Author Topic: Does anyone else get CathInfo errors? (Read 3599 times)

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #15 on:** April 17, 2013, 03:39:30 PM »

Quote from: AlligatorDicax

What amazingly vague wording for such a specific inquiry! "Get this?" Get what?

You mean "get" in the sense of receiving a publication via subscription (lately, e.g.: CFN or the Remnant)? Or "get" in the sense of the sudden dawning of understanding (e.g.: starting construction on a new SSPX USA seminary, or the appeal of personal computers depersonalized by The Cloud)? I didn't notice this topic at all until late last night, but as posted, there was really no information to indicate that it was worth any attention from "anyone".

Alas, S.C. is among the zillions using the Internet who never learned that "anyone" who writes an original-posting for a message-board topic, intending it to be clicked-on & actually read (instead of writing just to vent) should write each 'Topic Title' like a newspaper headline. When a 'Topic Title' isn't interesting enough on its own merits, many potential readers won't ever click on it.

Had he used something specific like this:
"Anyone else get CathInfo Web-site errors?"
Then he might've attracted more productive attention, and thus produced more than the 13 replies to date. Maybe there'd be one that would provide a crucial clue to Matthew, one clue that technical support at his his hosting-provider could apply to solve the technical problems we've experienced recently.

It doesn't matter.

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #16 on:** April 17, 2013, 06:49:28 PM »

I wondered if CI might be targeted by Krah and his cronies, or other members of the ѕуηαgσgυє; Menzingen; or maybe the Vatican Newchurchers have employed some hackers. :detective:

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #17 on:** April 17, 2013, 07:32:34 PM »

Quote from: ascent

I wondered if CI might be targeted by Krah and his cronies, or other members of the ѕуηαgσgυє; Menzingen; or maybe the Vatican Newchurchers have employed some hackers. :detective:

Well, if the Jews or Menzingen had a list of their most-hated websites, I'd imagine that CatholicInfo would be #1 on their list. This site has been hated by liberals even before the crisis in the SSPX.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #18 on:** April 18, 2013, 01:30:11 AM »

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

Quote from: ascent
I wondered if CI might be targeted by Krah and his cronies, or other members of the ѕуηαgσgυє; Menzingen; or maybe the Vatican Newchurchers have employed some hackers. :detective:

Well, if the Jews or Menzingen had a list of their most-hated websites, I'd imagine that CatholicInfo would be #1 on their list. This site has been hated by liberals even before the crisis in the SSPX.

There is no secret that when enough computers are run by a network of
people who are deliberately coordinating their website "hits" to harm a
particular website, that they can do so. There are software programs that
are designed to accomplish just that. But I don't think you can buy them
on the shelf at Fry's or Best Buy or Staples.

You need to know someone who is "good" at HACKING and they can
get it for you - like it's contraband or something.

So it's perfectly believable that the Menzingen-denizens would be able to
pull this off regarding CI.

Every post I write now, I have to SELECT ALL, COPY, and PASTE it into a
NotePad blank page and save it before I hit REPLY because about 3 or 4
out of ten are being LOST when the response page says CATHINFO IS
OFFLINE, or whatever.

So you are not alone.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #19 on:** April 18, 2013, 01:39:57 AM »

My CPU was running at 100% so long as the dialog box was open for
that previous post. Then as soon as I hit Reply and it was posted, my
CPU went to 2 or 3%.

Now, the moment I opened this dialog box to write this post, my CPU
again went to 100%, and has been hovering there between 97% and
100 all the while I've been typing this.

It's still up there. I've got Windows Task Manager running to monitor the
monitor, so to speak. I'll send this, then see if my CPU usage drops again.