TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Beheaded Trolls, etc

Beheaded Trolls, etc

TELECOM Digest Editor (
Tue, 9 Nov 2004 20:00:36 EST

In a message in issue 537, on Tue, 9 Nov 2004
10:51:44 -0500 responded to Editor Re: Who Sends This Around?

>> In TELECOM Digest V23 #536, our Esteemed Editor wrote (in part):

>> Anyone else know anything about this guy?

palee responded:

> All you need to know about this guy can be found at


I noted in response to palee:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I've a hard time accepting that fellow
> (at AOL) definition of 'trolling' or even if it is a valid thing. It
> seems to me that what many people call 'trolling' is nothing more
> than their explanation of why something they personally disagree with
> should not appear on the net. I've been called a 'troll' a few times
> and all I can say is that some of us speak and write the way we do
> because it is our personality. Some of us (most of us, I would hope!)
> write and express ourselves from our personal experiences, the fact
> that sometimes what we have to say offends the virgin ears, eyes and
> brains of some readers is an unfortunate by-product of that. The fact
> that some people are offensive in this way should not mean we should
> always dismiss them as a 'troll' rather than read what they have to
> say (or not). I am still curious to know if anyone has ever met this
> person or has some idea of his background, etc, other than just
> dismissing him as a 'troll'. PAT]

and Charles Cryderman <Charles.Cryderman@withheld at request>
responded in the same issue (537):

> Pat,

> First off, the way things are going, please remove my return
> e-mailaddress.

> Now on to my remarks. This guy is just plan nuts. I went and did a
> google on this and found his entire rant. Near the beginning he
> states:

> YEARS and BEHEADED ME which is 10000 times worse than the SEXUAL ABUSE
> of prisoners by Lyndie England."

> Now I am no doctor or an expert on how the mind works but for some
> reason I have a hard time believing anything this joker had to
> say. This is because of this one paragraph. How many people do you
> know that can live to tell about themselves being "beheaded" Not many
> is my guess. Well to tell the truth, none.

> Chip Cryderman

Now my problem today is this: that phrase "and BEHEADED ME" did *not*
appear in the original text sent by what palee referred to as the
'troll'. The _original text_ as seen in mid-October and early November
versions of the message (and Google has a million copies of it on line
in their archives, it would seem) read like this " ...ABUSED ME for
THREE YEARS, which is 10000 tunes worse than the ..."

The first instance I found of the altered version of the message to
include ... and BEHEADED ME ... was November 6, in a message posted
to alt.hackers from '' which altered the original
message posted by this user when they were known as 'vicky' on
the net and became 'keith'. In an update to the original diatribe
posted that day or earlier by 'keith' he explained why he changed his
email name from 'vicky' to 'keith'. It was because, he alleged, the
FBI had forced one or two ISPs to cancel his email password to 'get
even with him'. That copy of the updated (but still same old message)
I saw at the end of October did not have the 'beheaded me' comment in
it. The first reference I saw to 'beheaded' was in a reply/rebuttal
added to the thread in alt. hackers by where it
had been clevery edited in to the original sentence by *someone*,
and was the first person I could find who used
that altered phrase in quoting the message.

What you wish to make of the message (he is/is not a troll) (he is/ is
not a crazy person) is everyone's own judgement call. But, if you will
pardon me, it is just too damn bad when a person goes and sits in the
filthy, stinky toilet stall called "Usenet", and not content with what
someone else has scribbled on the wall has to cleverly edit it to make
it appear ridiculous, as it it were not ridiculous on its own merit,
prior to alteration. So if you wish to go read the message again,
please ignore that 'and BEHEADED ME' addition, which the original
author did *not* include.


Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 01:24:11 GMT
From: John P. Dearing <John.Dearing@VerYOURPANTSizon.NET>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Lost Caller ID Switching Local Service - Need Explanation
Message-ID: <>
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 23, Issue 539, Message 9 of 13
Lines: 48

Adam Harbour wrote:

> Hi,

> I switched from Verizon to Ztel local service last year and in the
> process lost my caller id service. I am the only person in my street
> that does not have it but ZTel told me that it is not available in my
> area. Here is the explanation from the ZTel engineer. Can somebody
> read and understand it and tell me if it is BS or true and what I
> would have to do to get caller id service back. I really need it for
> both my business and home use.

> -----------------------

> "Attempt to add any form of caller id to this ani not available ;
> spoke to repair/ not in switch, not on service order that migrated
> them to ztel/ spoke to business office and verified that no form of
> caller id is available in this switch/ npa nxx/ spoke to customer to
> try to explain there are only a certain # of cid spots in each switch
> and per Verizon this is no longer available in this switch/ cannot add
> cid closing ticket - have called and advised customer. "

I'm wondering if Ztel is a "reseller" that is simply just repackaging
Verizon dialtone and is then selling that to you at a discount.

There are several ways for CLECs to provide service. One is to lease the
"loop" from the ILEC (Verizon) and put *their* dialtone from *their*
switch and then port your number over to their switch. This is an
unbundled loop.

Another way for the CLEC (ZTel) to enter into a relationship with the
ILEC (Verizon) to unbundle the entire service (VZ switch, services, and
loop) and resell that to you. I believe this is called UNE-P (Unbundled
Network Element -- Platform). There are things that can and can't be done
with UNE-P. It may be that Caller-ID is considered by Verizon to be an
advanced feature and isn't offered to the CLEC to be resold. Same thing
with Verizon VoiceMail and DSL. You have to be a Verizon customer first
to qualify for the "value added" features.

Go back to ZTel and ask them precisely *how* your service is being
provided. If they can't/won't help you, you can always go back to Verizon.

John P. Dearing
A+, Network+
To reply: Just drop "YOURPANTS" in my address! 8-)

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Isaiah Beard: "Re: Lost Caller ID Switching Local Service - Need Explanation"
Go to Previous message: MK: "Establishing Local Access Numbers in US"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page