«

On Mon, 18 May 2009 05:09:58 -0500
VanguardLH <> wrote:

> Depends on your personal experience. In the newsgroups that I visit
> and where trolls and nymshifters are truly a problem, they ARE smart
> enough to know how to alter almost all the headers. There's a few
> that they are stuck with if they don't operate their own NNTP server
> and peer it to other NNTP servers.
>
> I assumed the nymshifter was smart enough to know about UA strings.
> You ASSUMED the nymshifter was uneducated on changing their UA string.
> Those assumptions *do* have significant affect on the hypothesis
> derived as a cause of those assumptions, so Occam's Razor does not
> apply.

Eh? Occam's Razor says that if it appears to be two different posters
then it /is/ two different posters, i.e. there's no need to engage in
lengthy discussion of what techniques the nymshifter may have employed
because there is no nymshifting going on.

Rob Morley wrote:

> Eh? Occam's Razor says that if it appears to be two different posters
> then it /is/ two different posters, i.e. there's no need to engage in
> lengthy discussion of what techniques the nymshifter may have employed
> because there is no nymshifting going on.

The (over-)simplest expression of Occam's Razor is "The simplest
explanation for a phenomenon is most likely the correct explanation."

The NPH is traditionally a very reliable nntp header, not lending itself to
easy forgery.

'Jumping' to the conclusion that two GG headers with the same IP were of the
same poster nymshifting might be considered 'the simplest explanation' --
but it makes unwarranted asssumptions.

In reality, Occam's Razor in English might be expressed " ... the
explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible,
eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of
the explanatory hypothesis or theory."

Analyzing GG headers can place some attention to lines other than those of
nntp posting, because the opportunities for nntp client preloading are not
the same.



--
Mike Easter

Mike Easter wrote:

> Rob Morley wrote:
>
>> Eh? Occam's Razor says that if it appears to be two different posters
>> then it /is/ two different posters, i.e. there's no need to engage in
>> lengthy discussion of what techniques the nymshifter may have employed
>> because there is no nymshifting going on.
>
> The (over-)simplest expression of Occam's Razor is "The simplest
> explanation for a phenomenon is most likely the correct explanation."
>
> The NPH is traditionally a very reliable nntp header, not lending itself to
> easy forgery.
>
> 'Jumping' to the conclusion that two GG headers with the same IP were of the
> same poster nymshifting might be considered 'the simplest explanation' --
> but it makes unwarranted asssumptions.
>
> In reality, Occam's Razor in English might be expressed " ... the
> explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible,
> eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of
> the explanatory hypothesis or theory."
>
> Analyzing GG headers can place some attention to lines other than those of
> nntp posting, because the opportunities for nntp client preloading are not
> the same.

I took the definition from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocam%27s_razor
(which is what you cited in your English interpretation). The
assumption that the nymshifter/troll knows or does not know how to alter
the UA string does make a difference in the hypothesis (of what web
browser and/or OS the poster was using).

I had asked "Where is the OS information specified in those headers in
the example posts?" That was my focus from that point forward in the
subthread, not whether the 2 posts were by the same person.

The poster does not know how to change the UA string.
The poster does know how to change the UA string.

Um, so with these being mutually exclusive, and with BOTH being
assumptions, just how is either one a lesser number of assumptions than
the other? They're both assumptions. They both count as 1 assumption.
Neither can be eliminated from the argument. Ocam's Razor does NOT say
"make a guess as to which assumption is the most often experienced
case". Since trolls aren't the norm, they aren't the majority of
posters, and (from what I've seen within this exception of posters)
those that nymshifter do have more knowledge of headers than common
posters.

In article <gurc59$30v$>, VanguardLH wrote:
>
>Depends on your personal experience. In the newsgroups that I visit and
>where trolls and nymshifters are truly a problem, they ARE smart enough
>to know how to alter almost all the headers. There's a few that they
>are stuck with if they don't operate their own NNTP server and peer it
>to other NNTP servers.
>
>I assumed the nymshifter was smart enough to know about UA strings. You
>ASSUMED the nymshifter was uneducated on changing their UA string.

We've got personal experience of her. Either she's not that smart, or
she's smart enough to consistent to consistently fake not being that
smart when using the judith persona or the more obvious socks.

On Mon, 18 May 2009 15:31:06 -0500, VanguardLH <> wrote:

>I took the definition from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocam%27s_razor
>(which is what you cited in your English interpretation). The
>assumption that the nymshifter/troll knows or does not know how to alter
>the UA string does make a difference in the hypothesis (of what web
>browser and/or OS the poster was using).

"Do not unnecessarily multiply hypotheses". In this case do not
introduce hypothetical header-forging when the much more obvious
explanation - two individuals sharing a widely-used proxy - also
explains the observed facts. Nobody seems to have advanced an
explanation as to how I could also have been posting from a ClaraNet
dialup account.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Newsgroup may contain nuts.

VanguardLH wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:

>> The (over-)simplest expression of Occam's Razor is "The simplest
>> explanation for a phenomenon is most likely the correct explanation."

> I had asked "Where is the OS information specified in those headers in
> the example posts?" That was my focus from that point forward in the
> subthread, not whether the 2 posts were by the same person.

I'm not clear on why you are returning to that question of yours at this
time.

> The poster does not know how to change the UA string.
> The poster does know how to change the UA string.

Do/Did you (earlier) mean 'where is the OS information specified
*reliably*'? I assumed that you 'overlooked' where the OS/browser
information was 'seen' when you asked the question - seen as reliable or
not -- but I did not engage in 'informing' you where to find the UA
information, nor did I engage in speculating - aloud, in a post here -
whether the UA information was likely correct -- except that I did
'personally' speculate that it was most likely correct rather than bogus --
in my 'assumption' process. Razorishly.

> Um, so with these being mutually exclusive, and with BOTH being
> assumptions, just how is either one a lesser number of assumptions than
> the other? They're both assumptions. They both count as 1 assumption.
> Neither can be eliminated from the argument. Ocam's Razor does NOT say
> "make a guess as to which assumption is the most often experienced
> case".

I think the 'parsimonious' nature of Occam's implies that all kinds of
assumptions are going to be made in the name of efficiency.

> Since trolls aren't the norm, they aren't the majority of
> posters, and (from what I've seen within this exception of posters)
> those that nymshifter do have more knowledge of headers than common
> posters.

It isn't clear to me whether you are debating/discussing something with *me*
or with something that Rob Morley said to *you*.



--
Mike Easter

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> "Do not unnecessarily multiply hypotheses". In this case do not
> introduce hypothetical header-forging when the much more obvious
> explanation - two individuals sharing a widely-used proxy - also
> explains the observed facts. Nobody seems to have advanced an
> explanation as to how I could also have been posting from a ClaraNet
> dialup account.

I don't think Occam's holds the high ground here.

From a 'legal' point of view, there is not sufficient evidence to be
convincing beyond the shadow of a doubt -- that JS's implied allegation that
LK is GC -- is true.

However, from another perspective, it seems to me that the odds that some
unknown stranger to urc with no posting history would pop into urc with you
and the others and post from the same 'proxy' as yours is less than the odds
that --- you might engage in a nymshift for tossing a trivial barb unlike
your usual nature/self -- and that you might consider/presume or even
overestimate the commonality or 'wide usage' of the scansafe IP which you
use infrequently compared to your NIN/Forte posts.

And further that you might underestimate JS's propensity to try to tie a
(likely) nymshifted post to you.

I think the odds are that the LK posts are nymshift. I think the odds are
greater that they were posted by you than someone else urc who hasn't yet
been accused. I don't think it is a 'bad' thing if you did and I think that
JS is being 'overwrought' about it - in demanding an answer and making a
case of it in urc and 24hshd as well.

I'm sure that it must be trivial to be able to post from a claranet IP, but
I'm not familiar with UK carriers. I have no idea how many different kinds
of windows machines and browsers, XP, Vista, IE7, IE8, Tbird, you can put
your hands on. I could certainly easily post from a lot of different OSes
and browsers and IP sources and not have to forge any UA.



--
Mike Easter

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Mon, 18 May 2009 15:31:06 -0500, VanguardLH <> wrote:
>
>>I took the definition from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocam%27s_razor
>>(which is what you cited in your English interpretation). The
>>assumption that the nymshifter/troll knows or does not know how to alter
>>the UA string does make a difference in the hypothesis (of what web
>>browser and/or OS the poster was using).
>
> "Do not unnecessarily multiply hypotheses". In this case do not
> introduce hypothetical header-forging when the much more obvious
> explanation - two individuals sharing a widely-used proxy - also
> explains the observed facts. Nobody seems to have advanced an
> explanation as to how I could also have been posting from a ClaraNet
> dialup account.
>
> Guy

Hmm, apparently you don't want to address my hypothesis that the UA
string might've been forged. You're stuck on the "must've been from 2
posters". Okay. So far, you have not proved that the UA string was
forged -- and you can't.

On Mon, 18 May 2009 14:20:45 -0700, "Mike Easter" <>
wrote:

>However, from another perspective, it seems to me that the odds that some
>unknown stranger to urc with no posting history would pop into urc with you
>and the others and post from the same 'proxy' as yours is less than the odds
>that --- you might engage in a nymshift for tossing a trivial barb unlike
>your usual nature/self -- and that you might consider/presume or even
>overestimate the commonality or 'wide usage' of the scansafe IP which you
>use infrequently compared to your NIN/Forte posts.

Or it's a work colleague, or someone else.

>And further that you might underestimate JS's propensity to try to tie a
>(likely) nymshifted post to you.

No, I am in no doubt as to her absolute determination to pursue
everything to the bitterest end and beyond. I posted a link to a
report a while back, she spent ages trolling (probably is trolling
still) about some fantastic hypothesis involving a conspiracy of some
sort, when all that actually happened was that she left a space in
when she reassembled a wrapped link. She is as mad as a badger and
utterly obsessed with scoring points over me, I don't think I'd want
to risk something like that. If I wanted to nym-shift then I'd post
from another country using a remote session to one of the servers I
manage around the world. If I could even be bothered to go to such
lengths to take pot-shots at the deranged "nuxx bar" and risk yet
another spate of abusive phone calls.

>I think the odds are that the LK posts are nymshift. I think the odds are
>greater that they were posted by you than someone else urc who hasn't yet
>been accused. I don't think it is a 'bad' thing if you did and I think that
>JS is being 'overwrought' about it - in demanding an answer and making a
>case of it in urc and 24hshd as well.

You're missing a point: at least one comes from a completely different
netblock belonging to an ISP with whom I have no connection
whatsoever.

This group has three long-standing and malignant trolls all of whom
have made extensive use of nym shifting, and at least one of whom has
also used header forgery in the past. They are "nuxx bar", "nully"
(who has nym-shifted twice today already) and "judith". I post using
my own identity rather than hiding behind a computer.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Newsgroup may contain nuts.

On Mon, 18 May 2009 22:00:48 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<> wrote:

>On Mon, 18 May 2009 15:31:06 -0500, VanguardLH <> wrote:
>
>>I took the definition from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocam%27s_razor
>>(which is what you cited in your English interpretation). The
>>assumption that the nymshifter/troll knows or does not know how to alter
>>the UA string does make a difference in the hypothesis (of what web
>>browser and/or OS the poster was using).
>
>"Do not unnecessarily multiply hypotheses". In this case do not
>introduce hypothetical header-forging when the much more obvious
>explanation - two individuals sharing a widely-used proxy - also
>explains the observed facts. Nobody seems to have advanced an
>explanation as to how I could also have been posting from a ClaraNet
>dialup account.
>
>Guy

Voodoo. I thought everyone knew that.

<waving at you from the SDM>

--
<rw-rw-rw-> I don't care if it can reproduce sound well enough for
dolphins to talk to each other through it, if you can't grep it it's
evil.