Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
JamesDD IP Number Linked With GSB27
High profile cases involving the Department of Justice have prompted Congressional investigations, demands for the DOJ OPR and DOJ IG to review alleged FBI violations of Judicial Branch rules. It would be a shame if others were caught in the widening driftnet.
Indeed, it is misleading for someone to present themselves as a different poster, but make contradictory statements designed to mislead others or leave false or unreliable impressions. This statement is misleading, incorrectly implying a "third" person is admonishing two others:
"Would the individuals known as Testing and GSB27 please keep their discussions such as these off the board."
-- JamesDD, April 15, 2008 8:39 AM
The truth is the IP numbers for the author, JamesDD, is linked with the GSB27 IP number, someone who mysteriously stopped posting just as JamesDD started posting. GSB27 appears to view their public profile as so damaged, that their solution is to create a new profile, and hope others accept this based on their admonishment of themselves. The ruse would appear to be sealed as long as there is no check on the IP numbers, and nobody would think to ask why JamesDD/GSB27 are rebuking themselves.
JamesDD would, perhaps, have some believe that they have "control" over, and are able to influence GSB27 with this admonishment. That is a dubious assertion and claim to power given the similarity of the IP numbers.
The issue isn't that someone is or isn't using the same IP to post inconsistent information using multiple IDs. The question, is broader: To what extent we can use subsequent information -- going forward, from either poster -- to assess their original statements made on the Wecht Case before the disclosure of their multiple posting identities.
They may also wish to share which other IPs they are using to cloak other IDs, and the reason why they cannot show that other IDs are or are not posting along similar timelines. It defies reason for someone to post once, with one ID, then abandon that ID. One would think if there were different people involved, they'd have different views on whether a particular ID should or should not be abandoned; or whether to independently post blog comments.
Unreasonable Fear of Retalation
The IDs traced to the same IP similarly do not have public blogs. It defies reason to believe "two" people would have this much to say on a high profile case, live nearby, yet both decide not to blog on their own blogs. Blogging is not required, it's curious they appear to have alot to say, but are reluctant to start a blog, or permit others to comment on their comments. Their reasons for not starting their own blog appear to be related to their practice of spamming other blogs. It appears they are concerned that, in starting their own blog on TPMM, they could be subjected to similar commentary. That fear is unfounded.
Alleged Material Misrepresentations
For example, as GSB27 (Bill), the poster implied that they were "from" Philadelphia, and now in Pittsburg.
Bill
Location: Pittsburgh
Age: 30
Politics: Moderate
Party: Democrat
However, as James DD (James), they've made a nuanced reference, saying they were "no longer" from Philadelphia, and say they are in Philadelphia.
James
Location: Philadelphia
Age: 30
Politics: Moderate (lean to Dems)
Party: Independent
The latter appears to have been used to imply some special relationship, knowledge, proximity to add credibility to the now-discredited assertions about the Wecht case. The former, if true, would remove that special immunity to review, and recast the poster as someone no longer relying on geography as a basis to believe their assertions. It would be helpful if we had a clear explanation why the poster's location changed, but the IP remains the same; and the events surrounding their sudden move, but uninterrupted posting.
One might think that someone has reformed themselves and hopes to press on with a new page and new chapter in life. However, the quoted-JamesDD posting (above) suggests the deception continues. Even if they do apologize or publicly appear to distance themselves from unreliable statements or egregious conduct, using deception the conduct continues: They're using deception to continue to hide their original deceptions.
The original scrutiny and basis for discrediting GSB27 should, in our view, be similarly applied to JamesDD. We need to get a clean story as to why the GSB27 and JamesDD appear to be providing inconsistent statements of material interest to the public discussion on the Wecht case. Once we revisit the comments from "both" posters, we find some interesting information.
Saying the following could be deceptive:
"Paul Kiel and TPM another great job in reporting."
If there are mistakes, but James/Bill would like those mistakes perpetuated, we're not in a position to evaluate their favorable comments. Despite repeated assertions that practices were "common," they've refused to provide documentations about those "public" practices. James/Bill would have us believe that they're from Philadelphia/Pittsburg, but would not necessarily have a geographic advantage over others similarly traveling these distances.
Note the following which are common features across the IDs:
- Double-lines of BOLD FACE CAPS
- Unwillingness to use HTML
- Use of profanity
- Spamming other blogs, and accusing that blog owner of spamming their own blog
- No effort to start a discussion on their own blog
Questions For Discussion
1. Could Bill/James care to comment on their sudden decision to no longer use the GSB27 byline; and the issues surrounding that decision. Have the factors behind that decision to stop using one profile name been fully addressed; or are there issues which have not been resolved and require other discussion?
2. Is there a pattern of publicly appearing to be two or more different people with a "change" in heart, but deception continues.
3. How can their conduct be evaluated using other digital data forensic analysis methods.
4. How is the information from the two different comment threads/IDs been compared to find other inconsistent statements not just within a single ID; but across both IDs related to assertions, conclusions, representations? How does this comparison affect TPMM judgments on their reliability, accuracy, and credibility?
5. What recent events prompted James/Bill to switch their party affiliation from "Democrat" to "Independent"?
Comments (37)
You can read other comments from GSB27 here. The link discusses problems with their credibility.
April 16, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
WARNING!!! WARNING!!! WARNING!!!
All beware the poster of this blog is a known spammer on TPM that throws unsubstantiated allegations on the news blogs that link to his unsubstantiated rants on this blog.
If you chose to leave a comment on his blog that does not agree with his conspiracy driven dribble, the blogger will in turn attack you. He has a history of flaming people throughout the TPM site.
He rants that anyone that disagrees with him is somehow connected to the DOJ, attempting to spread misinformation since the poster does not agree with him, attempts to connect the poster to another poster in a means of discrediting him/her, or attempts to claim the commenter is violating TPM policy for posting a divergent point of view.
While there may be some truth in the posting, it is only surely a result of pure accident on his part if there is so. Testing simply posts things he does not know about and then says because no one has stopped to explain the topic to him and the ins and outs, there must be a conspiracy.
Proceed at your own risk.
May 13, 2008 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Compare JamesDD comments here with the ALL CAP comments here.
April 16, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is the last comment thread where GSB27 posted, and ended inexplicably.
April 16, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill, GSB27 profle contains no blog, just as the profile for JamesDD.
A quick comparison of the text, post style, linking, and content shows the strange fascination with one issue. What was their plan when two different IDs were traced to a common ISP; and their comments relate to material information on a high profile corruption case involving the Department of Justice?
April 16, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here are sample comments suggesting this person has a problem using civil language on TPMM.
April 16, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is where they promised to keep visiting the blog to make comments; and a sample comment they've left in every blog comment. Note the comment has nothing to do with the topic, does not provide any useful feedback, and hardly assists with discovery or evidence collection in re high profile cases. Aren't we at TPMM supposed to be assisting Josh Marshall in putting pressure on public officials?
April 16, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unlike this comment, they've pretended they followed a link, to distract attention from their continued posting. It's deceptive for them to suggest they followed the link without knowing what was or wasn't there. It's the same person, but they're posting under a different name.
The new comment has nothing to do with providing accurate information, but perpetuating the discredited-ruse that GSB27 and JamesDD are two different people. They cannot explain the IP issue.
Pretending to be someone new, when it's the same person:
Pretending to "stumble" upon a blog they've been revisiting, and know the content, in advance:
April 16, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
What defies reason is that this link they supposedly followed is buried and not visible on the main TPMM home page. It's in the buried archives. To get to the link to the content, they would have to do four (4) things:
This defies reason. Someone with this much energy on the Wecht case would not have waited "this long" to visit the blog. They would have immediately looked at the information, which they did as GSB27.
It makes no sense for James/Bill to pretend that they, this late in the game, have "stumbled upon" something that they, by their own actions, have shown they are closely following. JamesDD cannot explain why they waited this long, but then took extraordinary action to find that buried link. Nobody who is arguably that lazy -- in "not" finding the information on the Wecht case, supposedly following and now posting as JamesDD -- would then take that much time to dig into the information this late in the game.
The objective of JamesDD's comment isn't to do anything but attempt to further perpetuate the ruse that GSB27 and JamesDD are two different people; and continue the spamming which GSB27 appears to have been sanctioned for. JamesDD didn't dig into anything.
It's the same person still monitoring the content, hoping to discredit it with a new ID. They're spending alot of energy on something they would have us believe is "self-evidently" worthless. They can't explain why they're calling attention to the content, the issues, or their multiple IDs with the common ISP.
Data Forensics, US Attorney, Omni William Penn Hotel, FBI
It deserves some public examination to determine why they're this worried about content, analysis, and arguments pointing at the White House connection, through the data forensics experts, with the FBI's jury interviews. Someone needs to explain why the DoJ and White House are concerned about the common knowledge that the data forensics experts indirectly connected with the OMNI hotel have been linked to the DOJ, US Attorneys office, the Wecht case, and the White House.
The same data forensics capabilities should have been used to preserve White House email, quickly detect illegal DOJ-NSA surveillance, and ensure the Wecht Jury member names were protected. It appears the forensics has used their expertise, in secret, to change software protocols and thwart detection of illegal communication, surveillance, and monitoring of Americans.
April 16, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is the link connecting the US Attorney who argued the Wecht case, with the OMNI hotel, the forensics conference, and DOJ-White House personnel who are computer experts.
April 16, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Witness Reliability, Credibility
Here are sample alleged inconsistent statements; and here are the alleged material misstatements which could be used to impeach as a witness.
April 16, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here are sample questions seeking clarification of their view of a specific event or activity. Rather than provide a clear answer which addressed these issues, they declined to cite a specific procedure, but shifted the burden to others: Claiming others were required to provide proof that something was or wasn't a valid exception, to the "common procedures" they refused to provide.
April 16, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is where their arguments fell apart: The FBI was not authorized access to the information; Yet, their arguments -- as to why there was "no" outside involvement with the decision to interview Jury members -- was premised on invalid assumptions about procedures they refused to reference, present, or discuss.
A refusal to provide information is evidence: Where there should be evidence, or a written procedure, but none is available, or none provided, that non-response is the basis for adverse inferences. It does not form the basis to end an inquiry, but to broaden the review: Why the deception?
April 16, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Testing, I am the individual known as JamesDD. Nice to meet you. Here are the answers to your questions.
Answer to Question 1:
I recently received this computer from a friend and he turned me onto the site since it talks about a case we have both followed. I am originally from Pittsburgh and have met Dr. Wecht. He is a wonderful person that has done a lot for our city. The case is the talk of the town in Pittsburgh, so most people from there are watching it closely. That is why you see me on the Wecht coverage TPMM reports.
Did not realize that GSB27 was my friend. Thanks for telling me that. I am going to rip Bill a good on this one.
Answer to Question 2:
See Prior Answer
Answer to Question 3:
Ah, don’t know what you are talking about here. I am a novice at this blog thing as you have pointed out. Sorry. I don’t know html. Wish I knew how you posted the links, bold, and italics. It looks pretty cool. Such info may have made this response easier for you to follow.
As for keeping a blog, I am not really into that. I am more of a reader who likes to share links on additional information on stories I follow so others can gain additional information on the topic being discussed. I find more information is always a good thing.
Answer to Question 4:
I think you are attempting to say my comments and links are not valid because you think I am my friend. Well, I am not.
So you are aware, my comments are on election politics, the Wecht case, and US Attorney Buchanan’s office. I usually provide web addresses to other reports that are public. I’ve posted on TPMM about the Wecht case recently so that people are aware of what happened in the case. I find it is nice to have links to the info being discussed so that they can go to it themselves. I have included the web address for this reason.
Answer to Question 5:
Answered above.
Additionally, perhaps my two responses to your postings were unduly harsh in their tone. If you felt insulted, sorry to have upset you. I follow the Wecht case for new info and spent a longtime reading through the comments that were posted on the TPMM news report. I felt the discussion you and Bill were having was not related to the topic of the news report posted in TPMM. So after reading Bill and your postings in the TPMM site, I decided to leave a comment to both of you so further postings such as the one that occurred did not continue in additional Wecht postings.
I also read through your blog links. At the time of linking over to them, I did not realize they were your blog. I thought this was another TPM writer’s blog. To me, what were written in your blog were many long drawn out discussions that were off topic and not related to the Wecht case. (Sorry, I did not know you get personal blogs with your membership). I also find your arguments a little far fetched, but hey you are entitled to your opinion.
So not to say something without providing an example, here is one. You say the FBI is running electronic surveillance to get the jurors names. I really do not buy such a premise from the information reported on the case and available in the motions available on PACER.
In my opinion, the FBI’s access to the jurors’ names might be very simple. At one point in the trial, the jurors’ names were read out loud in the court room. The defense and prosecution were barred from recording the names while the press was not. My guess is the FBI wrote the names down at this point in time. I can’t wait to read the response motion in the upcoming newspaper or PACER from the prosecution that will address this issue McDevitt has raised. The prosecutor, Assistant US Attorney Stalling, and his direct superior, US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan, will probably argue that the FBI is not part of the investigative team. That is my guess. If so, I am wondering if Judge Schwab will finally rule against the prosecution.
This view is my view on the issue of the jurors’ name disclosures to the FBI. I realize you have a completely different point of view and you are entitled to it.
As I said, I am new to this process. I do not know html. As for my blog, I am an individual who only offers comments associated with the TPMM and TPMElection topics as well as puts up information that people can reference on the topic of the original news posting. I do not know html and I have no desire to keep up a regular blog. Kudos to you for maintaining a blog.
Wish I would have seen this posting earlier. I saw you spent over an hour posting all the comments and such.
I think I answered all your questions. Oh, my party affiliation. I recently changed my registration from independent to democrat to vote for Obama in the primary. PA is a closed primary. On average, I am an independent with leanings towards the Democrat side of the spectrum.
April 16, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be a serious issue for DOJ, using deception, to be focusing people's attention on misleading information planted in the media. Especially when legal counsel "concerned" with the issue are publicly representing themselves as with the DNC, but the names on the electronic accounts connect with GOP funds. Alot of energy on dismissing war crimes, jury tampering, and the Iraq WMD analogies. Good thing we have some loyal people inside the CIA working closely with the EU to support the Italian war crimes tribunals. The possible punishment, if DOJ staff are adjudicated with war crimes, includes the death penalty.
For purposes of discovery in re alleged misconduct by Department of Justice employees, DOJ OPR may conduct a no-warrant, touch trace on DOJ Staff counsel computers and outside legal counsel and contractors.
Red Herring
You said,
It's a red herring who did or did not record the names. The court order said they were not to be released.
PACER
You Assert you know about PACER, yet that would not be relevant: The Judge would not have permitted the information on PACER.
Irrelevant, No Basis For Your Assertion
You said,
This is meaningless. Buchanan is reported to have said the opposite: That she directed them, without commenting on who directed her. How could the FBI agents be both on the case, and not on the case at the same time?
No Overlap, Missing Archive Data
The TPM Archives go back several weeks. GSB's last post was: April 15, 2008 8:30 AM, nine [9] minutes before JamesDD's reported first use. Even in the archive which shows information going back two [2] weeks, there are no posted links or activity until April 16. It appears GSB is unable to access the site, and despite no record of you providing any links, you appeared nine [9] minutes later, and posted for the first time, April 15, 2008 8:39 AM as JamesDD. There's no record of you providing any links before April 15, which should be visible in the archive. It's not a chuck of time going back 14 days; but has enough spots to fill data.
Didn't Ask About Internal Data
You said,
The "same computer" wouldn't have common, external information outside the computer.
The same computer in different locations should have different data, not the same, as you have asserted, and not refuted.
- Why are you referring to internal data on your computer, but the issue external data available, regardless where the computer is used?
Denied The Incorrect Premise
You said,
No, you said that. The emphasis wasn't on electronic surveillance but something else, at the link you said you posted a response. Surveillance could be happening. Why are you dismissing an option that has not been asserted, nor was the focus of the discussion?
Common Writing, Thinking Styles
The common pattern is: Shifting the burden of proof, not providing clean answers; and not reading the information, but then claiming it "wasn't" relevant to the discussion.
Stated Explanation At Odds With FBI Legal Requirements
You said,
However, the FBI agents would have known that the names were sealed.
- If this is true, then why argue over whether the Press did or did not record the names?
Exception to Hearsay: Failure To Deny Something That, If Untrue, Should Have Been Denied
You said,
Nobody, but you, said your friend's name was "Bill".
- Why are you confirming a connection to the person who is GDB27, and that you know them as Bill, and that your friend's name is Bill?
- Why would you be upset at your friend, and not someone else; but you've had no discussion with that person, yet you posted a response before talking to Bill?
- Why didn't you talk to "Bill" before you posted your response; and invite Bill and you to issue a joint statement of concern?
Someone who takes the time to read information, share information with others, and ensure things are correct would most reasonably have verified the facts before admitting they had not talked to their 'friend bill'?
- Is there no explanation why Bill/GSB27 has stopped posting?
Two people who supposedly know eachother well enough, used to live together, now aren't talking; but your start-stop times co-incide. It appears, despite your familiarity with Bill, that you would ask that we believe you're not talking to him to confirm what is going on; but you are coordinating with him to ensure that your posting times do not overlap. That defies reason.
But there's no record of you sending an email to Bill -- your friend -- from that IP before you responded to a stranger. Yet it defies rason that you're putting your loyalty backwards, as if Bill is conveniently "not around" to confirm things; that he is "close" to connect to; but not close enough to communicate things. Base on your representations, you would have us believe Bill -- the person who is allegedly reckless in making convoluted arguments, and could be impeached if called as a witness -- has some superhuman skills. His conduct doesn't support that assertion. Suprer humans do not have looming over them a credible problem of witness impeachment.
- How do you explain the parallel movements, but "no" communication?
- Are you and Bill using an unauthorized communication device that is not connected with your IP system, and permitting you to coordinate about "not coordinating"?
- Why would you immediately rush to respond to someone -- a stranger -- you've said was flooding the blog with spam; but you didn't take time to consult with Bill?
- Did Bill/GSB27 talk to you about their reasons for not posting, or suddenly stopping to post?
You said,
However, the site does not show that you've been sharing links. Here's the cache that only goes back two [2] days. However, if you had been posting links, the links should be visible on TPMM, in the cache until the early part of April. The links do not go away, they should still be there until your next post moves the earliest out of the way. But without previous links, there's no information to move.
You're not more of a "reader," you're a ghost which didn't exist, provided no links, and suddenly appeared only after "Bill" stopped posting.
- What happened to the other links you say you've been posting?
- Why would someone make an error, when confronted about DoJ issues to demand that someone not get them confused with DOJ: Why are you claiming that DOJ is "not" required to provide information, when the issue wasn't whether DOJ was or wasn't providing information, but a different organization?
Other cache for people providing common links go back much further. There's no evidence to support your assertion that you have provided links in the past.
[Evidence Note: Links Have Been Modified To Remove http and www information; no changes to original links]
Exhibit 1
This shows the cache available as of today. This information is not obviously available, nor obviously required. The caching mode permits a view of the TPMM Archive going back several weeks. Old data, if it were available and posted at TPMM, would still appear in the Cache. Even with a highvolume poster, the cache taken today would go back to the first week of April 2008.
However, this cache has no data before the 16th, meaning there is an inexplicable gap of data. The issue is not that the data is missing, but the data was never there, contrary to assertions.
The same salutation style, same capitals, same use of spam, same comment length, same key words used, but you haven't talked to your friend Bill; and there's no overlap between the two names, nor any public evidence of anyone sharing-exchanging links before April 14. In classic DoJ-approach, the responses have caused more problems, not resolved issues.
The timelines are not consistent, the assertions imply deception. TPM is the same blog which sparked a national change, resulting in many DOJ Staff resignations. The answers to date should have resolved the issues, not created more problems.
- How many times have you been to the OMNI hotel?
- Which direction are you aware from DOJ to provide any misleading information to the public and open media?
- Why does the White House and DOJ not have an explanation for why war crimes evidence has been destroyed, and why the forensics experts did not fully coordinate on the data preservation?
- Is there a reason you're avoiding the digital data forensics connection between the US Attorney, DOJ Staff, and the White House on issues of war crimes, FISA violations, and evidence preservation in re rendition, prisoner abuse, and illegal abuse of American citizens through NSLs?
For a blog that "nobody" reads, too many with matching, connected IP numbers are showing too much concern, no clean story, but a rushed concern .
You are not being promised anything, nor are you an agent of any government with a protected right to shield this evidence. The above could be material information related to alleged war crimes, jury tampering, and others legal issues of interest to the Italian War Crimes prosecutor. Congratulations.
April 17, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, you asked me a few questions and I answered them. Now I get this response.
I’m sorry that I attempted to point out a divergent viewpoint from you. I’m going to attach a link to an article on the press coverage that addresses two points you disagreed with. The Wecht jurors’ names were announced in court before the prosecution, defense, and the media. Even thought the jurors’ names were announced, the judge prohibited either side from recording the names.
The judge issued this order prohibiting the recording of the jurors’ names when the Appeals Courts overturned his decision to seat an anonymous jury. The order is available in PACER associated with the district record of the court.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_562381.html
Please leave me alone. From your hostile response, I can see why my friend thought ill of you.
April 17, 2008 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
James,
Thank you for giving me the heads up on this one. Sorry I did not tell you about this wack job. Guess I should have when you told me you put up a Google Alert on the Wecht case.
April 17, 2008 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill,
I wish you had. Guy asks questions, and I respond as requested. Then I get this response from this guy. What did you pull me into?
I don't understand anyone that posts a blog entry with a comment section only to use it to be abusive to others that posts a divergent point of view.
April 17, 2008 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
You've misrepresented the court order and the article contents at the link you've provided. Also, your retelling of the article does not match the original court order. Your reference to the article is a red herring and muddying the waters on definitions, as was done with the "interview" or "jury poll" or "FBI interview" or "attorney interview."
We have three things, none of which match:
A. The court order;
B. The media report; and
C. Your version
You appear to know well that the words you're using are very important distinctions.
Teams: Investigation vs Prosecution
You changed the words -- in re whether the FBI was or wasn't involved -- from "investigation team" and "prosecution team". That's an important distinction. You're also confusing the terms "record" and "announce". You're making irrelevant assertions.
Media Excluded, No Reason To Leash Them
Also, you're pretending the media was present, when, per the court order, the media was the object of the order: They could not get access to the information. The court would not order anyone to not provide information to the media if the media had been present, as you assert. If the media was present, then the court would not have prohibited transmission to them, but transmission from them to others.
Record, not Announce
The article says, "record", where the media was not present, as you later assert:
Media Not Present
You say, "announced," a word never mentioned in the relevant court language; but you misstate the article, and incorrectly state the media was present, when they were not, per the court order language:
Court Order As A Barrier, Not A Leash
The court would never issue an order to "not provide" information to the media when the media was present. You would have us believe the very issue defense counsel want the court to determine are fully explainable. That defies reason. There's no reason for the court action if your version were true; yet, your version does not match the record or the court order.
The barrier was on all, and did not apply to the media that was not present; your version would change the analogy and have us believe the order was a leash on someone who was not present. That is the same confusion over the Geneva Conventions: Whether the laws applied or did not apply to the US as a detaining power; or whether the shield to the POWs could be ignored. As with Geneva, the issue isn't whether someone could or could not ignore a leash; but whether the personnel did or did not respect the shield blocking illegal actions did or didn't meet the court order and legal obligations.
Deception: DOJ Shield, Irrelevant Smokescreen
The article you cited doesn't include the language you're using; nor is it consistent with your assertion of who was or wasn't present. You are, inter alia
Why do you insist on:
Your explanations have fallen apart, as do your timelines.
April 17, 2008 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
You said,
This defies reason, you posted in two places.
Here you contradict the above, where you expressly say that you "followed" the link "over", indicating you knew you were leaving the story, and going somewhere else. This was posted before your response above.
8 Hours later . . .
If we are to believe your later assertion that you were "confused" about what you were looking at, you cannot explain why your contemporaneous comment at 4:42 contradicts your later statement, eight hours earlier.
Because you've now contradict yourself,
Again, you knew, by your own words that you were leaving the story:
- When someone "leaves" or "goes over," where else could anyone be, other than not at the story?
When you wrote, "followed the link over," means you knew, or should have known the following:
- Where did you think you were, if by your own assertion, you were not at the story: You must have been somehwere.
If your later version of events is true, then you've posted backwards. You should have posted first at the long thread (the blog) where you were confused, then returned to the home page. But the times of the postings are the opposite: You posted first at the main page; and then you posted at the longer page. Again, you're contradicting yourself.
You would have us believe that you were confused, but the only way to read the content at the place "not on the story" was to click the link, then read the content, then return.
But the record shows the opposite actions connected with your computer and your IP:
The steps recorded in your cache in the computer doesn't match your stated version of what you say you though was going on. You've allegedly reconstructed a timeline not supported by your contemporaneous notes. You appear to have attempted to reconstruct a timeline which has no basis in fact.
You knew you were going back and forth; and that you were leaving the main page, and going somewhere else. Again, by your own assertions in the original comments, you well knew what you were doing, were not confused.
The problem with the timeline above, is that to go back and forth you would have to have dug deep into the archives to get to the original content. But, it's not available on the main page. You would have to know how to find the main page content by digging into the archive first; but you claim you're not familiar with the site in that you were confused and didn't know about blogs. That confusion doesn't match your skill in being able to navigate into very interesting content, then archived in the main page.
If you really thought it was the same location, you would have only posted once. Even if you were confused, it shows you didn't read the content, or you are pretending you didn't read it, but then you commented on it.
Nobody bookmarks a page, but asks us to believe the bookmark labels were something else. Your story doesn't match what you know you were looking at or how you were indexing the information for easy access, entry, and review. Your written words were written to tell one story; your subsequent statements do not support that version; and your actions are not consistent with either version. And your computer does not support what you are saying.
- How could you say that a White House connection to the jury interviews -- as you understood enough to comment, and say you did not agree -- was "not" connected with the case? You cannot say that something is an invalid theory, but then contradict yourself and say it is unrelated.
Inconsistent Basis To Assess Information
You cannot appeal to ignorance or confusion on something you've said you made a decision. No one disagrees or agrees with a theory that is unrelated to anything. The theory, if unrelated to anything, would have been rejected as irrelevant. Yet, you did the opposite: Would have us believe that the content wasn't related; but you contradict yourself and say you decided it was invalid. That defies reason.
- How can something be invalid as a theory to explain a case; but unrelated to that case?
Your explanation -- the series of events, your order of posting, and your later asserted knowledge of what was going on -- does not coincide with the words you used when you were originally posting, or what you were really doing as recorded in your computer and on the website. Your own, original words are not reconciling with what you would later have us believe you were doing, thinking, or focusing on, or confused about.
It does not appear your statements would survive cross examination during trial.
April 17, 2008 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Testing,
Nice way to welcome my friend onto the site. Yeah, you are a troll. You also appear to be a psycho.
If you want me to keep popping in I gladly will. I imagine it hurts that people know Testing is a fucking idiot. BTW - Nice no profile.
April 17, 2008 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
It defies reason you would share with someone some information about a site, but not share with them a means to contact you at that sight, focus on your comments, or exchange ideas about things you were posting, nor provide them a specific ID saying, "This is me, here's what I'm posting, and these are the good/bad threads on this topic."
It defies reason for you to be first responding to your friend here with this message. There's no reason to believe this message; if there was a real message sent to you, you would have personally responded in private via the means you were supposedly notified, not publicly comment here as if this were the first response. You're confusing yourself:
- You told someone else about the sight, but didn't ensure that you were posting the same, different, or accurate information others were posting elsewhere?
That defies reason.
- All this coordination on information, but no coordination between the two of you about which new information you were or were not getting?
That's too convoluted to be believable. It is reasonable to presume that GSB27 and JamesDD are part of the same convoluted explanations, missing pieces, and dubious assertions. You'll have to explain to others why it took an outsider to make the connection between the two IDs. People who visit this blog, and leave comments like this, are not asking for a welcome:
There's a difference between "the site" and "my blog".
When people make coherent arguments, and confront issues, you'll be welcome. Indeed, even your subsequent explanations do not make sense.
Get better arguments, explanations, and supporting material for your definitions, which you still haven't done.
After you commit to definitions which are solid, then others might believe your assertions and characterizations about what is or isn't going on. You do your job, and maybe others will believe your assertion. Until then, keep your eye on the problems with the DOJ digital data forensics.
You're still not willing to commit to definitions or the procedures. In turn, there's no reason to believe your assertions about what exceptions may or may not exist, apply, or have been considered relative to those procedures. You're appealing to things which are not connected with the court records or the media citations you're using. You're being imprecise, but asking others believe your arguments based on invalid assumptions, premises, and events.
April 17, 2008 2:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for teaching me an important lesson. Don't feed internet Trolls.
April 17, 2008 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Two people might communicate; one person, working alone, would not refute any evidence suggesting there might be two. Is the real person connected with the real data on both profiles more connected with JamesDD or Bill?
The government has the burden of proof. The failure of the government to provide evidence, where there should be evidence is, itself, admissible. The public's attention should be on compelling the government to justify belief in their assertions.
The focus needs to be on critical thinking, then apply that to the media and government. They didn't provide any answers on the OMNI or the digital data forensics. They appear to share common traits. If not the same, then they appear to be well connected with people reinforcing flawed reasoning.
Questions Of Single Composite
Once we combine their profiles as a single composite, you will likely generate valid questions of either related to real errors, inconsistencies, or problems. If the data was from two different, distinct people, we would expect to get no useful information, nor a coherent comment about the changes.
Responses As Feedback To Inquiry Validity, Data Assumptions, Data Integrity, Sourcing, Modeling
Subsequent questions of either may be best framed as if both IDs were part of a single, composite. For the sake of conversation, if we assume James and Bill are the same person, their inconsistent profiles would trigger questions prmopting unusual responses.
In theory, if they were two different people, but we used some information from both profiles to form a single question, the question would not make sense to a real, individual person. If we ask questions about either JamesDD or GSB, and combine information from both profiles and responses, the question is whether we create confusing questions and convoluted responses; or coherent questions and responses that track back to the issues.
If JamesDD and GSB had two distinct profiles, but we combined errors from one, with errors with the other, then the questions would trigger responses that request follow-up, and clarification. However, if they're framing an image, they're likely to go with the first inclination of what might support their desired conclusion, even if that framing were a misdirection and not supportable. However, if we ask questions based on asserted-errors within either, or both profiles, and the responses are confusing, this suggests more that the profiles were distinct, connected to two different people.
Our results lean toward the former conclusion: Errors within the profile from either ID did not track to an incoherent response requesting information; but the opposite: A very precise response that appears to attempt to couch the ID information within the question. The problem is when that coherent response falls apart because of internal and external inconsistencies or new information.
However, their responses suggest the opposite theory is true: That some information on either profile applies to one person.
Failure To Deny Electronic Connection
They haven't denied a connection between the IDs and the IP numbers. If there were two different people, there would be no reason why the questions would be right on target. In this case, the areas of interest relate to party affiliation, location, and the computer. If something were untrue or unreasonable in the question, then the responses from either JamesDD or GSB should not have triggered any meaningful or rational response. The information, used as the basis for the questions, would have been disconnected from any coherent evidence, theory, discussion, or model.
However, their responses are coherent, suggesting one piece of information about James does relate to information about Bill, as would not be expected if these two IDs were from two distinct independent people. It's as if they've incorporated, without coordination, parts of eachother's profiles into their own realities.
Theory of Data-Question-Response Incoherence
Even if we were interacting with two different people who provided two different profiles, we shouldn't be able to ask questions based on these inconsistencies, but then generate reasonable, coherent responses. Rather, the two different IDs, if they were connected with two different people, would not reconcile with responses to questions about these inconsistencies. We would expect confusion, not a coherent, speedy, and well crafted response. The speed of the response meant the other information, outside their view, could not be incorporated into that initial response. Their response did not frame reality, but the incomplete, partially presented information.
Failure To Deny Human Connection
The failure of either to deny their connection is telling. GSP's initial response was to James, but he did not attack. This means James and GSB, despite their friendship, had not reached a consensus. GSB, as did James, posted first, then made a decision. That delay indicates something had not been yet thought through, and was not anticipated.
That is backwards. Had GSB and James talked or shared information, there would be no reason for either of them to publicly share personal information or views. They would have gone on the offensive, pointed to specific flaws, and not held back on any profanity. This did not occur. Despite an earlier pattern of showing lack of constraint, as evidenced by multiple, successive posts, something changed.
Sensitivity Testing
Let's take the other view: That the two profiles are distinct, connected to two different people, and -- as has been asserted -- they were from two different people, neither aware of the others' ID on TPM. It defies reason, on chance alone, that the first post of James would attack a single given poster who happened to be known to James, but who had not provided their ID; while at the same time targeting, within that conversation, someone else of interest to both.
Tellingly, the responses would ask that we believe they had previously communicated on issues, and independently arrived at TPMM without any knowledge of either ID. If the two IDs were connected to two different people, and either felt they had been incorrectly accused of anything, they would not, as they have arguably done, had a being response.
Note the contrast. First, put aside whether they agree or disagree with a given theory. Second, when confronted with credible arguments which they disagreed, the response wasn't to correct the errors with the argument, but to use profanity. Third, now notice the contrast: Rather than silently, in concert, discuss the "errors" related to the questions and then form a coherent position before acting, both publicly were commenting to each other on the board, but not using any attacks. Something changed.
Had there been an unreasonable conclusion or error in the analysis or questions, James and GSB would have most likely independently responded with rage, a direct assault, and use of profanity. That did not occur. Yet, despite that profanity, GSB has not been banned, meaning they knew there was no risk more profanity would had adverse consequences. Nothing externally was constraining them, but they had new information which warranted a different, subdued response.
First Contact
GSP's error was to shift the burden of "welcome" from themselves to someone else. This implies a problem. One would think if GSB and James were independent people, they would have reasonably discussed the issues, identified the "problem" poster first, then asked to steer clear.
We had the opposite: First contact included all three names, not just two; and James acted, in the message, as if he and GSB were unknown to eachother. Arguably, GSB is at fault for not introducing James properly. Yet, GSB offered James not an introduction to others, but his example : Profanity. That didn't phase James, as would be expected. Rather, James sided with GSB after responding first without consulting with this friend GSB. That mixed loyality is the issue, and the difference in implied coordination reveals another important change.
Modeling Desired Behavior
GSB would need to explain why, by their example, they would expect their friend to expect to be treated well or ill. At best GSB views using profanity as acceptable. For James to be confused or upset by questions seems to miss the point: His friend was insulting others, rather than leaving. That is hardly something someone would want to expect others or their friends to engage in any formal welcome. At best, if James assertions are true -- that he had been on the site sharing links -- then GSB should have provided a formal introduction. That did not occur, tending to shift away from the conclusion that James and GSB are two different people, interested in civilized discussion, formality, or respect. GSB's actions belie the standard imposed on others.
If GSB had properly introduced James, we might have a different situation. GSB does not appear to have taken the time to share with this friend information about the site, the subjects, or the contents. Without that introduction, it's unclear why, on first contact, James would focus on one person other than GSB; or two; and not something else. Chance alone does not adequately explain first contact with people of interest, and "unknown" associations.
The subdued responses suggest both or one have been detected doing something they did not anticipate would be understood by themselves, or others. Further study should focus on whether this is deliberate, intentional, or because of confusion.
GSB cannot explain why they have publicly discussed issues more appropriate for private discourse. It appears some of the conversation between the two ID's on the board is designed to be understood by others. But this information isn't relevant. They've publicly asserted that they didn't learn about the other's ID; yet, despite the "knowledge" of the other IDs, they're still acting as if they have no private communication. Rather than privately organize a plan, they publicly responded. Things aren't adding up.
Mixed Picture on Communication
It defies reason that the first person one would interact with was their unknown friend, or that this was random. The contrast is their communication problem solved by others, but their admission they know each other to share computers, They're asking us to believe they have two levels of communication: One based on physical interaction; but a different one based on amorphous, squishy parameters. That appears to be intentional vagueness, "I'll have to check on that."
GSB and James cannot explain adequately why they are posting comments to each other, of a personal nature, on the main TPMM site. This information should have been sent back and forth in private, establish the facts, then formulate a decision. It was not. With this many introductions, tentative comments, they have not timely taken a coherent position. The apparent ruse in the illusion of two different people; while a real coordinated effort would not disclose any of these introductory notes.
Inconsistent Zeal
The error is for them to complain about the limited zeal in confronting the President's alleged misconduct, but use zeal in confronting with profanity those with other views. Rather than take responsibilty for this inconsistency, they're projecting: They look at themselves as having a special position ot have "other views" despite those views not being connected with the information they've presented.
The issue isn't the different view, but the different zeal they take on two issues: Apparent protection and immunity for the President from an "unreasonable" confrontation; but openly attack with unreasonable profanity against a line of inquiry attempting to explore the President's link with the FBI interviews. One defends what is defensible, not as James has done, question what is unknown or unavailable: Their friend. One small piece of information from a stranger should not have cased James to pause or doubt their conclusions about their friend.
Either the friendship is unreal, or the friendship is tenuous, strained, and unstable; yet, hardly someone we should believe shared a common computer. One would more likely share a computer with themselves, not with a friend they would give pause or have doubts.
Similar Relationship With Information
GSB and JamesDD jointly have a common pattern. Using government and media information, they attempt to use convoluted arguments to explain away broader inquiry, or embrace the government-led explanations. Rather than challenge a government argument or fact pattern, they're more inclined to create a novel theory to accommodate that non-verified government information.
James speculates on why the FBI had access to the names; yet uses an invalid basis to discuss the possibility of electronic access. The pattern, absent other evidence, is to reject an option, then use that original rejection as the basis to continue to avoid confronting evidence to the contrary. It's only when they are confronted with overwhelming evidence and a foregone conclusion that they may accept an assertion, but only then will they momentarily adjust, then recommit to the theory. Do not be lulled into believing a new piece of information will dissuade them from aggressively confronting what are reasonable arguments.
Emotion
James assertions are based on premises at odds with the very documents he's referenced. James is focusing on emotion in asking to be left alone or expecting a welcome. He has no basis to demand or expect that; nor can GSB credibly expect of others what he refuses to demonstrate. Civility, in the view of GSB is conditional: Say one thing in person, and do the opposite where they believe it would not be detected.
Vague Jury Poll Definition Implications
Neither has given a clean definition of their views of a Jury poll. Demanding a "welcome" is a distraction from the topic. It defies reason that they would share a computer and site information, but not share IDs; but their first contact was with themselves, apparently unknown to either until an outsider made the connection. That defies reason.
When both agree to act civilly, perhaps they can focus on the topic: Their views of what a jury poll really is; and justify confidence they can civilly discuss something simple. That discussion has not occurred, and they have provided no coherent definition nor their view of "jury poll". Despite not providing that information, they've seen fit to expect others to respond. That is not a reasonable starting position. The public needs to see links, a coherent definition, not changes in the vague definition.
Media Message Strategy
One claims they can quickly find citations, but fails to product them. Indeed, someone who is 30 years old, but doesn't know how to use HTML would, in theory, be able to use their searching skills and find the answer. Sometimes people post links without HTML because linked-news articles, embedded in HTML, do not stand out. Both IDs post links in the same way. It remains to be understood which guidance, if any, they rely saying posted links, not HTML is preferred; and how this relates to various media messaging strategies.
Dubious Basis To Refute
The IDs appear to rely on media reports, then provide confusing analysis about those details. It would be preferable if they challenged the information with independent thinking, rather than asking others to click a link, and arrive at an unspecific conclusion. "The answer is at the link"-argument is insufficient, especially when the link, at worst, contradicts their assertion, or at best skirts an issue they've reformatted into something novel.
They've missed the simple in a short media message. They're not inclined to take seriously something longer than a few lines. They have no basis to complain about content length. That's not how information is ranked. Their complaint appears linked with the high profile topic, and the attention within the legal community. Their frustration seems that the efforts to discredit the information haven't worked, but the discussion behind the sense continues. They're confused how something so confusing to them has this much attention. It's appropriate to examine their flawed reasoning and analysis skills. Some focus on the length when they don't want to ponder. It only takes one.
Arguments Are Constructed, Not Imposed
Jefferson Democracy works when ideas flow, and subjected to vigorous challenge. This seems lost on both. They appear to craft a conclusion, ignore valid concerns, and dismiss evidence until its a foregone conclusion, then reassert their original position and methods. This seems strangely similar to the Iraq WMD issues and PNAC approach to Iran. We can only wonder how many DNC legal counsel work indirectly in financially supporting the GOP.
Demonstration
Whether they are or are not happy or upset is a distraction. Despite supposed concerns they are not happy with content, they refuse to post something better. That is their right. The issue is whether the arguments are or are not sound, as was not the case before the Invasion of Iraq. There is no connection between Iraq and 9-11.
Sample Distraction: Shifting Focus From Generalized Characteristics To Unrelated, Specific Standards
It's irrelevant to focus on whether someone does or doesn't have a coherent definition of narcissism. The information presented was not reported as a definition, but a range of behaviors. Again, we have a distraction: From a list of conduct, to whether something is or isn't a definition. It's invalid to assert the information presented was a definition (which it was not), but then claim that definition was wrong. One thing, misrepresented as another, cannot be reliably measured by irrelevant criteria, as we learned in re Iraq WMD.
Dodges, changing standards, and misdirection are common. It's unclear why those connected with this confusion would avoid the Republican part. It defies reason that they have an independent streak, but show no independence in questioning that which supposedly threatens that independence. The issue isn't the views, but the incoherent arguments. When you refine your arguments, you will deserve the demanded acclaim. It is for them to explain why they, as confused as they are, have not jointed the GOP.
Special Immunity For Government
Not their zeal in attacking one but not the other. Their coordination is not helpful. It will take time to review whether they are coordination their misdirection. Despite the apparent illusion of communication problems, their conduct is similar:
- Mixing definitions
- Imprecise arguments
- Justifying, without information, the government's non-sense convoluted arguments
They appear to be lapping up the government's non-sense, repeating the convoluted information in the media, and not putting their attention on analysis, but handing the unreliable assertions as fact. They appear to have been well trained on the White House media management methods: Publish and expect blind obedience and transfer. Multiple people are coordinating and doing the same. This is manipulation.
Similar Practices
It defies reason for people, we're asked to believe are not well coordination, to have this many consistent methods to argue. Without any coordination, they engage in consistent behavior:
It remains to be understood how two close friends will digest these events, view the other, or absurd the new information they have about what their friend does when they're not around. Trust is tenuous, especially when the information is outside your control.
April 17, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Timelines Match
The two profiles' schedules match for sleep, breaks, evening, and morning. No evidence supports a conclusion that the two ID's are from different people in different location. Indeed, neither has expressly denied sharing a common IP.
Based on recorded, inconsistent statements, one of the IDs could be impeached as a witness. This evidence strongly supports a reasonable basis for impeaching both IDs as witnesses.
Common Change: Evening Disrupted 17th
Normally James/Bill stop posting by 10:00PM, however on the 17th, when the IP connection was disclosed, they were both up until 2AM, four [4] hours after they normally stop posting.
Morning
Notice the Check-in Times in the Morning For both James and GSB are about 8:30:
GSB: April 15: 8:30
.
James: April 17: 8:38
Except for the 17th, they will stick with one profile per day; never post at the same time; and first post about the same time each day, around 8:30 AM.
Communication
Two people, "not communicating" about their status on the board could not possibly have these timelines, and not have some overlap. These two profiles are not independent, but are related to eachother: A common schedule, evening, wakeup.
James and GSB, who were supposedly "not" communicating, nor "not aware" that whose ID was the other on TPMM cannot explain their common sudden change in schedule. They've supposedly been leaving about 10:PM each night; yet, both were awake at 2AM on the 17th. However, the notes they left on the boards to eachother would ask us to believe that they were only communicating on the board. That defies reason.
No Electronic Record
Where there is no evidence where there should be evidence, that missing evidence is admissible. Electronic data does not support the assertion there are two different people in two different location. There were no phone calls, e-mail, or IM transmission record indicating a call, communication, or other external alert sent from the computer; nor is there any indication that either was signaling eachother. Neither have expressly denied that they share a common IP, as would be expected if they were two different people in different locations.
Rather than presenting any evidence to refute any finding of a common ID, they've presented no record, assertion, or evidence providing any confidence that they are two different people; in two different locations; with two different utility bills, phone records, or computers. Rather, one admits they have shared a computer.
Note the board comments they left would suggest that they were using the TPMM board to comment on things, as if leaving notes for eachother; but this appears to be a ruse. The comments left on the 17th mentioning eachother appear intended to create the impression that there were two different people, however, two friends, with the same schedule, would have no need to leave these kinds of comment in public.
Comparison of Timelines
We can compare the schedules for both ID's using two columns and observe some common trends and patterns across both ideas, confirming the IP connection. The timelines below are a snapshot of times between April 14th and April 17, 2008. The two columns below represent a section of posting times between GSB27 (Bill, left) and JamesDD, on right. The times are listed from top, to bottom, most recent (top) to oldest (bottom).
GSB27............................James
...........................April 17, 2008 8:38 AM
.
[Sleep]
.
...........................April 17, 2008 2:43 AM
April 17, 2008 2:03 AM...........................
April 17, 2008 2:01 AM
...........................April 17, 2008 1:24 AM
.
[IP Connection Disclosed]
.
...........................April 16, 2008 9:22 PM
[Evening Break]
...........................April 16, 2008 3:31 PM
...........................April 16, 2008 2:25 PM
...........................April 16, 2008 2:25 PM
...........................April 16, 2008 12:18 PM
...........................April 16, 2008 12:17 PM
...........................April 16, 2008 11:47 AM
...........................April 16, 2008 11:45 AM
.
[Morning Break]
.
...........................April 16, 2008 4:54 AM
...........................April 16, 2008 4:42 AM
...........................April 16, 2008 4:42 AM
.
[Sleep]
.
...........................April 15, 2008 9:43 PM
...........................April 15, 2008 9:40 PM
...........................April 15, 2008 9:40 PM
...........................April 15, 2008 9:39 PM
...........................April 15, 2008 8:58 PM
...........................April 15, 2008 7:59 PM
...........................April 15, 2008 5:15 PM
.
[Break]
.
...........................April 15, 2008 1:58 PM
...........................April 15, 2008 1:54 PM
...........................April 15, 2008 8:39 AM
April 15, 2008 8:30 AM
.
[Sleep]
.
April 14, 2008 11:02 PM...........................
April 14, 2008 11:00 PM...........................
April 14, 2008 10:59 PM...........................
April 14, 2008 10:56 PM...........................
April 14, 2008 10:31 PM...........................
April 14, 2008 8:40 PM...........................
April 18, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spaceholder
April 18, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blended IDs and ID Confusion: Using Wrong ID To Post Comment
This note discusses the phenomena of blending or confusing IDs. We start with a definition of ID blending, indicators that the IDs are connected to a single source, compare key phrases across both IDs suspected of blending, then discuss the implications.
ID Blending vs Composite ID
Avatar ID Blending occurs when someone with one trait posts with those traits under another ID. People may use two different IDs to mask the connection between the two profiles, identities, or avatars. This is done sometimes to continue a discussion without attaching a specific name or history to that author.
With time, they may gradually post information with information from the original, discredited avatar. This is known as a composite ID, where two distinct avatars blend into a single composite; then multiple IDs share common traits between the formerly distinct IDs. Once the connection between the current and other ID is established, it's possible to apply the lessons of one ID to the other, connected IDs.
Detecting ID Deception, Abuse
Sometimes people may be discredited under one ID, they may hope to start posting with a new ID. Indeed, when someone attempts to perpetuate a ruse ID, they may hide part of their personality in one Avatar or ID, and emphasize other traits in another ID. However, with the ID blending, the new avatar may link with the discredited ID. The ruse surfaces when one or both IDs substantially mirror eachother, and portions of one ID bleed into another; or when writing style of one ID substantially matches a second ID.
The error is detected when a comment, consistent with one ID, is accidentally posted under another ID. One avatar with an aggressive writing style may take on a passive attitude, or vice versa. This error is more likely to occur when someone is under stress, confused, or has not well thought through their efforts to deceive.
Case Study
This comment focuses on the ID blending of GSB27 and JamesDD. Their personalities have blended, as have their writing style, and use of key words. The error is detected when previous issues are inexplicably dropped, but key words are repeated across both profiles.
GSB27 and JamesDD have confused their IDs. The evidence strongly supports the conclusion that the person behind GSB27 has accidentally posted a comment intended to be written as if GSB27 had written it, but they, in error, used the wrong ID, JamesDD.
Inexplicable Changes
There is no reasonable explanation why James has dropped his concern about one ID, but continues only for a second. By his own admission, James has had too limited time to justify his original assertion, or a change in that assertion. The most reasonable conclusion is the original concern was dubious, intended to create the illusion JamesDD and GSB were two different people, when they were not. Also, James dropped his concern with GSB because the original, intended target was someone else.
Common Location Description
GSB comments elsewhere substantially match JamesDD comments:
James Concern With GSB Conduct Inexplicably Dissolves
Before we examine common terms across both IDs, let's consider what someone might find offensive, and track whether that stated offense is or is not sustained. In this case, James is asking us to believe that conduct by GSB is inappropriate:
At this juncture, James would have us believe that he finds offensive GSB's conduct; yet, later, despite this concern, James drops his concern with GSB, and only focuses on another. Without explanation, James later refuses to comment on GSB's conduct James supposedly found offensive on April 15th.
This inconsistency is important. It suggests the original concern was disingenuous, either incorrect, a ruse, or misapplied; and the basis for changing that assessment was equally dubious. James appears to have hoped to gain credibility by attacking GSB's offensive conduct; then used that public support to later sustain an attack on one.
The objective of the attack wasn't merely to discredit another; but to distract attention from the original ruse, and failure to sustain that attack on the original targets. The misdirection was the ruse of appearing to have a relationship with one, drop concerns against them, then join forces against a third, without explaining the change.
Blended Writing Styles: Direct Comment Style, But Passive ID
It's useful to compare the writing style of one ID; and compare it with the writing style of another. Here, a direct writing style of one ID has bled into a passive, less confident ID.
This comment has a very short, direct writing style, unlike James' first, long comment. The writing style substantially matches the direct, blunt writing style of GSB; and is not consistent with the first writing style of James, where he is meek, indirect, and unsure of himself. It appears GSB intended for GSB to make this comment; but incorrectly posted the comment under the James ID:
This suspicion is confirmed by the common language, and inexplicable failure to remain concerned about GSB, as was the case in the original comment. Indeed, James hasn't explained why he didn't remain concerned about GSB's original conduct.
The inconsistency is noteworthy. Despite this oversight, James has not been provided any new information that would justify removing the lable "troll" from one, but keeping it with another. At best GSB has substantially confirmed Jame's earlier concerns, yet James fails to address why he is not still concerned.
Blending ID, Deception Error: JamesDD Adopts GSB Language
James had not had enough interaction to know whether someone was or wasn't a troll; rather, GSB27 is the ID focusing on the key word "trolls". Putting aside the vague definition of "troll", notice who's using the word vaguely: GSB.
Misdirection: Inconsistent Timelines, Assessments, Decisions
Earlier, James claimed he had "no time" interacting on the board, and did not understand about linking, blogs, or how things were structured. However, by his own words, his assertions have been dsicredited.
Originally, James concluded GSB's conduct was offensive; but later dropped his concern with GSB. Putting aside his original assertion, James -- new the the board -- hasn't had enough time after first contact to know how conduct has or hasn't changed. The only reasonable conclusions is GSB through the James ID is re-stating GSB's projection of GSB's flaming-troll conduct onto others. In making absurd comments, and projecting insecurities onto others with absurd accusations, GSB/James would satisfy the definition of "flamer":
This person may "troll" message boards and chat rooms, posting inappropriate messages or bothering community members. This disruption is called "flaming" the community.
Projection
GSB himself is acting like a flamer and a troll; then projecting that through both IDs.
April 19, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Testing
Don't want to necessarily cue up the Oliver Stone movie theme music here but what if gsb et al are one person -and that person is trying to spread disinformation in a public forum about an ongoing legal court case that might be heading for another retrial. And then what if that same person had an affiliation with a party to that on going legal contretemps - would that person spreading this disinformation have any legal or civil liabilty exposure for the knowing distribution of said disinformation regarding that ongoing case ?
April 19, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very interesting.
April 19, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try this.
April 19, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Al,
I do not jump onto this blog too much anymore. Your posting made me laugh though. Oliver Stone...ha. Ok, what testing (or whateever his or her real name is) fails to point out in the previous posts is that I did in fact provide my previous computer to a friend. Now I am going through the pains of a new computer.
Anyhow, as for the disinformation and what not, I am somewhat shocked that I am accused as such, but not surprised with the crazy crap that is posted on this blog.
The fact of the matter is I have posted continued links to the news reports on the Wecht case. As you can tell from my postings, I am not in favor of the prosecution's lack luster case or the use of the US Attorney's office in this political witchhunt. I do not beleive that the White House is involved and have yet to see any such proof provided. Everything to date is speculation.
April 22, 2008 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Blended ID Assessments
Once we have multiple avatars with suspected blended IDs, we can compare the text to assess other agendas. Let's consider some common writing styles and appeals between both profiles.
Personal, Special Appeals, Requests
Notice this request, suggesting follow-up questions to Iglesias, requested two [2] hours after TPMM posted the Iglesias interview. Notice the common terms, phrasing, and names between the two IDs:
- Congratulations
- Kiel
- Specific requests
Comment: The government has the burden of proof. If he couldn't "afford" to defend himself, why not get a public defender? Seems more like a petit prosecution without an adequate defense.
Comment: Perhaps we could hear more specific actions, questions, and analysis they would like to see done on those requests. It would be more helpful if there were specific requests for information, questions, or something novel.
April 19, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
James/William may wish to respond:
- What was the reason for removing IP-connected data from public discussion?
- Did legal friends at the search engine comply with a request to have the data removed?
- When was the last time they had a chance to google the phrase "patients whose immune systems had been compromised"?
- When was the last time they visited 633 United States Post Office before 8:30 on a Saturday?
- What's their favorite middle name that begins with the letter "R"?
- Could they explain their name in the context of sporting equipment corporate names: Would they call it a slam dunk, or merely a dribble?
- What was the reason for the reference to Villanova and the boating issue: Were things washed up, or merely good to excellent?
- If they had to choose a middle name for themselves would it begin with the letter L, or something else?
April 19, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink