Re: Elad Cohen

[Florian Brandstetter via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

Hello Ronald,

I don’t particularly side with any party here, but as already made clear indirectly by my passive aggressive tone on 
your trace route (which was nothing but a route loop in cogent’s network), I do certainly disagree with the way you 
treat Mr. Cohen. This comes due to the nature that whilst this whole story might be quite funny and interesting to 
follow, this is certainly not a place where you can slander his name or anyone associated with him in any manner for 
the entertainment of everyone. It is - at least speaking for myself - fairly interesting to follow the development of 
this story, but then again you act a lot like you just want to slander Mr. Cohen and his affiliates instead of doing 
this is some sort of general pointing out (which then again defeats the point of taking this on the list). Perhaps 
keeping messages to the list limited to updates with actual proof behind might be the way forward instead of starting a 
legal war. Keep in mind, I’m not even judging here if what happens is legitimate or not.

—
Florian

> On 19.09.2019, at 12:12, Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg () tristatelogic com> wrote:
>
> In message <VI1PR1001MB12949BC32DA7D5770736BEF0D6890@VI1PR1001MB1294.EURPRD10.P
> ROD.OUTLOOK.COM>, Elad Cohen <elad () netstyle io> wrote:
>
> > Mr. Ronald Guilmette
> >
> > Everything you did and you wrote in this forum until today, including mud-
> > slinging and slandering, including thieves and crooks, they are libel for all
> > intents and purposes with everything it implies, and this without to
> > display any proof.
> >
> > We return and say, in our hands are all the agreements of the purchases that
> > we've purchased properly with our best money.
>
> Mr. Cohen,
>
> I'm sure that I speak for many when I say that we all very much look
> forward to seeing the unredacted copies of those alleged purchase
> agreements, whenever you can take time out from your busy schedule to
> produce them.
>
> It would also be helpful if you would include whatever additional documents,
> as may be necessary, to demonstrate convincingly that whoever you allegedly
> bought the blocks from came by them honestly, and not due to some earlier
> skulduggery, particularly the ones I have already mentioned, e.g. the
> 168.198.0.0/16 block, the 139.44.0.0/16 block, the 165.25.0.0/16 block,
> and not least the Infoplan/SITA block, 196.16.0.0/14.
>
> > It is hinted from your tongue-lashing, that you are connected clearly with
> > Spamhaus and ARIN, that have an interest to receive the ranges, following
> > the increase of value of the ranges in the free market and the lack of them.
>
> Gosh darm it!  You caught me!  I'm really a stealth IP speculator.  I didn't
> want it publicly known that I have been sitting all this time on an enormous
> stash of no fewer than two whole IPv4 addresses.  I also didn't want it
> known that I am actually in league with Spamhaus, ARIN, Vladimir Putin,
> the Marx Brothers, Boris Johnson, Ricky Gervais, and oh yes, Beelzebub.
> But now that the cat is out of the bag, I might as well fess up.  Yes,
> we have all been plotting together to steal your valuable stash of IPv4
> addresses, and in fact, Cogent is in on the plot too.  I would have told
> you sooner, but I was busy eating children... with a nice chianti, of
> course.
>
> > All of this subject was transferred to our lawyers, due to the mudslinging
> > and slandering and the nicknames you wrote thieves and crooks in this forum
> > a libel suit against you will be filed with a high amount, of course that
> > all of the written proofs an agreements regarding the legal purchases that
> > we've made will be added to the libel suit.
>
> Is the official NANOG historian in the house?
>
> I just want to ruling on this.  Am I the first and only person who has ever
> received a cartooney directly on the NANOG list?
>
> I just want to know if I can go ahead and contact the Guinness people, and
> get this unique feat recorded officially.
>
>
> Regards,
> rfg