Kill-filing nospam - addenda

On Wed, 09 Oct 2019 21:55:14 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 12:06:16 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

After a year of increasingly bizarre arguments with nospam I have
finally decided to kill-file him. However, there is one thing that I
discovered in the course of the argument that is worth passing on.

All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:"
followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the
article at a later date.

In digging through the on-line archive of nospam's postings in
rec.photo.digital I found there were postings from him before 25 Dec
2018. Not one although (to the best of my recollection) there were
1728 after that date.

In the ordinary course of events it is possible to post a message with
the intention of deleting a previous message from the same sender.
Most usenet servers will accept a 'cancel' message if it closely
follows the message being cancelled but virtually all will ignore it
if a long time has elapsed. However the use of 'Cancel-Lock' followed
by a hashed code enables the sender to reliably establish their
identity at a much later date and hence cancel the message.

I have to withdraw what I said above and apologise about nospam's
posts being cancelled.

....
In any case, as I said above, I was wrong to accuse nospam of deleting
messages and I apologise.

Thank you. Do you also acknowledge that the vast majority of Usenet
providers no longer honor cancel messages? (I don't know of any that do,
and even if there is one or two, they would never propagate to the rest of
Usenet, so it doesn't matter.)

Agent used to be rock solid and reliable.

I'd say it still is.

On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 16:35:31 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Oct 8, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

Snip


I think the ball is back in your court nospam.
--- snip ---

How are we to believe that you have kill-filed nospam if you continue invite
him to engage in your ongoing flame war with him in both a.c.o.w-10 &
r.p.d.?

I've certainly kill filed him for rec.photo.digital but my supposed
discovery was sufficiently intersting that I thought that I should
discuss it in the Windows 10 group - with a copy to rec.photo.digital.

As you will gather from my my most recent post in this thread I have
discovered I have falsely accused nospam and withdrawn my claim and
apologised. Within the next few minutes nospam will be killfiled on
all my news groups, not just rec.photo.digital.

An announcement that you have kill-filed him should mean something, it does
to me, or do you mean something totally different?

There are all kinds of options for kill filing ranging from short
periods, just for selected news groups or global. It's also possible
to ignore posts, download and delete (though quite what that achieves
I do not know) and download and mark read. They all can be described
as kill filed.

Make up your mind, you are either done with him in all NGs, as I am with
Arlen Holder, and ~BD~, or you just cannot resist the temptation to continue
poking that particular bear. Is there something in that NZ water?

It always concerns me when someone posts articles which are misleading
and nospam is a champion at that. In this particular case he was
besmirching the reputation of DxOMark by a totally wrong understanding
of what was entailed in DxOMarks measurements, even when it was
pointed out to him. He also denied that Nikon could do what I assumed
they must be doing even though I posted a number of articles which
pointed piece by piece to the correctness of my assumptions. Still he
continued to accuse DxOMark of skullduggery and dishonesty on the
basis of his faulty understanding.

That wouldn't have much worried me except that there were a number of
(hopefully) more rational people who appeared to be accepting nospam's
arguments and I was attempting to help them see the error of his ways.
It's pretty clear what Nikon are doing and once I fill a few gaps I
might write an article about it. It's not quite what the popular
articles tell you and its certainly not what nospam insists they are
doing.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

It always concerns me when someone posts articles which are misleading
and nospam is a champion at that. In this particular case he was
besmirching the reputation of DxOMark by a totally wrong understanding
of what was entailed in DxOMarks measurements, even when it was
pointed out to him.

false. it's *your* totally wrong understanding of how digital cameras
work, including the bizarro claim that no sampling is done (!), which
is why you fail to understand why dxo is a sham. their numbers violate
basic sampling theory, and worse, money can obtain better scores.

He also denied that Nikon could do what I assumed
they must be doing even though I posted a number of articles which
pointed piece by piece to the correctness of my assumptions. Still he
continued to accuse DxOMark of skullduggery and dishonesty on the
basis of his faulty understanding.

also false. what nikon is doing is entirely unrelated to dxo's tests,
therefore your assumptions are incorrect.

On Oct 9, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):


On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 16:35:31 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Oct 8, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

Snip


I think the ball is back in your court nospam.
--- snip ---

How are we to believe that you have kill-filed nospam if you continue invite
him to engage in your ongoing flame war with him in both a.c.o.w-10&
r.p.d.?
I've certainly kill filed him for rec.photo.digital but my supposed
discovery was sufficiently intersting that I thought that I should
discuss it in the Windows 10 group - with a copy to rec.photo.digital.

However, your, “I think the ball is back in your court nospam.� was
undoubtably an invitation to continue your dialog.


As you will gather from my my most recent post in this thread I have
discovered I have falsely accused nospam and withdrawn my claim and
apologised. Within the next few minutes nospam will be killfiled on
all my news groups, not just rec.photo.digital.

We shall see how that goes.


An announcement that you have kill-filed him should mean something, it does
to me, or do you mean something totally different?

There are all kinds of options for kill filing ranging from short
periods, just for selected news groups or global. It's also possible
to ignore posts, download and delete (though quite what that achieves
I do not know) and download and mark read. They all can be described
as kill filed.

There is no need to educate me on the fine points of kill files and filters,
I have been making good use of them to clear up noise in Usenet for some
time. I know what has proven most effective for me.


Make up your mind, you are either done with him in all NGs, as I am with
Arlen Holder, and ~BD~, or you just cannot resist the temptation to continue
poking that particular bear. Is there something in that NZ water?

It always concerns me when someone posts articles which are misleading
and nospam is a champion at that. In this particular case he was
besmirching the reputation of DxOMark by a totally wrong understanding
of what was entailed in DxOMarks measurements, even when it was
pointed out to him. He also denied that Nikon could do what I assumed
they must be doing even though I posted a number of articles which
pointed piece by piece to the correctness of my assumptions. Still he
continued to accuse DxOMark of skullduggery and dishonesty on the
basis of his faulty understanding.

That wouldn't have much worried me except that there were a number of
(hopefully) more rational people who appeared to be accepting nospam's
arguments and I was attempting to help them see the error of his ways.
It's pretty clear what Nikon are doing and once I fill a few gaps I
might write an article about it. It's not quite what the popular
articles tell you and its certainly not what nospam insists they are
doing.

All I can about DxOMark is, I have questioned their test results, and
capability based on their inability, or refusal to assess Fujifilm X-Trans
and current Bayer sensor cameras along with XF, and GX lenses.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On Wed, 09 Oct 2019 19:46:44 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Oct 9, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):


On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 16:35:31 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Oct 8, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

Snip


I think the ball is back in your court nospam.
--- snip ---

How are we to believe that you have kill-filed nospam if you continue invite
him to engage in your ongoing flame war with him in both a.c.o.w-10&
r.p.d.?
I've certainly kill filed him for rec.photo.digital but my supposed
discovery was sufficiently intersting that I thought that I should
discuss it in the Windows 10 group - with a copy to rec.photo.digital.

However, your, “I think the ball is back in your court nospam.” was
undoubtably an invitation to continue your dialog.

Not with me, I can assure you.

As you will gather from my my most recent post in this thread I have
discovered I have falsely accused nospam and withdrawn my claim and
apologised. Within the next few minutes nospam will be killfiled on
all my news groups, not just rec.photo.digital.

We shall see how that goes.

Its gone.


An announcement that you have kill-filed him should mean something, it does
to me, or do you mean something totally different?

There are all kinds of options for kill filing ranging from short
periods, just for selected news groups or global. It's also possible
to ignore posts, download and delete (though quite what that achieves
I do not know) and download and mark read. They all can be described
as kill filed.

There is no need to educate me on the fine points of kill files and filters,
I have been making good use of them to clear up noise in Usenet for some
time. I know what has proven most effective for me.

You asked me a question. Please don't start bitching when you receive
an answer.


Make up your mind, you are either done with him in all NGs, as I am with
Arlen Holder, and ~BD~, or you just cannot resist the temptation to continue
poking that particular bear. Is there something in that NZ water?

It always concerns me when someone posts articles which are misleading
and nospam is a champion at that. In this particular case he was
besmirching the reputation of DxOMark by a totally wrong understanding
of what was entailed in DxOMarks measurements, even when it was
pointed out to him. He also denied that Nikon could do what I assumed
they must be doing even though I posted a number of articles which
pointed piece by piece to the correctness of my assumptions. Still he
continued to accuse DxOMark of skullduggery and dishonesty on the
basis of his faulty understanding.

That wouldn't have much worried me except that there were a number of
(hopefully) more rational people who appeared to be accepting nospam's
arguments and I was attempting to help them see the error of his ways.
It's pretty clear what Nikon are doing and once I fill a few gaps I
might write an article about it. It's not quite what the popular
articles tell you and its certainly not what nospam insists they are
doing.

All I can about DxOMark is, I have questioned their test results, and
capability based on their inability, or refusal to assess Fujifilm X-Trans
and current Bayer sensor cameras along with XF, and GX lenses.

I have a dim memory of reading an article by DxO (as it was then)
about the role played by sensor geometry when assessing lenses. I
can't really remember the details but it might explain why they have
not yet come to grips with the Fuji's non-Bayer geometry. Maybe they
don't regard doing the necessary work as justified for only the one
make of camera. As for the Bayer Fuji - I have no idea.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

On Wed, 09 Oct 2019 16:39:01 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Oct 2019 21:55:14 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 12:06:16 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

After a year of increasingly bizarre arguments with nospam I have
finally decided to kill-file him. However, there is one thing that I
discovered in the course of the argument that is worth passing on.

All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:"
followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the
article at a later date.

In digging through the on-line archive of nospam's postings in
rec.photo.digital I found there were postings from him before 25 Dec
2018. Not one although (to the best of my recollection) there were
1728 after that date.

In the ordinary course of events it is possible to post a message with
the intention of deleting a previous message from the same sender.
Most usenet servers will accept a 'cancel' message if it closely
follows the message being cancelled but virtually all will ignore it
if a long time has elapsed. However the use of 'Cancel-Lock' followed
by a hashed code enables the sender to reliably establish their
identity at a much later date and hence cancel the message.

I have to withdraw what I said above and apologise about nospam's
posts being cancelled.

...
In any case, as I said above, I was wrong to accuse nospam of deleting
messages and I apologise.

Thank you. Do you also acknowledge that the vast majority of Usenet
providers no longer honor cancel messages? (I don't know of any that do,
and even if there is one or two, they would never propagate to the rest of
Usenet, so it doesn't matter.)

That's what I understood but the disappearnce of a large block of
messages from nospam (and knowing nospam) caused me to jump to a
conclusion.

Agent used to be rock solid and reliable.

I'd say it still is.

Something squiffy occurred with my down loads. That's all I can say.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 20:06:43 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Oct 7, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

Snip

I thought you pulled the trigger on nospam, yet here you are chatting away
with him in both a.c.os.w-10 & r.p.d.

Snip

P.S. As you may by now have gathered I have only kill filed nospam in
rec.photo.digital. Don't worry, I will shortly kill-file him globaly.

Strange? I am responding from r.p.d.

Cross post.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 08:23:57 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:

On 08/10/2019 07:46, Ralph Fox wrote:
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 12:06:16 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote:

All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:"
followed by a hashed code.

Which is added by ES, his news server.

Albasani also adds it. Check my headers.

The big news servers do not add it and do not honour it.


This enables him to reliably delete the
article at a later date.

It might enable the ES admin to delete it off the few servers which do
care about cancel locks.

The big news servers do not care about cancel locks. The message will
not be deleted off the big news servers.


Most usenet servers will accept a 'cancel' message if it closely
follows the message being cancelled

Not so. A cancel barely half a minute later is not accepted by most
news servers.

What you write has not been true for close to 2 decades.


However the use of 'Cancel-Lock' followed
by a hashed code enables the sender to reliably establish their
identity at a much later date and hence cancel the message.

The big news servers do not care about cancel locks. They will just
ignore the cancel.


As far as I can tell nospam prepares all his postings for later bulk
deletion. Why he should do that I do not know but a heads-up to anyone
who thinks they may ever have a need to recover one of his earlier
postings.

Again, it is the ES server which adds the cancel lock.

It might allow the ES Admin remove a spam flood posted through ES which
managed to get through his filters. However it would only be removed
from ES and the few other news servers which do care about cancel locks.


After a year of increasingly bizarre arguments with nospam I have
finally decided to kill-file him. However, there is one thing that I
discovered in the course of the argument that is worth passing on.

Those who kill-file to avoid getting into arguments will frequently
see the kill-filed person's text quoted in other replies. Those who
cannot ignore the poster without a kill-file will still post their
own counter-arguments as a reply to the reply. A kill-file is never
a cyber-substitute for self control.


Many thanks for your words of wisdom, Ralph! :-)

Sadly, Eric Stevens was mistaken.

Eric Stevens was mistaken. There is no sadly about it.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 19:08:26 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Oct 2019 12:54:52 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 08:23:57 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:

Sadly, Eric Stevens was mistaken.

Not quite - at least not yet.

Haven't you been mistaken right from the start? In a prior post, I invited
you to try it for yourself. Submit a post, perhaps to a test group since
that's the purpose of such groups, then try to cancel it. What happens? Was
your cancel accepted and was it successful? What happens at other Usenet
servers? Did your cancel propagate? No?

The question was not about the mere cancelling of posts but about the
cancelling of Cancel-Lock posts. I discovered that such things exist
and in broad terms how they work but I have no understanding of how to
set up and then try to cancel a Cancel-Locked post.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 19:08:26 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Oct 2019 12:54:52 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 08:23:57 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:

Sadly, Eric Stevens was mistaken.
Not quite - at least not yet.
Haven't you been mistaken right from the start? In a prior post, I invited
you to try it for yourself. Submit a post, perhaps to a test group since
that's the purpose of such groups, then try to cancel it. What happens? Was
your cancel accepted and was it successful? What happens at other Usenet
servers? Did your cancel propagate? No?

The question was not about the mere cancelling of posts but about the
cancelling of Cancel-Lock posts. I discovered that such things exist
and in broad terms how they work but I have no understanding of how to
set up and then try to cancel a Cancel-Locked post.


You would let the tool do the work.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...rd/LrAePSoGdn4

Seeing as nobody can be bothered to indicate what version
of Thunderbird supports Cancel-Lock, you just have to test it.

Vanilla Cancel is unlikely to work. So if selecting
"Cancel" from some menu worked, that's probably Cancel-Lock.

If you connect to port 119 and you use Wireshark to record
the plaintext session, you might even get to see what
messages are sent during an attempt to Cancel.

And Wireshark is a pig to set up... when the WinPCAP replacement,
you can't seem to get it started. You need promiscuous receiver
capability to log the packets on the NIC, which normally requires
admin privileges, but with Wireshark, if they neglected to spend
sufficient time testing the thing, you could have some trouble
getting it to capture anything. That was my experience on the
last version I downloaded. I probably have some older
versions that still work.

On the Macintosh, the Wireshark team never bothered to
indicate what MacOSX versions worked with what Wireshark
versions, which meant "even more testing" to get something
to work. Wireshark is great when it works, but otherwise,
is a source of hair loss.

The GUI on it, was relatively simple to understand at one
time, but developers cannot leave "well enough" alone. And
that's part of the fun. If you can't see anything to click,
it's pretty difficult for a user to realize "something is wrong".

Paul

On 10/10/2019 09:55, Paul wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 19:08:26 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Oct 2019 12:54:52 +1300, Eric Stevens

wrote:

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 08:23:57 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:

Sadly, Eric Stevens was mistaken.
Not quite - at least not yet.
Haven't you been mistaken right from the start? In a prior post, I
invited
you to try it for yourself. Submit a post, perhaps to a test group since
that's the purpose of such groups, then try to cancel it. What
happens? Was
your cancel accepted and was it successful? What happens at other Usenet
servers? Did your cancel propagate? No?

The question was not about the mere cancelling of posts but about the
cancelling of Cancel-Lock posts. I discovered that such things exist
and in broad terms how they work but I have no understanding of how to
set up and then try to cancel a Cancel-Locked post.


You would let the tool do the work.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...rd/LrAePSoGdn4


Seeing as nobody can be bothered to indicate what version
of Thunderbird supports Cancel-Lock, you just have to test it.

Vanilla Cancel is unlikely to work. So if selecting
"Cancel" from some menu worked, that's probably Cancel-Lock.

If you connect to port 119 and you use Wireshark to record
the plaintext session, you might even get to see what
messages are sent during an attempt to Cancel.

And Wireshark is a pig to set up... when the WinPCAP replacement,
you can't seem to get it started. You need promiscuous receiver
capability to log the packets on the NIC, which normally requires
admin privileges, but with Wireshark, if they neglected to spend
sufficient time testing the thing, you could have some trouble
getting it to capture anything. That was my experience on the
last version I downloaded. I probably have some older
versions that still work.

On the Macintosh, the Wireshark team never bothered to
indicate what MacOSX versions worked with what Wireshark
versions, which meant "even more testing" to get something
to work. Wireshark is great when it works, but otherwise,
is a source of hair loss.

The GUI on it, was relatively simple to understand at one
time, but developers cannot leave "well enough" alone. And
that's part of the fun. If you can't see anything to click,
it's pretty difficult for a user to realize "something is wrong".

Â*Â* Paul

FYI

Wireshark CLI tools & scripting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=IZ439VNvJqo

Of interest?

--
David B.
Devon

On 10/10/2019 13:24, ~BD~ wrote:
[....]
Â*Wireshark CLI tools & scripting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=IZ439VNvJqo

Details of the speaker!

https://wiki.wireshark.org/SakeBlok

Sake Blok

My interest in Networking was first raised when I started working for
one of the first ISP's in The Netherlands (back in 1995). My L2/L3
knowlegde was gathered while working for a large bank. I then switched
teams within that bank to manage their redundant internet gateway based
on a loadbalanced firewall cluster, loadbalancers, ssl-offloaders,
caches and proxies. In that time (2000) I started using Ethereal to
troubleshoot problems within that environment. After my switch to a
reseller, my skills developped towards bug-chasing and
Ethereal/Wireshark has been an invaluable tool for me. I use it on a
daily basis.

In february 2006 I wished to be able to filter on the "X-Forwarded-For:"
http-header and joined the mailing-lists. First I wanted to ask for that
functionality, but then I realised that I might be able to add it
myself. Well, one thing led to another and after submitting a few of my
own patches, I started working on bug-reports too. Resulting in being
invited to the core development team in august 2007.

I live in The Netherlands near Amsterdam and have started the company
SYN-bit in February 2010. SYN-bit specializes in troubleshooting
services for Application Delivery Networks. Analyzing traffic flows to
the bit level to solve design flaws, bugs. But also for exploring the
best way to optimize application delivery. I also give training and do
remote packet capture analysis :-)

Eric Stevens wrote:
On 8 Oct 2019 15:21:34 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote:

Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 7, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

Snip

I thought you pulled the trigger on nospam, yet here you are chatting away
with him in both a.c.os.w-10 & r.p.d.

Snip

P.S. As you may by now have gathered I have only kill filed nospam in
rec.photo.digital. Don't worry, I will shortly kill-file him globaly.

Strange? I am responding from r.p.d.

As the articles are crossposted (to alt.comp.os.windows-10,
rec.photo.digital), Eric will still see nospam's articles in
alt.comp.os.windows-10, so if Eric responds, you will see Eric's
response in rec.photo.digital.

BTW, there shouldn't be a space between newsgroups in a 'Newsgroups:'
header:

Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10, rec.photo.digital

My newsreader barfs on it. Didn't bother to check if this is a SHOULD
(not) or MUST (not).

Agent has always accepted it (I think). I could be wrong.

Yes, in the spirit of 'Be lenient on what you receive and strict on
what you send!".

So Agent should *accept* such an header, but not *send* it.

On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 13:24:00 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:

On 10/10/2019 09:55, Paul wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 19:08:26 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Oct 2019 12:54:52 +1300, Eric Stevens

wrote:

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 08:23:57 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:

Sadly, Eric Stevens was mistaken.
Not quite - at least not yet.
Haven't you been mistaken right from the start? In a prior post, I
invited
you to try it for yourself. Submit a post, perhaps to a test group since
that's the purpose of such groups, then try to cancel it. What
happens? Was
your cancel accepted and was it successful? What happens at other Usenet
servers? Did your cancel propagate? No?

The question was not about the mere cancelling of posts but about the
cancelling of Cancel-Lock posts. I discovered that such things exist
and in broad terms how they work but I have no understanding of how to
set up and then try to cancel a Cancel-Locked post.


You would let the tool do the work.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...rd/LrAePSoGdn4


Seeing as nobody can be bothered to indicate what version
of Thunderbird supports Cancel-Lock, you just have to test it.

Vanilla Cancel is unlikely to work. So if selecting
"Cancel" from some menu worked, that's probably Cancel-Lock.

If you connect to port 119 and you use Wireshark to record
the plaintext session, you might even get to see what
messages are sent during an attempt to Cancel.

And Wireshark is a pig to set up... when the WinPCAP replacement,
you can't seem to get it started. You need promiscuous receiver
capability to log the packets on the NIC, which normally requires
admin privileges, but with Wireshark, if they neglected to spend
sufficient time testing the thing, you could have some trouble
getting it to capture anything. That was my experience on the
last version I downloaded. I probably have some older
versions that still work.

On the Macintosh, the Wireshark team never bothered to
indicate what MacOSX versions worked with what Wireshark
versions, which meant "even more testing" to get something
to work. Wireshark is great when it works, but otherwise,
is a source of hair loss.

The GUI on it, was relatively simple to understand at one
time, but developers cannot leave "well enough" alone. And
that's part of the fun. If you can't see anything to click,
it's pretty difficult for a user to realize "something is wrong".

** Paul

FYI

Wireshark CLI tools & scripting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=IZ439VNvJqo

Of interest?

Fraid not.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.