Undecipherable posts and a call for moderator action

[miroR]

User: [profile=283094]khayyam[/profile]
Topic: [topic=1031758]Some issue with network[/topic]
Post: [post]7837184[/post]
Reason: topic-pooping

This is really chasing an issue, that does not belong there, and is a complete distraction from the serious topic.

Pls., admins, remove that khayyam's post. The first post of his in that topic of mine, I did not react in the same topic, because I did not wan to ruin my chances to get replies to my topic (pooping-replies not counted as useful).

Replies I did get, from mozilla security people. But I need more work, and will need more replies.

Pls. remove that khayyam's post.

It is ruining my topic.

Thank you!

EDIT: s'/runing/ruining/'

[asturm]

Seriously, get a blog.

[miroR]

Seriously, get a blog.

Is that a comment related to my report of my topic having been ruined by khayyam, above?

If so (and it doesn't appear otherwise), can't you see that the topic is, if that post remains there, probably completely ruined?

Is that really what is accepted behavior? Bashing a user like that?

[John R. Graham]

Seriously, get a blog.

Is that a comment related to my report of my topic having been ruined by khayyam, above?

If so (and it doesn't appear otherwise), can't you see that the topic is, if that post remains there, probably completely ruined?

Is that really what is accepted behavior? Bashing a user like that?

miroR,

I, for one, have been struggling with what to do with your posts for some time. Your posts are typically not really support requests. They're usually more along the lines of, "Here's something I'm working through," containing a lot of detail, often without a good easy to follow summary of what you're trying to accomplish. Even when they are support requests, it's hard to find the question in among the mostly unnecessary detail. (Admittedly this is a separate issue, but I think you could improve dramatically in this area. You might want to take a look at Eric Raymond's excellent How To Ask Questions The Smart Way.)

So, for the posts that are not support requests, it could be argued that they don't really belong in the Gentoo support forums. Hence the suggestion by genstorm that you get a blog. It's a suggestion that I find I'm mostly in agreement with.

- John

[miroR]

Seriously, get a
blog.

Is that a comment related to my report of my topic having been ruined by
khayyam, above?

If so (and it doesn't appear otherwise), can't you see that the topic is, if
that post remains there, probably completely ruined?

Is that really what is accepted behavior? Bashing a user like
that?

miroR,

I, for one, have been struggling with what to do with your posts for some
time. Your posts are typically not really support requests. They're
usually more along the lines of, "Here's something I'm working through,"
containing a lot of detail, often without a good easy to follow summary of
what you're trying to accomplish. Even when they are support requests,
it's hard to find the question in among the mostly unnecessary detail.
(Admittedly this is a separate issue,

Yes, it is, and you are judging/delivering, sorry for my English, on a (publically) non-existent complaint that never was (publically) asked of you to deliver upon.

So it's out of report in question to judge on that.

Did khayyam post anything at all useful to my query, and
if yes, what?

And, why is he allowed to ruin my topic like that? Should he, really, be allowed to?

but I think you could improve
dramatically in this area. You might want to take a look at ...

Unnecessary details?
So many unnecessary details, such as, say, in my:

Uninstalling dbus and *kits (to Unfacilitate Remote Seats)
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-992146.html

there's been 80 views short of 27,000 views (some news there even in the
today's posts, by me, and by depontious!

I don't believe you speak for so many hiigher level users, admins, moderators and, finally devs, in Gentoo...

After all, with all those "o many unnecessary details" I got promoted, when
some of your higher-up colleagues read the first (just first) few posts in
that topic, which I took as an example.

So I will be waiting for others Admins to weigh in here, as I, with all due
respect, don't accept your evaluation of this case as correct.

So, for the posts that are not support requests, it
could be argued that they don't really belong in the Gentoo support
forums

Since when are forums so defined? Really!

. Hence the suggestion by genstorm that you get a
blog. It's a suggestion that I find I'm mostly in agreement with.

- John

Pls., other Moderators, weigh in.

Otherwise, this is a case of gross discrimination against me.

[khayyam]

I, for one, have been struggling with what to do with your posts for some time. Your posts are typically not really support requests. They're usually more along the lines of, "Here's something I'm working through," containing a lot of detail, often without a good easy to follow summary of what you're trying to accomplish. Even when they are support requests, it's hard to find the question in among the mostly unnecessary detail. (Admittedly this is a separate issue,

Yes, it is, and you are judging/delivering, sorry for my English, on a (publically) non-existent complaint that never was (publically) asked of you to deliver upon. So it's out of report in question to judge on that.

miro ... no, he is commenting on your posts, as I did in the post you now want him to remove.

Did khayyam post anything at all useful to my query, and if yes, what?

Yes, I corrected your misapprehension about 'views' giving some indication of popularity, how by including the links in practically every post the 'views' will be increased, and how your posts, [post=7834590]that one in particular[/post], make no sense.

And, why is he allowed to ruin my topic like that? Should he, really, be allowed to?

I couldn't possibly "ruin it", there is no substance to it whatsoever (except, perhaps, in your mind). You "don't know how it will work out" then you provide the output of who knows what for 'somefile' and 'some-other-file', then you provide a link to a previous topic, commenting on how "interesting" it is (as its had 3498 views), then state its "important that the files don't be easily dismissed as unauthentic" ... and then we readers should be "patient". It simply makes no sense!!!

there's been 80 views short of 27,000 views

Which says absolutely nothing about the popularity of the thread, I wonder if you've counted how many links to that thread you've created in subsequent posts?

After all, with all those "o many unnecessary details" I got promoted, when
some of your higher-up colleagues read the first (just first) few posts in that topic, which I took as an example.

Again, you don't understanding how the forum works, you get "promoted" on post count, not because some admin thinks your posts are somehow super-interesting.

Hence the suggestion by genstorm that you get a blog. It's a suggestion that I find I'm mostly in agreement with.

Pls., other Moderators, weigh in. Otherwise, this is a case of gross discrimination against me.

You've shown on numerous occasions you're completely immune to criticism, and/or don't listen to what more advanced users explain (ie, you were until recently still going on about how your ISP "censors" your mail even after krinn explained ... over a year ago ... why your mailserver was blacklisted), you can solve this "gross discrimination" by getting a blog to post your monologues, you then won't have to deal with the community when they question what the hell you're going on about, or moderators when they make perfectly reasonable suggestions.

best ... khay

[John R. Graham]

miroR,

A few clarifications are in order, I believe. First, in regards to your complaint, I apologize for not addressing it. The reason was that I considered it mostly invalid, but I should've said so. Second, you're correct that I'm "judging": as a Moderator, that's neither evil nor sinister but merely part of my job. Third, I am acting on my own recognizance: no one has—publicly or privately—lodged a complaint with me or asked me to intervene.

So, to address your complaint, saying that something is "nonsense" is allowed. There's a difference between bashing ("You're an idiot") and a comment on the content ("What you're saying is nonsense"). Usually we would encourage that value judgment to be followed by an explanation, but there are some circumstances under which the poster gets a pass. If you don't want to encourage someone to comment on your threads, then don't mention them by name, which, by the way, is one of those circumstances which creates that aforementioned pass. If the responder is a continuing nuisance, we will consider splitting off their posts, but not for a single in-thread instance where you've effectively invited them in. In truth, I think your definition of "ruined" is somewhat off. How can such a large body of work be ruined by such a small reply?

Correcting a couple of other misconceptions:

• Your forum rank is based solely on the number of posts you've made, not on some value judgment made by the Gentoo staff. For an explanation of how that works, see [topic=24074]FO2: How long before I'm not a n00b? (forum rankings)[/topic] in the FAQ.
• It's been policy to require the support forums to contain only support requests essentially since the beginning. Which sub-forums are for support and which are not is documented right on the Forum Home Page.

Finally, let me call to your attention some of the benefits of a personal blog. On your blog, you would be the sole judge of what content is allowed to be posted, or whether you even allow comments. If you do allow comments, you can delete the ruinous ones without going through a third party.

I can understand your wanting a second opinion. Hopefully another Moderator or two will weigh in.

- John

[miroR]

miroR,

A few clarifications are in order, I believe. First, in regards to your complaint, I apologize for not addressing it. The reason was that I considered it mostly invalid, but I should've said so. Second, you're correct that I'm "judging": as a Moderator, that's neither evil nor sinister but merely part of my job. Third, I am acting on my own recognizance: no one has—publicly or privately—lodged a complaint with me or asked me to intervene.

So, to address your complaint, saying that something is "nonsense" is allowed. There's a difference between bashing ("You're an idiot") and a comment on the content ("What you're saying is nonsense"). Usually we would encourage that value judgment to be followed by an explanation, but there are some circumstances under which the poster gets a pass. If you don't want to encourage someone to comment on your threads, then don't mention them by name, which, by the way, is one of those circumstances which creates that aforementioned pass. If the responder is a continuing nuisance, we will consider splitting off their posts, but not for a single in-thread instance where you've effectively invited them in. In truth, I think your definition of "ruined" is somewhat off. How can such a large body of work be ruined by such a small reply?

Correcting a couple of other misconceptions:

• Your forum rank is based solely on the number of posts you've made, not on some value judgment made by the Gentoo staff. For an explanation of how that works, see [topic=24074]FO2: How long before I'm not a n00b? (forum rankings)[/topic] in the FAQ.
• It's been policy to require the support forums to contain only support requests essentially since the beginning. Which sub-forums are for support and which are not is documented right on the Forum Home Page.

Finally, let me call to your attention some of the benefits of a personal blog. On your blog, you would be the sole judge of what content is allowed to be posted, or whether you even allow comments. If you do allow comments, you can delete the ruinous ones without going through a third party.

I can understand your wanting a second opinion. Hopefully another Moderator or two will weigh in.

- John

I have to thank you for the clarifications.

I have to add another explanation: I have been mostly in bed, from only allergy, but it's still pretty debilitating, and that's why all the typoes in my previous posts, and that's why the brevity in this post. Thanks for the consideration.

Yes, I do want that, not the first, like the offender is trying to present, but the very last, post removed.

It did ruin my topic, and if anybody can show to me how in that post by the offender, there is anything good for my solving of the topic, I'll give him the Nobel prize!

There is lots of substance in the topic, and the topic is unfinished, more work, more asking for help on Mozilla Security and Wireshark ML, probably, or even Bruce Schneier...

But to understand the substance of that post, it takes downloading and repeating the steps that I explained in that topic, with wireshark, tshark, hexedit, gzip ...

Thanks again, whichever way that this goes. Neither am I perfect, can't ask from others to be... But the removal of the second post of the offender is the best way to go...

[desultory]

I can understand your wanting a second opinion. Hopefully another Moderator or two will weigh in.

I concur with the views expressed by John R. Graham. Is that sufficient to be considered to have weighed in?

[Akkara]

I can understand your wanting a second opinion. Hopefully another Moderator or two will weigh in.

I also concur with the views expressed herein.

And I'd also like to take a moment to thank John for the effort.

I, too, have read miroR's posts. "Attempted to read" would be a more accurate description. The words start to swirl into one long jumbled mess in my mind and I'm frequently unable to make it past the 2nd paragraph. I'm often at a loss with no idea of what he's trying to say, let alone figure out whether there's a question buried in there somewhere.

For example, [topic=992146]this[/topic] most recent one. It opens up with a link to some other topic which presumably I'm supposed to now go read before I can even understand what this one is supposed to be about. Already my eyes are rolling. So I go look, and, _eventually_, figure it out. Sort of. I think.

miroR: There's no conspiracy here. I don't know why you see one in nearly everything. The view-count, in this case, gets incremented every time anyone or anything views the topic. I look at it twice in a row? It's up by two. You open the thread to post a reply? Viewcount goes up. You finish your post and review it? Count goes up yet again. Come back to edit a post? Count has increased, again.

And then there's the bots. Every time there's a change in that thread, Google, Bing, Yahoo, and two dozen other search engines all come rolling around to index it all. And, you guessed it, the viewcount goes up, each and every time. Often a crawlerbot will come around even without any changes, just to make sure. Viewcount goes up yet again. Spam arrives? We have our own checks and scans for these things... and every time one of those peruse the thread, the viewcount goes up.

In short, the only thing that the viewcount means, is that some page in that thread has been served that many times.

[miroR]

I can understand your wanting a second opinion. Hopefully another Moderator or two will weigh in.

I concur with the views expressed by John R. Graham. Is that sufficient to be considered to have weighed in?

and I also read Akkara's post.

Can any of you Admins/Moderators make sense as to how to ask support for the:

Mozilla Cloud non-Decryptable Download?
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1031758.html

in any significantly shorter way than I did?

(because that is the post in question, that you need to rule about)

Without making the still now perfectly, with Gentoo timestamps from the very first post, verifiable kind-of-ducuments:

the traffic dump and the screencast of what happened

(hashed at the time I took it with my uncenz (oh is that unnecessary detail?)... And uploaded them, later, for everybody to see... Anything wrong in that method?

And...

And [is it possible to say all that in significantly shorter ways] without other things that I did: contacting and getting replies from Mozilla devs, and posting about their replies?

Can I get an answer to that question.

I really don't even dare ask whether all of you did get into that topic of mine that deep. (I don't think you did. And anyone who did not, how can they rule correctly in that matter?)

And, connected to that, the offender, who "sees no substance" in that topic of mine "whatsoever", why is he, if this remains like this, allowed to ruin my topic like that?

Because you Admins/Moderators, should consider faclts, and reply to questions about facts.

Is the offender's post in any way, any whatsoever, useful to the solving of the topic:

Mozilla Cloud non-Decryptable Download?
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1031758.html

?

If it is, whoever proves that it is, ought to be awarded the Nobel prize!

Regards!

[Akkara]

Split above from [topic=28820]Report violations, duplicates, misplaced posts, etc.[/topic]

[Akkara]

Can any of you Admins/Moderators make sense as to how to ask support for the:

Mozilla Cloud non-Decryptable Download?
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1031758.html

in any significantly shorter way than I did?

...

Because you Admins/Moderators, should consider faclts, and reply to questions about facts.

Is the offender's post in any way, any whatsoever, useful to the solving of the topic:

I, personally, can't offer advice, because (1) I cannot understand what you are trying to say! and (2) what little I do understand of your problems is outside my expertise.

I had seen that thread when it was first created. It said, in effect, "Hey everyone! watch here, there'll be something really important coming!". At least, that's what I read it as.

Then some time later, third post down, I get the first hints that there might be a question or something in here.

• (First of all, why did you post a message trumpeting the fact that you're about to post something? Just post it. There's no need to go all press-release about it. This is not a company that needs to announce to the press that they'll be making a press announcement regarding some new product or whatever. I see posts like that and I simply move on. If you have something to say and can't come right out and say it, I'm not going to be waiting around for any huge announcement you say you're going to announce when the Time is Right. I'm pretty sure many others feel similarly.)

So I try to read that post. It starts with checksums of some files (what are they? whats their significance?), some timestamps to serve as verification of something-or-other (of what?), yet more links, long lists of traffic dumps, and so on. By now I have no idea what the heck you are even trying to say, nor how to even begin responding. So I leave it to those with more experience. I'm only left with this vague notion that there's some unexplained network activity going on that you find suspicious that you think is the result of firefox doing something. All I know, is on this 3-mbit down 0.7mbit up link, I surely would have noticed if there were the amount of traffic that you suggest. I haven't.

And, now, the first post has been edited to include a link to yet another post further down in the same thread, and by now the cross-linking, circular references, and multiple reports and counter-reports has got me hopelessly confused.

And I'm not about to start making judgement calls while confused.

So how would I have phrased your original question? I don't know if this is what you wanted to say, but if my guess is right, here's how I might have started it:

Hi! everyone!

I have been seeing some unexplained network activity coming from firefox. It seems to be [coming from]/[going to] ${domain}. It seems to be triggered by doing ${action}. I've run [tcpdump]/[whatever] but i don't know what the packets mean. Here's a sample [link to pastebin]. If anyone can help me decipher it, I'd appreciate it. Thanks!

[Roman_Gruber]

Seriously, get a blog.

I just was curious on what this is about and yes:

Get a blog mate !!

So you can present to the world all your knowledge and insights, and you can design / format it to your needs

[roki942]

Seriously, get a blog.

I just was curious on what this is about and yes:

Get a blog mate !!

So you can present to the world all your knowledge and insights, and you can design / format it to your needs

+1
miroR, I've tried several times to work my way through a posting of yours and every time i ended up ready to kick the cat.
As kitty only eats my girlfriend's sweaters I stopped reading your post instead.
A blog may be the exact thing we need to appreicate your posts.

[miroR]

First, thanks for splitting it out from the original huge thred.

Second, I may and may not be able to keep up, depends on my poor health. Hopefully will be able to.

Can any of you Admins/Moderators make sense as to how to ask support for the:

Mozilla Cloud non-Decryptable Download?
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1031758.html

in any significantly shorter way than I did?

...

Because you Admins/Moderators, should consider facts, and reply to questions about facts.

Is the offender's post in any way, any whatsoever, useful to the solving of the topic:

I, personally, can't offer advice, because (1) I cannot understand what you are trying to say! and (2) what little I do understand of your problems is outside my expertise.

Honest from you to say. You know, so few people have expertise in that area, that devs from Wireshark in their presentations often state openly to this effect (I'm paraphrasing what I remember from some of their videos):

So few people understand these things that I will never be out of work!

And I'm paraphrasing the guy pretty correctly. I'm paraphrasing because I can't find that video easily at all.

But you didn't have to paraphrase me, and this is skewed report of what I said:

I had seen that thread when it was first created. It said, in effect, "Hey everyone! watch here, there'll be something really important coming!". At least, that's what I read it as.

Then some time later, third post down, I get the first hints that there might be a question or something in here.

• (First of all, why did you post a message trumpeting the fact that you're about to post something? Just post it. There's no need to go all press-release about it. This is not a company that needs to announce to the press that they'll be making a press announcement regarding some new product or whatever. I see posts like that and I simply move on. If you have something to say and can't come right out and say it, I'm not going to be waiting around for any huge announcement you say you're going to announce when the Time is Right. I'm pretty sure many others feel similarly.)

So I try to read that post. It starts with checksums of some files (what are they? whats their significance?), some timestamps to serve as verification of something-or-other (of what?),

What are they? Did I give there the link to my uncenz (primitive) program? Looking up. No, and I should have. There it is in top of:

his topic follows on the heels of this other topic:

SSL Decode & My Hard-Earned Advice for SPDY/HTTP2 in Firefox
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1029408.html

where can be found:

The uncenz (for uncensorize) is a primitive program of mine:
http://github.com/miroR/uncenz

which link, to the heels the topic follows on, is in the very first post after the initial announcement, in this one:

Mozilla Cloud non-Decryptable Download?
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1 ... ml#7835154

And to some extent, for complex issues, as this one is, you can figure it if you venture to check the substance of that topic of mine, that is: by checking up the dump (there's only one traffic dump in the entire topic, not dumps as you say just below here) and possibly, but less importantly, the screencast.

By checking the dump in the way the content is extracted from dumps, and the howto is found in the topic which that topic follows on the heels of...

That it, if you want to follow and understand it, you should check up the other topic that this one follows on the heels of. I accept some blame for not having said that is was necessary, but I did give the link...

Which testing the traffic capture and the procedures, neither the offender, nor all of you Moderators/Admins in this discussion did (not all of you, no, not yet at least).

Of course I'm not saying that any of you should, other than if you need to rule on it, then you should!

Otherwise it is a little brazen to dismiss my topic as having no substance. Wrongly written... What not.

yet more links, long lists of traffic dumps, and so on. By now I have no idea what the heck you are even trying to say, nor how to even begin responding. So I leave it to those with more experience. I'm only left with this vague notion that there's some unexplained network activity going on that you find suspicious that you think is the result of firefox doing something. All I know, is on this 3-mbit down 0.7mbit up link, I surely would have noticed if there were the amount of traffic that you suggest. I haven't.

Why paraphrase, Akkara? Why? Citation is close at hand for you! You are introducing vagueness, inconsistencies and distractions with your paraphrasing, IMO.

And, now, the first post has been edited to include a link to yet another post further down in the same thread, and by now the cross-linking, circular references, and multiple reports and counter-reports has got me hopelessly confused.

And I'm not about to start making judgement calls while confused.

Sorry for that, but it was long in planning. Delayed because of the first offender's post.

title will be:

Mozilla Cloud non-Decryptable Download?
================
(will change it later)

and you can search the page for the string 'title'. However it's the important link to the topic this one follows on the heels of, and understanding what my uncenz program does, that gives you the understanding of what those hashes are.

Which first post of this topic will be expanded with some more necessary details only when no shadow of doubt is left as to authenticity of the event of the apparent Moz cloud autodownload into my machine, non-decryptable for me, the user, having happened when I claim, by the virtue of the traffic dump and the screencast being verifiable to have been taken when I posted that first post in this topic)

That understanding can not be gained without it. (And neither can someone who does not understand those give any support in my topic. Nor should rule on it. By virtue of plain old logic.)

So how would I have phrased your original question? I don't know if this is what you wanted to say, but if my guess is right, here's how I might have started it:

Hi! everyone!

I have been seeing some unexplained network activity coming from firefox. It seems to be [coming from]/[going to] ${domain}. It seems to be triggered by doing ${action}. I've run [tcpdump]/[whatever] but i don't know what the packets mean. Here's a sample [link to pastebin]. If anyone can help me decipher it, I'd appreciate it. Thanks!

Great, just what it wrong with posting hashes, to get the public exposure to the time that something happened, which I did?

And wasn't kind enough from me to post as I did, and beg:

Patience, I kindly ask of readers.

Why not wait a bit? (And also no: the important thing was, if it proves to be an attempt of intrusion, to get the Gentoo-Forum-timestamped hashes out first, no matter the impatience of the ungratified curiosity. Even in the face of my "Pls. patience I beg of you!")

Can't it be read from that first post that I wasn't yet certain that I have an issue?

Because this is a difficult case study, that does need other capable people who understand it, to look into iti. So it is a support question.

And I got two Mozilla devs with kind replies (and with different level of expertize the two), didn't I?

And can't it be read from the entire topic that I got much more certain of a lot of things as I progressed with my case study?

But in all that somewhat complex case, you did not reply, no Admin/Moderator has replied yet, so I have to repeat, the quote in your quote that you did not reply at all:

Is the offender's post in any way, any whatsoever, useful to the solving of the topic:

Just want to repeat that if it is useful, I'll award the Nobel prize to whoever proves it useful to solving my issue.

And, while I was writing this, there are more replies in this new thread. For the new posters, I kindly ask to be patiant, and repeat what I said already:

(this is a repeat:) Second, I may and may not be able to keep up, depends on my poor health. Hopefully will be able to.

[John R. Graham]

...
But in all that somewhat complex case, you did not reply, no Admin/Moderator has replied yet, so I have to repeat, the quote in your quote that you did not reply at all:

Is the offender's post in any way, any whatsoever, useful to the solving of the topic:

Just want to repeat that if it is useful, I'll award the Nobel prize to whoever proves it useful to solving my issue.

Okay, fair enough. My answer is, yes, potentially it is. Stipulating for the sake of argument that you're not making sense (from whence the call of "nonsense" originated), then a notification of that fact from a knowledgeable individual could help you realize that you're off track, that you need to reconsider your reasoning and perhaps recraft it, restating your problem in a way that makes more sense. That would certainly be useful in solving the topic.

- John

[John R. Graham]

Since I haven't looked at the topic that Akkara commented on, I'd like to offer an opinion on this one: [topic=1031694]Use hexedit to manipulate a huge disk dump?[/topic] This support question—and it is a support question—goes on for four pages on my monitor. I believe it could have been concisely and completely asked as follows:

I have several very large files—partition images, in fact—that range is size from half a GiB to nearly 70 GiB that I need to manipulate. Can hexedit successfully edit files this large? I'd appreciate some advice.

That's three sentences spanning two lines. The detail on the files, what you're trying to do, and why, are mostly irrelevant and need not be included. What have I left out that is relevant to your query?

You might benefit from reading the excellent little book Elements of Style, by Strunk & White. Strunk's short essay, Elementary Principles of Composition, is particularly on point:

Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that he make every word tell.

- John

[miroR]

...
But in all that somewhat complex case, you did not reply, no Admin/Moderator has replied yet, so I have to repeat, the quote in your quote that you did not reply at all:

Is the offender's post in any way, any whatsoever, useful to the solving of the topic:

Just want to repeat that if it is useful, I'll award the Nobel prize to whoever proves it useful to solving my issue.

Okay, fair enough. My answer is, yes, potentially it is. Stipulating for the sake of argument that you're not making sense (from whence the call of "nonsense" originated), then a notification of that fact from a knowledgeable individual could help you realize that you're off track
...

- John

So you are claiming that I made no sense in that topic (back to the issue):

Mozilla Cloud non-Decryptable Download?
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1031758.html

BTW, with headaches and difficulty in breathing, part of my long previous post in this topic is excessive, the part when I, after:

So I try to read that post. It starts with checksums of some files (what are they?

go about what those files are... and even blame myself for not posting how I got them with uncenz...

Not necessary. (But I'm not touching that post! To not get even more blame...)

Not necessary. The link to the two files, along with the explanation how to extract tcp.stream eq 5 and how to get to the non-decryptable Mozilla Cloud autodownload, that happened behind what can be found in the accompanying screencast, as explained here:

https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1 ... ml#7835158

all surely impossible to understand without downloading the pair (screencast and traffic dump) from:

http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/foss/cap/c ... -MozCloud/

define what those are, and there the link to how I got those (with my uncenz), is actually not needed.

So the question here is: are we indeed are talking here, in that post of mine, of a network conversation that can not be decrypted?

If we are, I really don't believe any of you will continue saying that this is not a support question.

So is it?

Are we talking here, in that topic of mine:

Mozilla Cloud non-Decryptable Download?
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1031758.html

of a non-decryptable network conversation?

It can even be chacked, factually, whether it is or whether it is not, a network conversation that can not be decrypted.

Is there enough presented there, and with enough clarity, posted, with the two files authentic as to about when they happened?

Really don't think you can jump to conclusion that it is not what I, at my best, try to explain all the details about, there, and try to get support for...

And still you keep, apparently, not seeing what that topic is about. Sad...

I don't even think that you could not, if you wanted, check up and extract exactly that exact filtered out exported specified packets (pls. this is the first to do, then the tcp.stream eq 5 above, only I'm (very mildly but I am) suffocating and need to lie down soon).

Or maybe better: "(ip.addr==54.192.55.37) || (ip.addr==54.192.12.211) || (ip.addr==216.137.59.141)" (without quotes), but pls. note that I'm guessing only...

I'll take this latest.

I entered (pasted) that string in the Wireshark filter, hit Enter to get that filtered display active, and then File > "Export Specified Packets". "Packet Range" is "All Packets", the "Displayed" is selected already, and I saved it as:

Pls. see the original topic for detailed order and instructions.

Can we please get factual about this "Mozilla Cloud non-Decryptable Download" issue?

[steveL]

miroR: ffs how [post=7536124]many times[/post] do [post=7540312]people have to[/post] tell you [post=7642064]the same thing[/post], before you will actually start applying [post=7714654]what they say[/post], in both your thinking and your writing?

Please: no more discussion. Get a blog. And [post=7807144]stop spamming[/post] us.

If you don't understand what I mean by "blog-roll" in the second-last link, take a look at your post history.
Seriously: you're a legend, but not in the way you might wish to be.

[davidm]

I wonder how much of this might be due to a language barrier. I'm a native English speaker but sometimes when using Google Translate to translate my writing to other languages I find myself being much more verbose in the hope that it will help someone understand despite poor translation. Could that be a little bit of what is going on here? Is there perhaps someone who speaks miroR's native language who would be willing to help translate his posts for him into reasonably concise English prior to posting here? It also seems possible to me that he might not completely be understanding some of the replies he is getting from admins and others.

I mean this with all due respect, miroR. You definitely write English better than I can write Croatian.

[frostschutz]

...and if you do write a helpful reply all you get in return is insults...

[khayyam]

Can we please get factual about this [...]

miro ... having failed to make your popularity (via the number of 'views' and your having been 'promoted') a valid argument, you're now asking that moderators judge the quality, or validity, of that post ... this is besides the point, its not your post that was reported, it was mine. My comments (in both posts) are valid and in no way constitute a violation of the CoC. You want it/them (re-)moved because you claim it somehow "ruins" your thread ... and that is what moderators are to moderate on!!

Some number of people have stated, in this thread and elsewhere, that your posts are mostly unintelligible, I've tried in the past to reason with you (ie, [post=7560484]here[/post], [post=7561960]here[/post] and [post=7562260]here[/post]) trying to get you consider your method of communication and presentation ... not only did you ignore my (and others) advice, you use it as an opportunity to go off on us (ie, its we who don't understand ... "pls. try and notice how many people can't easily understand it if it is not explained to them in more detail [...]", etc, etc). You're doing the same in this thread, you're impervious to any kind of criticism, it doesn't matter that the post is unintelligible to readers 'because ... because ... because' ... there's always some reason to ignore criticism.

Having been at the receiving end of this I don't make much effort to get through to you ... it seems pointless. None the less I have every right to post my incredulity at the "substance" of your posts, and if you then try to shuffle the discussion into another thread, and speak about me in the third person (ie, like you're warning your readers about me) then I'll come back at you.

As everyone, bar you, seems to be in agreement that what you're doing here is essentially blogging, and that mostly we're either not interested (and number of 'views', or your 'promotion' doesn't provide any evidence to the contrary) or are done trying to 'moderate' you ... you should perhaps think about the criticism and do something about it ... its gone on far too long.

I wonder how much of this might be due to a language barrier [...]

While language certainly plays some part in this, I would say its only a minor part ... as you can see if you read the above provided links mostly its about 'reasoning', listening to criticism, etc.

best ... khay

[John R. Graham]

So you are claiming that I made no sense in that topic (back to the issue): ...

No, I was stipulating that as an arguing point to show how, if it were so, khayyam's comment might be considered helpful to the ultimate solution. I'll make no value judgment about that thread. I will say that I've often found your posts confusing and way, way too long for the subject matter covered.

Even so, as this thread was never intended to be a, "Let's all jump on miroR," thread, I'm locking it. If you all think there's something substantive to add, PM me and I'll consider selective ephemeral unlocks.

Edit: Apparently there was more to say. Merged the 5 posts below split from the necro'd [topic=1008954]miroR's Compositional Stylings[/topic] and unlocked this topic.

- John

[miroR]

Since the discontent, with me, or that it be other sentiment, against me, by some Gentooers is not abiding, as is plain to see in these topics:

1)
Mozilla Cloud non-Decryptable Download?
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1 ... ml#7834602
and
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1 ... ml#7837184

2)
Undecipherable posts and a call for moderator action
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1032278.html

(a few posters against me, one completely, I believe, honest, but she judged incorrectly --the splitter herself-- one only trying to defend me and talk some reason)

and

3)
More non-Decryptables (from Mozilla Cloud)
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1034140.html

or maybe better read what the easier-to-understand part of that topic is about from here:
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1 ... ml#7848104
( and see both the few attempts at deriding me, and also how the news that I broke is, probably slowly catching up , as will be, I certainly hope so, the network reading methods that I have recently learned and started to use.)

Now there follow here a few points of my own summary for the unwilling, or with too little time, to read much of those links above.

1)

It's concrete network reading with a concrete query, somewhat complex. But khayyam imposed his posts with nothing to do with the query, completely unrelated, jumping on my assumption on views that another topic got by then, similarly as in this topic you are reading he attributes the views of a page solely to linking from other pages and the bots' visits (just as krinn in this other topic, apparently, in a poetic figure, speaking of himself, but maybe even suggesting(?) that he only immitates me for that purpose, tongue-in-cheek, but attributing the views of, say Uninstalling dbus and *kits (to Unfacilitate Remote Seats), to (?)... [to] maybe mine own clicking to pump up the views.

I diagree with both of those interpretations, and I'm sure anybody objective in the story will find them unsustainable. No time nor need for my longer indulging on that, I don't think.

Just look at the numbers anyway. At the time of posting that post to which krinn reply, link above given, that topic was approaching 20,000 (twenty thousand) views, and currently it is approaching 30,000 (thirty thousand) views. I can paste from my (as I prepare this for posting) offline Firefox: 28767 [PASTED], from what Gossamer nginx (IIUC, I figured it only recently) server, which serves Gentoo Forums, served to my Firefox via phpBB.

And I didn't really mind so terribly much the first of his post, but deemed that the other one has wasted that topic to an extent more difficult to tollerate, and I still think so, for at least a while.

Regardless of the fact that my writing was unreasonably distracted in such way, the topic having been based on concrete technical query, and maybe even issue (I do wish to revisit that query/issue, in some way), it somehow drew the attention of at least one from among the top Mozilla developers.

Deservedly or not, we may discuss that, but in technical terms, with facts.

And how come the opinion stated to the contrary that

there is no substance to it whatsoever (except, perhaps, in your mind)

, see below, as if it hasn't been replied to by such repliers that I sincerely felt honored by their attention, had never happened, [how come the opinion stated to the contrary] is sitting there in this other topic below, as if the contributors to this other discussion (see below) were deprived of the reading skill.

And I tried to report the second post, which you can find that I did, stating the reason as "topic pooping", at:

2)

In this discussion, really, the technical issue of the topic which the reported post belong to, was not being looked at, apparently, at all, in spite of all my calls to do so. It was not being looked at, nor was assesed the damage to it by the reported post which insisted on hijacking it away from its issue.

Instead, the choice of other topics of mine were being looked at, and the worse aspects were tried to be picked out for display, along with more advices on, more or less, improvements to my "compositional stylings" or maybe better my shutting up.

I will prefer not to delve any more on this 2) but, the network reading being just of the same kind and method as in a few other recent topics of mine, I'll try and devise a way to, don't know, maybe even show, very clearly, how network is read on the least complex of the network dumps, which is in 3).

And I will also try to explain why, if the network, all that comes in from various hosts on the network, isn't decryptable for you, then what goes on for you, in your machine, is an equivalent of a guest coming to your home with a concealed weapon, without telling you about it. Be it in less lethal terms, of course .

And I have another plan in my mind as well, and that is to show how the offering of non-dbus Devuan install, has happened to some extent also because I had been pushing for it.

But I need more time for that.

I called by here, because I mentioned khayyam over in the topic:

3)

And I mentioned him in this post

In that topic, in which, as I said above, the same method for reading the network, as in the 1), brought me to a joyful realization of Mozilla's renewed, and honest (at least it appears so to me), push for their users' privacy.

And my plan is to try and make the method that I applied there, and which I learned recently thanks to toralf's support
and in the Wireshark ML's thread that I started: The SSL tcp stream decoding in Users' Manual?, the support of a kind Wireshark team member IIUC, nay: a Wireshark developer, nay: one of the top authors of Wireshark, Jeff Morris is in the first 20% of the names credited (fire up Wireshark and find his name in the Help > About Wireshark > Authors. To me, getting replies from such people is an honor.)

I don't yet know how, nor when I will do that. I'll try to do both of the above as soon as I can. But all of the complainers against me have already been informed of both my slowliness and why I am only able to work slowly.

But I wanted to post this here, so those who I mentioned know that I did so. (IMO it is honest and polite to do so, esp. when the mentioning is not all the way favorable. Less necessary it is informing people when it is about praising them. In the former case, because otherwise it would be talking behind one's back. And I don't like that.)

And also, I reread, a little quickly, I admit, this entire topic. krinn needs some replying in his wrong conclusions that he drew about Postfix smtp/TLS, Bkp/Cloning Mthd, Censorship/Intrusion in this post local to this topic you are reading, further above. But it's not urgent for me to do that.

Regards!

Monor Errata may yet follow later. Eeven though most links I have been verified... Too many links in here, though. And my eyes are starting to hurt at this time.