to trespass on Canadian territory to investigate Mr
> Foldes? I would have thought that was a no-no.
>
Yes, The US government and the Canadian government work very closely
together to combat international terrorism in the wake of 9/11. The main
reason is that our countries share the same border and a border that is
huge. The would have to act on any complaint, no matter how unfounded. All
American Consulates carry security personnel, especially the one in Ottawa.
The UK government also works closely with the US, and security personnel
reside at the US Embassy in London. It would be entirely feasible that US
security services and Scotland Yard's anti-terrorism section could visit you
if someone made a complaint against you? Imagine the repercussions if they
didn't act on a complaint and you blew up the houses of parliament on Guy
Fawkes Night!

Anyway, I am off to work.

 

[---Fitz---]

Re: Should we be suspicious?

"Jordon" <jordon@REMOVEgrahamtrucking.com> wrote in message
news:ge4jot$6t8$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> ~BD~ wrote:
> [snipped it all]
>
> Why hijack my thread?
>
> --
> Jordon

It's a favorite tactic of Boater Dave. He's well known for hijacking
threads and going off on some tangent that has no relation to the OP's post.
He does this in almost all of his posts and has been booted from other
forums because of it. He has been stalking select people for some time in
these groups for being suspicious...PA Bear, Peter Foldes, etc, ad nauseum.
He believes there are terrorists in these newsgroups and feels he has been
victimized by unknown forces. If there was an internet police force, he
would be the chief of police. He will either ignore your answers or try to
pick them apart word by word. He's apparently on a self righteous crusade
for something but no one has figured it out yet. My thought is that this is
the only way he can interact with people and he believes these newsgroups
are a social networking site. When he became too inquisitive of me after
offering advice to some question he posed, I kill filed him and haven't
looked back. He's kinda like chewing gum on a shoe.

 

[MowGreen [MVP]]

Re: Should we be suspicious?

You're way too kind to this sick, twisted creature, Peter. 'B.D.' is now
on notice. Should he falsely report someone again he will be tossed into
jail or a mental institution. Go ahead, B.D., report me as a terrorist
and see what you get, you insufferable fool.

MowGreen [MVP 2003-2009]
===============
*-343-* FDNY
Never Forgotten
===============


Peter Foldes wrote:

> You friggin idiot. I was 4 yrs old when my family was liberated and was brought to the USA from Dachau by the liberating forces in 1946.
> It was enough Dave that what you did by reporting me as a terrorist to the Police in the UK. My home and my family was invaded by Canadian and US security forces on account of that and made it very uncomfortable for 3 hrs before it was realized that you made a false claim.
> I have no idea what others would have done to you but I think I was and still is civilized enough that I still hold my patience and my tongue with you.
> You caught me on a bad weekend and as it now winds down so will I
>
> Again. Go on your boat and get a life you sick demented person
>

 

[~BD~]

Re: Should we be suspicious?


"Andrew Taylor" <andrewcrumplehorn@spamcopSUBVERSIVE.com> wrote in message
news:4905d899$1@newsgate.x-privat.org...
>
> "~BD~" <~BD~@no.mail.afraid.com> wrote in message
> news:eGrkExAOJHA.1744@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>> Almost every business nowadays has a web site, Andrew.
>
> _almost_ being the operable word.
>>
>> Are you able to supply the URL for Peter's business and/or explain the
>> nature of his business?
>
> There is no URL as far as I am aware. If you have a successful business
> that is extremely specialised, you wouldn't need to advertise. I have
> already explained Peter's business for you David but you choose to ignore
> honest answers. For the benefit of others, this was stated in a post on
> another server, so it was in the public domain. I happened to save the
> post as I found the hardware specs so impressive.
>
>>
>> He said in this thread "Yes I am using a Server and Yes I have a T3
>> connection along with a LAN when not using it also for which my business
>> pays an incredible amount per month for rental of that service". This
>> suggests to me that 'the business' must be highly profitable - my worry
>> is that it *may* not be ......... genuine, shall I say.
>>
> Specialised high tech business is profitable. Whether or not it is
> _highly_ profitable is not for me to say or know. Suffice that Peter makes
> a living from it and the business is 'genuine'.
>
>> You will also note in this thread that Peter claims:- "My home and my
>> family was invaded by Canadian and US security forces".
>>
>> Can you, as a fellow Englishman, explain why the *US* security services
>> might have had reason to trespass on Canadian territory to investigate Mr
>> Foldes? I would have thought that was a no-no.
>>
> Yes, The US government and the Canadian government work very closely
> together to combat international terrorism in the wake of 9/11. The main
> reason is that our countries share the same border and a border that is
> huge. The would have to act on any complaint, no matter how unfounded. All
> American Consulates carry security personnel, especially the one in
> Ottawa. The UK government also works closely with the US, and security
> personnel reside at the US Embassy in London. It would be entirely
> feasible that US security services and Scotland Yard's anti-terrorism
> section could visit you if someone made a complaint against you? Imagine
> the repercussions if they didn't act on a complaint and you blew up the
> houses of parliament on Guy Fawkes Night!
>
> Anyway, I am off to work.
>

Thank you for your responses, Andrew. Regrettably, I don't have copies of
any emails you may have sent me, so it was good to see Peter Foldes restate
his situation in the post recorded below. No doubt everything he says is
true. If the US and Canadian security services really *have* visited him -
and confirmed that his 'business' (whatever that may be) is in no way
involved in causing others harm - then that's great.

If they *haven't* actually done so yet, no doubt they will in due course!

**************************************

Subject: OT: Boater Dave

For you to understand once and for all. GET A LIFE. And like I said to you a
year

or two ago pick up a few books on using and understanding computers and
computing

because at your present state you are dumb when it comes to it

Also As explained to you Andrew yesterday is exceptionally correct. And I
do

not need any higher traffic for my Home business so there is NO webpage.

Also about the US\Canada Security Andrew was correct on all that he posted
to you

Now to let you know my system so there is no misunderstanding which you are

excellent on doing and implementing
since you are ignorant and do not understand

Operating System: Windows 2003 Enterprise Server SP2

Dual Xeon CPU 3 MHz Intel
L3 Cache (notice that it is not L2 but L3) 9MB
32Gig RAM (16x2Gig )each 400mhz DDR on a rack of 20 purchased only through
Intel

on Special Order with the Motherboard
PAE switch is Enabled and the 3 Gig Switch is disabled
Plain Jane Sound Card ($29) On board disconnected
On board Video Card is Disabled and have a $35 Plain Jane PCI card
On board LAN and on board switchable USB feeding Outside T3 when needed
1000 W Power Supply Dual Voltage with 4 AC sockets
8 cooling fans located on top and both sides of system
As far as HD's go I switch between the one using now (160Gig ) 14,500 RPM
for

personal usage to 22x500Gig
which is for clients and is installed when needed one or up to 4 depending
on the

download

Boot up time 35-46 seconds to full Desktop with connection to LAN (Start Up
is

empty except for Default meaning there is not a single Item in Start UP in

MSConfig)


Windows 2003 Enterprise can take 128Gig's of memory if needed

And if you notice at times I use an XP or Vista when system and I are
working.

So there you go and I hope it satisfies your ignorant stupidity which you do
not

notice yourself (Shame)

--
Peter

************************************ and this one too:-

David

I just got notified that you are making enquiries at your local law
enforcement

agency. When will you wake up.

Go on your longboat and play with that not with me.

--
Peter
************************************

The Moderator of the group has since posted this item:

I have canceled this post and all replies to it.
Any further replies will be removed without notice.

Annexcafe does not allow talking about someone
who has been banned.

It is not right or fair to talk about someone who can not
defend themself.

I ask you to respect this and move on to other things.

Thank You,
Roy
************************************

Whilst I appreciate the concern of Roy C for my welfare, I felt it might be
a good idea to retain Mr Foldes posts for posterity. Whilst I am aware that
they will also be removed from the MS groups after 90 days, Google is far
more friendly towards me!

One reason for posting in *this* group is in the slim hope that someone from
'the Security Services' may just monitor posts here. Should they ever wish
to visit *me* personally, I shall have no concerns with chatting to them
over a cup of coffee!

Dave

 

[Peter Foldes]

Re: Should we be suspicious?

Geeez David you are offering coffee someone will go over to you and visit and you did not invite me. That was not very polite . Now I am very hurt because of that. Just thought I let you know .

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"~BD~" <~BD~@no.mail.afraid.com> wrote in message news:%23WQAUQVOJHA.3748@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> "Andrew Taylor" <andrewcrumplehorn@spamcopSUBVERSIVE.com> wrote in message
> news:4905d899$1@newsgate.x-privat.org...
>>
>> "~BD~" <~BD~@no.mail.afraid.com> wrote in message
>> news:eGrkExAOJHA.1744@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>
>>> Almost every business nowadays has a web site, Andrew.
>>
>> _almost_ being the operable word.
>>>
>>> Are you able to supply the URL for Peter's business and/or explain the
>>> nature of his business?
>>
>> There is no URL as far as I am aware. If you have a successful business
>> that is extremely specialised, you wouldn't need to advertise. I have
>> already explained Peter's business for you David but you choose to ignore
>> honest answers. For the benefit of others, this was stated in a post on
>> another server, so it was in the public domain. I happened to save the
>> post as I found the hardware specs so impressive.
>>
>>>
>>> He said in this thread "Yes I am using a Server and Yes I have a T3
>>> connection along with a LAN when not using it also for which my business
>>> pays an incredible amount per month for rental of that service". This
>>> suggests to me that 'the business' must be highly profitable - my worry
>>> is that it *may* not be ......... genuine, shall I say.
>>>
>> Specialised high tech business is profitable. Whether or not it is
>> _highly_ profitable is not for me to say or know. Suffice that Peter makes
>> a living from it and the business is 'genuine'.
>>
>>> You will also note in this thread that Peter claims:- "My home and my
>>> family was invaded by Canadian and US security forces".
>>>
>>> Can you, as a fellow Englishman, explain why the *US* security services
>>> might have had reason to trespass on Canadian territory to investigate Mr
>>> Foldes? I would have thought that was a no-no.
>>>
>> Yes, The US government and the Canadian government work very closely
>> together to combat international terrorism in the wake of 9/11. The main
>> reason is that our countries share the same border and a border that is
>> huge. The would have to act on any complaint, no matter how unfounded. All
>> American Consulates carry security personnel, especially the one in
>> Ottawa. The UK government also works closely with the US, and security
>> personnel reside at the US Embassy in London. It would be entirely
>> feasible that US security services and Scotland Yard's anti-terrorism
>> section could visit you if someone made a complaint against you? Imagine
>> the repercussions if they didn't act on a complaint and you blew up the
>> houses of parliament on Guy Fawkes Night!
>>
>> Anyway, I am off to work.
>>
>
> Thank you for your responses, Andrew. Regrettably, I don't have copies of
> any emails you may have sent me, so it was good to see Peter Foldes restate
> his situation in the post recorded below. No doubt everything he says is
> true. If the US and Canadian security services really *have* visited him -
> and confirmed that his 'business' (whatever that may be) is in no way
> involved in causing others harm - then that's great.
>
> If they *haven't* actually done so yet, no doubt they will in due course!
>
> **************************************
>
> Subject: OT: Boater Dave
>
> For you to understand once and for all. GET A LIFE. And like I said to you a
> year
>
> or two ago pick up a few books on using and understanding computers and
> computing
>
> because at your present state you are dumb when it comes to it
>
> Also As explained to you Andrew yesterday is exceptionally correct. And I
> do
>
> not need any higher traffic for my Home business so there is NO webpage.
>
> Also about the US\Canada Security Andrew was correct on all that he posted
> to you
>
> Now to let you know my system so there is no misunderstanding which you are
>
> excellent on doing and implementing
> since you are ignorant and do not understand
>
> Operating System: Windows 2003 Enterprise Server SP2
>
> Dual Xeon CPU 3 MHz Intel
> L3 Cache (notice that it is not L2 but L3) 9MB
> 32Gig RAM (16x2Gig )each 400mhz DDR on a rack of 20 purchased only through
> Intel
>
> on Special Order with the Motherboard
> PAE switch is Enabled and the 3 Gig Switch is disabled
> Plain Jane Sound Card ($29) On board disconnected
> On board Video Card is Disabled and have a $35 Plain Jane PCI card
> On board LAN and on board switchable USB feeding Outside T3 when needed
> 1000 W Power Supply Dual Voltage with 4 AC sockets
> 8 cooling fans located on top and both sides of system
> As far as HD's go I switch between the one using now (160Gig ) 14,500 RPM
> for
>
> personal usage to 22x500Gig
> which is for clients and is installed when needed one or up to 4 depending
> on the
>
> download
>
> Boot up time 35-46 seconds to full Desktop with connection to LAN (Start Up
> is
>
> empty except for Default meaning there is not a single Item in Start UP in
>
> MSConfig)
>
>
> Windows 2003 Enterprise can take 128Gig's of memory if needed
>
> And if you notice at times I use an XP or Vista when system and I are
> working.
>
> So there you go and I hope it satisfies your ignorant stupidity which you do
> not
>
> notice yourself (Shame)
>
> --
> Peter
>
> ************************************ and this one too:-
>
> David
>
> I just got notified that you are making enquiries at your local law
> enforcement
>
> agency. When will you wake up.
>
> Go on your longboat and play with that not with me.
>
> --
> Peter
> ************************************
>
> The Moderator of the group has since posted this item:
>
> I have canceled this post and all replies to it.
> Any further replies will be removed without notice.
>
> Annexcafe does not allow talking about someone
> who has been banned.
>
> It is not right or fair to talk about someone who can not
> defend themself.
>
> I ask you to respect this and move on to other things.
>
> Thank You,
> Roy
> ************************************
>
> Whilst I appreciate the concern of Roy C for my welfare, I felt it might be
> a good idea to retain Mr Foldes posts for posterity. Whilst I am aware that
> they will also be removed from the MS groups after 90 days, Google is far
> more friendly towards me!
>
> One reason for posting in *this* group is in the slim hope that someone from
> 'the Security Services' may just monitor posts here. Should they ever wish
> to visit *me* personally, I shall have no concerns with chatting to them
> over a cup of coffee!
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
>

 

[BurfordTJustice]

Re: Should we be suspicious?

Friday night at exactly 9pm go outside.
I will flash my torch one time.
Smile then, as I need one more clear picture.

"~BD~" <~BD~@no.mail.afraid.com> wrote in message
news:%23WQAUQVOJHA.3748@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

"Andrew Taylor" <andrewcrumplehorn@spamcopSUBVERSIVE.com> wrote in message
news:4905d899$1@newsgate.x-privat.org...
>
> "~BD~" <~BD~@no.mail.afraid.com> wrote in message
> news:eGrkExAOJHA.1744@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>> Almost every business nowadays has a web site, Andrew.
>
> _almost_ being the operable word.
>>
>> Are you able to supply the URL for Peter's business and/or explain the
>> nature of his business?
>
> There is no URL as far as I am aware. If you have a successful business
> that is extremely specialised, you wouldn't need to advertise. I have
> already explained Peter's business for you David but you choose to ignore
> honest answers. For the benefit of others, this was stated in a post on
> another server, so it was in the public domain. I happened to save the
> post as I found the hardware specs so impressive.
>
>>
>> He said in this thread "Yes I am using a Server and Yes I have a T3
>> connection along with a LAN when not using it also for which my business
>> pays an incredible amount per month for rental of that service". This
>> suggests to me that 'the business' must be highly profitable - my worry
>> is that it *may* not be ......... genuine, shall I say.
>>
> Specialised high tech business is profitable. Whether or not it is
> _highly_ profitable is not for me to say or know. Suffice that Peter makes
> a living from it and the business is 'genuine'.
>
>> You will also note in this thread that Peter claims:- "My home and my
>> family was invaded by Canadian and US security forces".
>>
>> Can you, as a fellow Englishman, explain why the *US* security services
>> might have had reason to trespass on Canadian territory to investigate Mr
>> Foldes? I would have thought that was a no-no.
>>
> Yes, The US government and the Canadian government work very closely
> together to combat international terrorism in the wake of 9/11. The main
> reason is that our countries share the same border and a border that is
> huge. The would have to act on any complaint, no matter how unfounded. All
> American Consulates carry security personnel, especially the one in
> Ottawa. The UK government also works closely with the US, and security
> personnel reside at the US Embassy in London. It would be entirely
> feasible that US security services and Scotland Yard's anti-terrorism
> section could visit you if someone made a complaint against you? Imagine
> the repercussions if they didn't act on a complaint and you blew up the
> houses of parliament on Guy Fawkes Night!
>
> Anyway, I am off to work.
>

Thank you for your responses, Andrew. Regrettably, I don't have copies of
any emails you may have sent me, so it was good to see Peter Foldes restate
his situation in the post recorded below. No doubt everything he says is
true. If the US and Canadian security services really *have* visited him -
and confirmed that his 'business' (whatever that may be) is in no way
involved in causing others harm - then that's great.

If they *haven't* actually done so yet, no doubt they will in due course!

**************************************

Subject: OT: Boater Dave

For you to understand once and for all. GET A LIFE. And like I said to you a
year

or two ago pick up a few books on using and understanding computers and
computing

because at your present state you are dumb when it comes to it

Also As explained to you Andrew yesterday is exceptionally correct. And I
do

not need any higher traffic for my Home business so there is NO webpage.

Also about the US\Canada Security Andrew was correct on all that he posted
to you

Now to let you know my system so there is no misunderstanding which you are

excellent on doing and implementing
since you are ignorant and do not understand

Operating System: Windows 2003 Enterprise Server SP2

Dual Xeon CPU 3 MHz Intel
L3 Cache (notice that it is not L2 but L3) 9MB
32Gig RAM (16x2Gig )each 400mhz DDR on a rack of 20 purchased only through
Intel

on Special Order with the Motherboard
PAE switch is Enabled and the 3 Gig Switch is disabled
Plain Jane Sound Card ($29) On board disconnected
On board Video Card is Disabled and have a $35 Plain Jane PCI card
On board LAN and on board switchable USB feeding Outside T3 when needed
1000 W Power Supply Dual Voltage with 4 AC sockets
8 cooling fans located on top and both sides of system
As far as HD's go I switch between the one using now (160Gig ) 14,500 RPM
for

personal usage to 22x500Gig
which is for clients and is installed when needed one or up to 4 depending
on the

download

Boot up time 35-46 seconds to full Desktop with connection to LAN (Start Up
is

empty except for Default meaning there is not a single Item in Start UP in

MSConfig)


Windows 2003 Enterprise can take 128Gig's of memory if needed

And if you notice at times I use an XP or Vista when system and I are
working.

So there you go and I hope it satisfies your ignorant stupidity which you do
not

notice yourself (Shame)

--
Peter

************************************ and this one too:-

David

I just got notified that you are making enquiries at your local law
enforcement

agency. When will you wake up.

Go on your longboat and play with that not with me.

--
Peter
************************************

The Moderator of the group has since posted this item:

I have canceled this post and all replies to it.
Any further replies will be removed without notice.

Annexcafe does not allow talking about someone
who has been banned.

It is not right or fair to talk about someone who can not
defend themself.

I ask you to respect this and move on to other things.

Thank You,
Roy
************************************

Whilst I appreciate the concern of Roy C for my welfare, I felt it might be
a good idea to retain Mr Foldes posts for posterity. Whilst I am aware that
they will also be removed from the MS groups after 90 days, Google is far
more friendly towards me!

One reason for posting in *this* group is in the slim hope that someone from
'the Security Services' may just monitor posts here. Should they ever wish
to visit *me* personally, I shall have no concerns with chatting to them
over a cup of coffee!

Dave

 

[~BD~]

Re: Should we be suspicious?


"Peter Foldes" <okf22@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eU8$AgVOJHA.4508@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Geeez David you are offering coffee someone will go over to you and visit
and you did not invite me. That was not very polite . Now I am very hurt
because of that. Just thought I let you know .

--
Peter


A modicum of humour, Peter - quite rare from you!

However, in view of this further post:-

****************************

Roy

Your post was copied over to the msnews server. Just I thought that I will
let everyone know that their posts can be copied some place where it is not
appropriate
It has happened before a few times with this mentally challenged individual
named Boater Dave and unfortunately those posters were not aware of it. Whew
if they would have known it would have been fun to watch the results and
reactions

--
Peter
*****************************

......... it might well have been better not to have banned me from posting
on Annexcafe in the first place.

BTW, do you know WHY I was banned, Peter? Not after the time we had locked
horns originally - I refer to the ban after being given a 'second chance'.
I'd been happily posting on the UK U2U site and on Scorched Earth without
apparent problem when the hand of Trolli struck without warning - No reason
was ever given to me. Ah, well!

Dave

 

[TrolLisaTroll]

Re: Should we be suspicious?

my Mothers favorite sport was the art of the open hand. as she lay dieing,
she slapped me and said it was time for me to carry on her art. she made me
promise to use it with out warning on fools and kooks.
http://little_flower.dogagent.com/

TrolLi

"~BD~" <~BD~@no.mail.afraid.com> wrote in message
news:%235kB33VOJHA.1944@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
> ......... it might well have been better not to have banned me from
> posting on Annexcafe in the first place.
>
> BTW, do you know WHY I was banned, Peter? Not after the time we had locked
> horns originally - I refer to the ban after being given a 'second chance'.
> I'd been happily posting on the UK U2U site and on Scorched Earth without
> apparent problem when the hand of Trolli struck without warning - No
> reason was ever given to me. Ah, well!
>
> Dave
>

 

[Andrew Taylor]

Re: Should we be suspicious?

"~BD~" <~BD~@no.mail.afraid.com> wrote in message
news:%235kB33VOJHA.1944@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
> ......... it might well have been better not to have banned me from
> posting on Annexcafe in the first place.
>
> BTW, do you know WHY I was banned, Peter? Not after the time we had locked
> horns originally - I refer to the ban after being given a 'second chance'.
> I'd been happily posting on the UK U2U site and on Scorched Earth without
> apparent problem when the hand of Trolli struck without warning - No
> reason was ever given to me. Ah, well!
>

I know why you were banned!!

You attacked Peter for the umpteenth time (on the UK site) after you were
told to behave yourself. After two people stuck up for you, you let Ann and
me down and you got banned by Trolli and another Sysop without further
intervention.

You banned yourself by your behaviour, learn from it and move on. You are
still attacking Peter and others and you wonder why people get mad!

 

[Andrew Taylor]

Re: Should we be suspicious?

"~BD~" <~BD~@no.mail.afraid.com> wrote in message
news:%23WQAUQVOJHA.3748@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>
> Thank you for your responses, Andrew. Regrettably, I don't have copies of
> any emails you may have sent me, so it was good to see Peter Foldes
> restate his situation in the post recorded below. No doubt everything he
> says is true. If the US and Canadian security services really *have*
> visited him - and confirmed that his 'business' (whatever that may be) is
> in no way involved in causing others harm - then that's great.
>

you got the e-mail, because you responded to it. I also told what 'the
business' was.

 

[~BD~]

Re: Should we be suspicious?

"Andrew Taylor" <andrewcrumplehorn@spamcopSUBVERSIVE.com> wrote in message
news:4907e0cd@newsgate.x-privat.org...
> "~BD~" <~BD~@no.mail.afraid.com> wrote in message
> news:%23WQAUQVOJHA.3748@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
>>
>> Thank you for your responses, Andrew. Regrettably, I don't have copies of
>> any emails you may have sent me, so it was good to see Peter Foldes
>> restate his situation in the post recorded below. No doubt everything he
>> says is true. If the US and Canadian security services really *have*
>> visited him - and confirmed that his 'business' (whatever that may be) is
>> in no way involved in causing others harm - then that's great.
>>
>
> you got the e-mail, because you responded to it. I also told what 'the
> business' was.
>

Andrew

I don't deny that you sent me email messages. I simply do not have copies of
them as I have 'flattened and burned' both this and my previous machine on
many occasions - far quicker than trying to *erradicate* malware!

My memory is not what it used to be, but I do have a vague recollection that
you'd said Peter Foldes 'business' involved storing 'Data' for important
clients. What we never established was just who these 'clients' were (are).

I also remember that when he supposedly had a stroke some while ago, his
'daughter' asked for help to 'get at' this Data - for frustrated clients -
which I think was extremely difficult due to encryption or suchlike.

I appreciate that only *I* know the truth about *me* here on the Internet,
but I'll tell you one more time - Peter Foldes has LIED about me (*he* knows
that!). He *may* not be the 'Mr Nice Guy' you seem to think he is.

I once had a client/friend who lived in my village. He was married to a much
younger English woman and needed help organising his finances to ensure she
was adequqtely provided for upon his demise. As is the law here, I had to
ask searching, personal, questions before offering advice. I discovered that
he had been dirctly involved with the capture of this man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Eichmann . Things are certainly not
*always* as they seem on the surface, Andrew!

Dave