«

Mike Easter wrote:


Not really any debates with you. Just doesn't seem anything much can be
proved whether the same or different persons submitted those 2 posts.
So far, and from other subthreads:

- We can't tell if the 2 posts are from the same person. Could be they
were made by 2 persons whose routes to the Google Groups server both led
them through the ScanSafe proxy. Could be it was by 1 person. Can't
prove either way.

- Google timestamps are fixed so they cannot imply any geographical data
on the poster(s).

- The UA may indicate the web browser and OS but maybe not. Anyone can
change the UA string reported by their web browser.

So all we're left with is the style of the poster which is hardly
something useful for convincing proof that the 2 posts were made by the
same person. Trolls often change their style when they switch to a
different identity. Imposters will often mimic the style of who they
impersonate.

In the end due to the inability to establish an Internet identity upon
the poster along with all the spam, super-boobs, knee-jerk posting
users, and trolls using Google Groups, probably the best solution is to
simply ignore/hide/delete posts from Google Groupers.

On Mon, 18 May 2009 17:00:57 -0500, VanguardLH <> wrote:

>Hmm, apparently you don't want to address my hypothesis that the UA
>string might've been forged.

Any more than you want to address my point that there is also another
IP connected to the same poster. And weren't you the one who missed a
24 hour time difference, different OS and different browser?

Why the **** would I forge a header string in such detail when I could
trivially easily fire up a session on a machine in a completely
different country?

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.

In article <>, Mike Easter wrote:
>
>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.

The legal point of view would be beyond reasonable doubt if it were a
criminal matter, or on the balance of probabilities. Even by the weakest
standard, judith hasn't got a case.


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

You might underestimate the sun's propensity to rise in the east.

"Judith Smith" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On 18 May 2009 21:52:33 +0100 (BST), (Alan
> Braggins) wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> Ignore the very low probabilities which have been pointed out
> elsewhere of it being different people and just explain how the posts
> were made by different people from the same IP address.
>
> No-one has done that yet.
>
>

I thought people had explained that.

As I understand it, Scansafe is a commercial company that processes all
internet traffic for its clients. It takes inbound and outbound network
traffic and checks it for malware before releasing it inbound into the
clients network or outbound onto the internet through its own servers.
http://www.scansafe.com/managed_serv...lware_scanning

Anyone whose company uses Scansafe for malware protection will have internet
traffic appearing to come from the Scansafe IP addresses.

One of the early posts confirmed that the IP address is registered to
Scansafe.

Scansafe has quite a few customers including those mentioned here
http://www.scansafe.com/resources/customer_case_studies

"Keith T" <> wrote in message
news:6aKdnX-...
> OG wrote:
>
>>> Braggins) wrote:
>>>
>
>>> Ignore the very low probabilities which have been pointed out
>>> elsewhere of it being different people and just explain how the posts
>>> were made by different people from the same IP address.
>>>
>
>>
>> I thought people had explained that.
>>
>
>
> Yeah, I thought it was rather easy.
> At the moment, here at home, there are three people posting stuff right
> now. We all share the same IP address as kindly issued by the DNS server.
> One is running Vista and IE, another is running XP home and Firefox, the
> other is on XP pro and Firefox. I've not yet noticed anyone running around
> posting stuff on each others machines.

And it's the same for Scansafe users, just on a bigger scale and with many
more users.

On May 19, 12:45*pm, Keith T <n...@home.com> wrote:

> At the moment, here at home, there are three people posting stuff right
> now. We all share the same IP address as kindly issued by the DNS
> server. One is running Vista and IE, another is running XP home and
> Firefox, the other is on XP pro and Firefox. I've not yet noticed anyone
> running around posting stuff on each others machines.

It's called Network Address Translation (NAT) and it's a standard way
of getting round the increasing shortage of public IP addresses. I've
been using a NATted outbound router at home for at least ten years.
As OG says, ScanSafe is just the same but on a bigger scale.

--
Guy

Judith Smith wrote:
> "Mike Easter"

>> 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.

> I would say thanks for the voice of reason and balance.

.... but your dogged pursuit of this issue, which was simply one post
referencing a long post by Nuxx Bar^1 ...

Lou Knee wrote:
> they hate you because you are a piece of **** not because you are a
> motorist
>
> hth

.... doesn't seem to be reasonable or balanced.

Nuxx Bar's post sourced from btcentralplus.com can be seen here
http://snipr.com/ich2q Why Do Some People Hate Motorists?




--
Mike Easter

On May 19, 5:09*pm, Tom Crispin
<kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 May 2009 15:57:56 +0100, Judith Smith
>
> <judithsm...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> >You - and everyone else has yet to explain how someone could easily
> >forge the IP address.
>
> Perhaps that it because no one believes it was forged. *We all know
> that headers, including IP addresses, can be forged, but I don't
> expect that anyone in urc has spent the time and trouble to work out
> how to forge the IP header.

Even you must realise that Chapman is Lou Knee, even if you won't say
so due to the "rule" that no-one must ever say anything against
Chapman however warranted it is. Why else would Chapman have very
carefully avoided answering the question "Did you post as Lou Knee"?
Why on Earth would he not just have said "I didn't post as Lou Knee"?
He's posted enough other **** to this thread.

You know he did it. Everyone does. His continued refusal to admit it
just implicates him further regarding previous things that he's been
accused of.

On 19 May, 16:35, "Mike Easter" <Mi...@ster.invalid> wrote:
> Judith Smith wrote:
> > "Mike Easter"
> >> 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.
> > I would say thanks for the voice of reason and balance.
>
> ... but your dogged pursuit of this issue, which was simply one post
> referencing a long post by Nuxx Bar^1 ...
>
> Lou Knee wrote:
> > they hate you because you are a piece of **** not because you are a
> > motorist
>
> > hth
>
> ... doesn't seem to be reasonable or balanced.
>
> Nuxx Bar's post sourced from btcentralplus.com can be seen herehttp://snipr.com/ich2q* Why Do Some People Hate Motorists?
>

You might wish to have a taste of Nuxx Bar, which might help partly
explain the Lou Knee business:-

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....d2f2ac21?hl=en

Judith Smith is more insidious. The effect is something like a musical
saw, in the hands of someone who cannot play it, but carries on
interminably anyway.

Judith Smith wrote:

> Go on then - make a post to 24hoursupport.helpdesk from IP address :
> 80.254.146.36

O,k here's a post from 80.254.146.36

Now will you let it go?