Do you want Gonzo to post your real name?

[2MuchMark]

Hi Everyone -

I have an idea.... here me out.

It's very clear here that some people don't like each other. Thats a given. It's also clear that alot of people have alot of strong opinions and even some good ideas.

Shellee, I don't like you because I consider you a bragger who insists on giving people advice even though you have no experience. It doesn't mean that your advice is not good, it means that your advice may not necessary have as much value as you think it does.

You don't like me because you think that our program doesn't work. You blame us for the failure of the 2 chat sites you had with us. I disagree, but your belief is your belief, and that's fine. It's yours, and I won't try to change your mind anymore.

Moeman, well, um, sorry. I have nothing to say to you dude, sorry. You were just mean to me for no reason and all I tried to do was to ask you to educate me if I was wrong. I have no room for you in my business, sorry. (And thanks for the hundred bucks)

Anyway, there is a GREAT opportunity here. Please continue to read this post for a while and see what everyone thinks.

We (2Much) have a video chat program called LiveCamNetwork v2.0. It is my entire life and that of my programmers. I swear my my fathers grave (Robert) that the accounting is accurate, that it works well, and that we are not out to screw anyone.

On this very board we have marketers, billers, talent (and agents), and traffic guru's. In essence, everyone still reading this can contribute "something".

What if we could assemble a small group of people, in this very thread, to form at least a temporary trial business idea.

Think about it! We can provide the software to anyone for free. We will give all the usernames and passwords so EVERYONE here can check and re-check the system until they are blue in the face. We can assign each person a different task. YOU! Get traffic. YOU!! Get chat models. YOU!!! - Make the website look snappy.

Everyone is busy here shooting off their mouths about what an expert they are here, right? Why don't we prove it not only to the world, but to ourselves as well?

We will provide our software for free. We can all take a cut of the revenues it generates. We can all agree on every single part of the deal, otherwise there's no deal.

Besides our software, what 2Much will bring to the table is everything that we have learned in the past bazillion years. We have about 25 chat models that we train and log in during various days of the week. Everyone can contribute their own chat models too.

So what do you say? Are you EXPERT enough to come on board? Call it the grand Adult experiment or anything you want. Even better, since Gonzo was gracious enough to allow this thread to continue, I say we should continue to use this thread to communicate with everyone else!

I have no trouble whatsoever making ALL of the stats, web, sales, expenses etc, completely public to ANYONE who is interested.

I and 2Much Internet Services Inc stands by our product 100000%. Many of our customers that Shellee listed earlier failed simply because they were newb's who did not understand the adult market. While I'm sure there are some newb's reading this, there are certainly more experts.

So what do you say?

2MUCH Internet is willing to offer-up its software and experience to anyone up for this new revenue stream. I am proposing a no-cash-up-front partnership for anyone and everyone who is interested, installed on the domain name of your choice.

Anyone who would like to talk to me about this can ICQ me at 322403761


Mark Prince
http://www.2Much.net
http://www.LiveCamNetwork.com

[moetheman]

Originally Posted by 2MuchMark

Hi Everyone -
Moeman, well, um, sorry. I have nothing to say to you dude, sorry. You were just mean to me for no reason and all I tried to do was to ask you to educate me if I was wrong. I have no room for you in my business, sorry. (And thanks for the hundred bucks)

Niiiiiice. You admit that I was right in the debate, and now refuse to donate the money.

You should donate it to ANY legitimate charity.

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by moetheman

Niiiiiice. You admit that I was right in the debate, and now refuse to donate the money.

You should donate it to ANY legitimate charity.

Whatever you say. You bragged about your know-how, and I bet you in front of everyone here that you couldn't prove it. A simple LINK to a network expert site would have been all the proof anyone here needed, but you couldn't even produce that because you were wront.

And now, everyone knows you for the fool, the liar, and the joke that you are.

Try not to toss and turn too much tonight as you think about how I, a confessed non-expert, proved you wrong.

Mark Prince

[moetheman]

ah

Originally Posted by 2MuchMark

Whatever you say. You bragged about your know-how, and I bet you in front of everyone here that you couldn't prove it. A simple LINK to a network expert site would have been all the proof anyone here needed, but you couldn't even produce that because you were wront.

And now, everyone knows you for the fool, the liar, and the joke that you are.

Try not to toss and turn too much tonight as you think about how I, a confessed non-expert, proved you wrong.

Mark Prince

hahahaha

Are you fucked up, kid?

Must have had one beer too many . . .

Listen, I don't get my info from people's sites, I get info from TEXTBOOKS.

I am not going to post an entire chapter on TCP packets here. not for free, and for you anyway.

And no one bragged about know how . . . I just brought up a point . . . and an elemental one at that.

This thread will be here a long time. This is not some 14 year old game, the way you see it, where people must meet some inane little "challenge" and do "something cool" to impress others.

If someone, knowledgeable in networking, can refute what I have said with facts, that would be fine . .. thing is, I KNOW what I am talking about - it'f FUCKING BASIC GUY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND? I haven't broken it down for you all the way, however, to someone who knows this stuff, what I am talking about is self-evident.

You on the other hand are so lost, you can't differentiate between tracking and blocking . . .

Yes, go on, keep chattering away the way I knew you would, but PLEASE PLEASE come back with some facts, as opposed to your pathetic wounded dog bile.

Your sidekick, at least, brought up facts. And he brought up a reasonable point, only thing was, he made assumptions that were much too narrow, possibly owing to the fact that he is not that well acquainted with the subject. He deserves that much credit, that he came back with facts and an attempt at a debate, as opposed to your childish "challenges" and dares, all to get free information that you had no way of obtaining yourself.

Point remains: you were caught posting under another account through MAC address tracking.

Point remains: A packet sniffer can be used to determine the MAC address within a TCP packet. That tool, used in conjunction with others, can be used to ultimately (that's the point you still don't get . . . one address leads to another, and another, and another, until . . . bingo!) determine the MAC address of a computer connected to a server on the WAN. And that is ONE way.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by moetheman

...you were caught posting under another account...

That's the ultimate point. The specific method of detection is just details.

[DannyCox]

Originally Posted by moetheman

Point remains: A packet sniffer can be used to determine the MAC address within a TCP packet.

This had me so curious, I did some digging and found that packets do not contain a MAC Address. This point is also stated quite clearly on a number of the packet sniffer software websites out there.

Examples of what is contained in a packet can be found at http://www.netfor2.com/tcp.htm and http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1845 and at http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/users/gorr...t-decode3.html Those are just a few examples of what I found, there are many more.

So, I am sorry moetheman, but you appear quite wrong in this. I have yet to find anywhere that says that a MAC Address is discoverable outside a LAN without broadcasting it or using it as part of a secure login schema.

[moetheman]

Originally Posted by DannyCox

This had me so curious, I did some digging and found that packets do not contain a MAC Address. This point is also stated quite clearly on a number of the packet sniffer software websites out there.

Examples of what is contained in a packet can be found at http://www.netfor2.com/tcp.htm and http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1845 and at http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/users/gorr...t-decode3.html Those are just a few examples of what I found, there are many more.

So, I am sorry moetheman, but you appear quite wrong in this. I have yet to find anywhere that says that a MAC Address is discoverable outside a LAN without broadcasting it or using it as part of a secure login schema.

Look, read what I fucking wrote before you post.

Here is the link to one of the TEXTBOOKS I read. See page 280 for VERIFICATION of what I was referring to when I broke it all down for mediaguy:

http://www.amazon.com/TCP-Guide-Comp...5911346&sr=8-1
Also, you don't understand the context of all this. You wrote that "I was wrong" AS IF this were AN OPINION on my behalf. You are mistaken. What I have referred to is a VERIFIABLE FACT.

Buy the textbook, read it, understand it, and you will have all the answers you need in relation to the subject.

It's around $50, 1,600+ pages, and highly technical, but it's there if you want it.

Page 280.

Anyone who wants me to basically scan the page and post it here can go fuck themselves.

[Hammer]

Hey Moe.


























I didn't really want anything, I'm just a big fan of the 3 Stooges and felt like saying, "Hey Moe". Woo woo woo.

[softball]

Originally Posted by moetheman

Look, read what I fucking wrote before you post.

Here is the link to one of the TEXTBOOKS I read. See page 280 for VERIFICATION of what I was referring to when I broke it all down for mediaguy:

http://www.amazon.com/TCP-Guide-Comp...5911346&sr=8-1
Also, you don't understand the context of all this. You wrote that "I was wrong" AS IF this were AN OPINION on my behalf. You are mistaken. What I have referred to is a VERIFIABLE FACT.

Buy the textbook, read it, understand it, and you will have all the answers you need in relation to the subject.

It's around $50, 1,600+ pages, and highly technical, but it's there if you want it.

Page 280.

Anyone who wants me to basically scan the page and post it here can go fuck themselves.

What I don't get is how the hell you can get so worked up about this geek shit. You must be a hit in bars. I bet you can pick up girls faster that Lawrence Connor. This is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooo freeking boring.

[DannyCox]

Originally Posted by moetheman

Anyone who wants me to basically scan the page and post it here can go fuck themselves.

I do find this amusing. I just asked the question of MAC Addresses in packets, and never got an answer. I then spent about 30 minutes checking sites (some of which I linked to in my previous post, because I believe a person should backup what he is stating) and found, conclusively, that MAC Addresses do not make up any part of a TCP/IP Packet. moetheman then has to resort to using profanity in his answer, and still has not shown a thing to back up his claim, other than an a reference to a page in some obscure networking book.

Moe, you can use all the profanity that you like, but I will state that you "are wrong". I also know that everyone else here thinks you are wrong as you refuse to support any claim you make with documentation. I backed up what I said, now please do the same. And I think we need more than the single reference that you eluded to. If what you state is accurate, you should easily be able to find backup across the 'net.

BTW, just as an aside......who is "moetheman" anyway?? Am I just having a discussion with yet another surfer/wannabe??