You're viewing a partial stream (from 08/01/03 to 08/31/03), you may want to view the entire stream.

Back Up (MS VDP)

A network problem caused this site, and a few others to be unavailable Thursday afternoon to Friday afternoon. Hence, no new posts, and no reveling of who Joe Boxer is.

Well, we're back up and I'm trying to catch up with some things. Got a linux server downstairs to rebuild – I use it for web development/testing. Got some contract work to finish up. And should write a rebuttal to a rebuttal to a rebuttal. Oh, and gotta do the lesson plans for my brother's computer science class.

We'll see how fast things come together.

Oh, and the Joe Boxer issue. Seems some details have leaked out. But remember folks, you heard it here first. And here's the proof. At 9:37:56 Joe Boxer commented using a computer with an IP address of At 9:40:05 another person commented using a computer with the same IP address. Got 'ch.

Tim Lytle [08/30/03 13:24:15] | 1 Comment | Point

Thou Shalt Not...But You Can

This is free speech, and this isn't? What!?

Tim Lytle [08/28/03 10:25:34] | 0 Comments | Point

Meet Joe Boxer

The quasi-mysterious 'Joe Boxer' has recently started a new blog – perhaps in hope of moving from just simply commenting on the blogs to becoming a member of the bandwagon himself.

If you're wondering who this 'Joe Boxer' is you're not alone. It started with simply commenting on a blog entry and using a pseudonym. Usually it's easy to tell who's behind the comment because of their writing style. However Joe did a good job at modifying his writing style so as not to be identified.

Having presented that explanation of the persona 'Joe Boxer', you may now realize why there has been some curious discussion about who Joe really was. Let me embellish a bit more quoting from a now deleted blog entry from Chris (deleted do to a rather moronic comment from a rather moronic person):

"For those of you who may not know who this person is, Joe Boxer is a frequenter of this blog and many of the other blogs of people that I know. He has prided himself in making stupid, insulting comments, not so much on this blog (yet) but on the blogs of people like Jesse, Tim, Eric, and Andrew."

I'm not sure if Joe saw that post before it was removed, but either way he has now thrown down the gauntlet. Any one up to guessing his identity? You can look through some comments and try to piece the puzzle together. And perhaps he'll start giving us clues.

The game is afoot. I wonder who will be the first to prove the identity of Joe boxer.

Oh, and by the way - I already know. And have proof. Good try Joe.

[Update: I will reveal the identity of Joe Boxer at 9:15 tomorrow evening. He he he. Until then - have fun guessing.]

Tim Lytle [08/27/03 01:33:42] | 4 Comments | Point

No Moore Spin

[The following is the text of a comment on Eric's 'No Spin' blog.]

This is the real Tim of - not to be confused with the other 'Tim' that posted a comment. But now to the meat of the comment.

Ignoring the petty sarcasm from the ‘other Tim’ – let’s move on to his assumptions, and I quote – “It's astonishing that someone who hasn't got the slightest notion of how government works believes that "da bomb" trumps the opinion of the supreme court of the United States.”

First, the Supreme Court of the United States hasn’t given an opinion – they just said they wouldn't hear the case. Second of all – the issue that is at stake is the interpretation of the constitution – and no matter what you may think, that does ‘trump’ the supreme court. Yes, I know the court is supposed to interpret the constitution – but the key word there is ‘interpret’ not rewrite.

And I once again quote “There are places for fools who don't believe in secular government if you don't like life here. Unfortunately, all of those places are in the MiddleEast.” Ah, first let’s not confine that to the middle east – I assume you’re talking about ‘religious’ state governments? If I am correct in that assumption please don’t rule out China – atheism is in all reality a very real religion. Second – this government was founded on Judeo-Christian values and principles. Our founding fathers (for the most part) believed in the God of the Bible as a supreme being at the least, others believed in the God of the Bible as their personal Saviour. They prayed to the God of the Bible, and they founded this country using Biblical principles and concepts.

Yet they did not desire to see a religion forced on the citizens of this country. The country was founded on the principles of the Bible, but it would not dictate what you personally believed. Neither does displaying the Ten Commandments. You are not forced to become a ‘Christian’ because they are on display in the Supreme Court building of Alabama. They are simply the expression of the people of Alabama – as a general rule. Yes, people knew what Judge Moore would do when they elected them. That monument reflects the beliefs of the people of Alabama.

Some Guy said, “How would you feel if it was the Koran or the sayings from the Dalai Lama in the entrance of the courtroom?” Quite honestly, I’m not afraid of that. As stated in the last paragraph, that monument is reflective of the people of Alabama. I don’t think they would place the Koran, or sayings of the Dalai Lama in the courtroom. And I don’t fear it even if they did – as long as it was only the expression of what the people, though their elected officials, believed. However, Christianity has been the only (yes, only) belief system that when it’s followers are in power guarantees freedom to all beliefs. Islam and even atheism have a track record of toleration as long as their the minority, but when they're in the majority they forget all about it.

I’m not afraid of the free expression of thought, and neither were our founding fathers. And they weren’t afraid to express themselves. Neither should we.

So if the ‘Other Tim’ or ‘Some Guy’ would like to discuss this more publicly – by all means let’s do just that. I’ll set up a public debate myself, on my server. However, if you don’t like confrontation and the Truth – stay out of the ‘No Spin Zone’.

You’ve just watched some philosophical judo. ;-)

Tim Lytle [08/26/03 00:45:38] | 3 Comments | Point

She Found Out

Well, I guess someone told her. Or maybe she does read your blog. Either way, she found out. So if we don't hear from Andrew for a while - we'll know what happened. Or we can guess.

He he he.

"I know where you sleep little boy."


Tim Lytle [08/25/03 22:21:37] | 2 Comments | Point

But I Have a Better Personality

No wonder I'm out of a job.

Tim Lytle [08/24/03 22:31:45] | 0 Comments | Point

We Need Moore Like Him

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Lawless Behavior
Chief Justice Roy Moore has been accused of 'breaking the law'. But the above statement isn't a law, no – it's a right, the first in ten guaranteed by the 'Bill of Rights'. Guaranteed by our founding fathers, not because there were only certain rights they thought the citizens should possess – amendment 9 makes that clear – but because these were the rights they wanted to make sure were they were very clear - these rights were to be protected.

The first amendment is very clear, there shall be no laws respecting an establishment of religion. You catch that? No laws. None. Not one. Nothing. So what law is Judge Moore breaking? How can he be breaking a right? Hmm?

According to the first amendment, there can't be a law that states, “You can't hang a religious symbol from your rear view mirror.” Now before you go hanging Bibles and Crosses from your rear view mirror understand that it would be fine to have a law that states, “You can't hang anything from your rear view mirror.” The first law would violate the amendment, the second wouldn't.

The only way Judge Moore could be 'breaking the law' is if there was a law that stated that there could be no monuments in the building. A 'law' that stated that there could be not religious monuments in the building would be in violation of the first amendment.

It seems that District Judge Myron Thompson is the one guilty of 'lawless behavior'. There's no reason a judge should be obeyed when there's no legal or constitutional backing for his decision. To do that would be to allow judicial anarchy.

Historical Precedent
The 10 commandments hang over the bench of the supreme court, and on the outside and inside of many government buildings along with other passages of scripture. Why in the quest to remove God from our country have these not been chiseled out?

It's been tried, but the court has ignored that fact that they are protected by the first amendment and stated that they should not be removed because of their historical value. We shouldn't change those historical buildings, no we should leave as they were in the day's of our founding fathers. That's right, the same men that wrote, “ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...” If the intent of those men was to keep the concepts of the bible out of our government, they would not have built or allowed the building of those buildings.

It seems that their intent was exactly what they said.

Contorting the Intent
May I be so bold as to say that the judges who clame that they are entrusted with the 'interpretation' on the constitution are interpreting it wrong. Might I suggest that they are not really trying to 'interpret' the constitution at all, but are trying to contort it from what it was – a document with guarantees of life and liberty based on the divine gift of God to all men – to a document that guarantees liberty not divinely given, but liberty based on the laws of mere men. That is a dangerous thing to do – for while they promise liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption.

My liberty is from God, not man. For true liberty can not come from something that is corrupt.

Tim Lytle [08/24/03 00:53:41] | 2 Comments | Point

And It Was So Big

[This is in response to Eric 'I Don't Use Real Names' [Last name withheld 'cause I guess he's scared someone would do a google search and find out where he lives]'s post on the sobig virus. The following is an actual account of one computers exposure to a member of the sobig family. (Oh and by the way, a google search with his last name doesn't return any meaningful results so I'm not sure why he doesn't use real names. Of course, you probably could guess his last name from the URL of his blog.)]

I started getting e-mail with the subject 'Re: Account' or 'Re: Movie'. They had attachments. I knew what they were. I knew they were viruses. What bothered me was who they were from. And who they were to. They were from me, and they were to me.

One came from an address that I used only once – to subscribe to a business magazine site. Nothing should ever some to that address. Maybe that site's servers had been hacked?

Some were messages from Yahoo telling me that I wasn't subscribed to the list I was trying to send to. Except I was subscribed to the list. I just hadn't send any e-mail. I checked the e-mail Yahoo sent back. It was send to a list I an subscribed to, only the address it was from was an address – once again – no one should know about. It was an address I use to catch 'bounces' from a customers list server. What was going on?

I looked at the headers of the virus e-mail I was receiving. The headers said it was coming form a computer named 'Snowflake'. Yeah, I knew where that computer was. It was right down the hallway. It was on my network. And the virus had been on it for 3 hours.

The first step? Isolation. Yanked that network plug right out of the wall. The second step? Find out what happened. Looked at the screen – seems that a family member had been checking their e-mail. And had opened an infected message that was sent to them. Bad thing to do. Next step? Download the newest virus definitions, and squish that little bug.

But I was still curious. Where did it get all my addresses from? Hmm? Did a little research on the virus. Seems it's a pretty nasty little thing – it doesn't get a list of e-mails from your address book. Nope, it scans your hard drive and looks for addresses in text files, e-mail folders, address book files. Like I said, nasty. Then, when it wants to send an e-mail, it doesn't use your ISP's SMTP server – nope, it has its own. And while it's doing that it also opens up a port (or ports, not sure) that its creator (or anyone with sobig compatible trojan payload connection software (tm)) can connect to your computer. Like I said, nasty. Snowflake got it about a month ago, not sure what the variant going around now does, but I'm sure it's not that fun to get.

Tim Lytle [08/23/03 02:01:26] | 0 Comments | Point

The names have been changed...

Another one joins the bandwagon. Read the first entry, 'Pause'. Not sure if he's gonna keep up the pace of his blogging at 5 entries a day.

Just a sample, "Yes, I might miss my sister, but she's gone to a better place (yeah right)."

And from the "I will not use actual names here..." section...

[Update: In the intrest of fairness here's more blogs.]

Chris's Blog
Sam's Blog
Kaysha's Blog

Tim Lytle [08/20/03 10:54:51] | 6 Comments | Point

More on this later...

I never saw the similarity between Judge Moore not removing the Ten Commandments and racist state schools until the New York Times did it's job of not reporting opinions but facts. Right. " announcing that he will obey the law." And what law would that be? Hmmm?

"My guess is that Moore will reject those offers and attempt to defy the lawful order of the federal court. "

And that law would be? Hmmm?

"Should he defy the federal court Moore will violate both his sworn oath to uphold the constitutions of the United States and Alabama..."

It would? How? The constitutions of the United States and Alabama do not allow such a rulling to be made. Obeying the federal court would violate his oath.

[Update: for those interested more links.]

"If Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's Ten Commandments monument were allowed to stand, it would mean a massive revision of how the courts have interpreted the First Amendment for years."

And this should be read.

Tim Lytle [08/19/03 16:49:48] | 7 Comments | Point