On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 04:31:09AM +1000, Tim Lambert wrote: > doc Zox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > In a message dated 8/6/03 12:28:06 PM, you wrote: > > > > <<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/958535/posts>> > > > > it would also appear that the freepers have unmasked the culpret: > > > > Domain ID:D98296683-LROR > > Domain Name:ASKJOHNLOTT.ORG > > Created On:27-Jun-2003 22:10:30 UTC > > Tech Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Name Server:GW.DATAGRAM.COM > > Name Server:NS.CONTAGIOUSMEDIA.ORG > > > > Registrant: > > Peretti, Jonah (EGLJTYIIMD) > > 45 Main Street > > 12th Floor > > Brooklyn, NY 11201 > > US > > That's a bit confusing -- Peretti is actually the registrant for > contagiousmedia.org, not askjohnlott.org. > > However the address listed for askjohnlott.org, which used to be > bogus, is now 45 Main Street, 12th Floor, Brooklyn, NY 11201, so > Peretti is definitely involved.
Not necessarily. There is little or no fact checking behind the registration data -- as the previous bogus address should have reminded you. There isn't even basic sanity checking like verifying whether Washington, D.C. is in the state of New York. However, another, more persuasive, bit of evidence is that the whois listing for askjohnlott.org indicates that one of its two (authoritative) name servers is NS.CONTAGIOUSMEDIA.ORG. Unless "Mary Rosh" has cracked NS.CONTAGIOUSMEDIA.ORG, it could not be an authoritative name server without the owners' active effort. Somewhat more coincidentally, CONTAGIOUSMEDIA.org lists the same two name servers that askjohnlott.org lists. Also, they have the same IP address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ccurley]$ host CONTAGIOUSMEDIA.org CONTAGIOUSMEDIA.org has address 38.144.92.91 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ccurley]$ host askjohnlott.org askjohnlott.org has address 38.144.92.91 > > http://timlambert.org/2003/08#0808 > Chronicle on askjohnlott.org > > Scott Carlson at The Chronicle of Higher Education has a story > (subscription required) about askjohnlott. He quotes Lott: > > "Someone called me up a couple of weeks ago, very angry, claiming > that they got an e-mail from me, telling them that I was advising > them to do illegal things," like buy guns illegally, he says. "I > just thought the person was joking. After I was done talking to > them, I found this crazy Web site." > > This doesn't make sense. If the person believed that the email was > from Lott, the natural thing would be to reply to it, not phone > Lott. Why? This does not follow. Perhaps the caller wanted the faster interaction one gets with a phone call. Or the emotional release. > If they thought that it was from a fake on-line persona, then > they wouldn't have accused the real Lott of giving the advice. > > I also get quoted: > > Tim Lambert, a lecturer in computer science and engineering at the > University of New South Wales, is one of Mr. Lott's most > persistent critics. He says the site was a "pretty silly attempt > to bait Lott." > > "He rose to the bait, getting his friends at The Washington Times > and CNSNews to publicize it," Mr. Lambert says. "If Lott would > have ignored the site, it would have gone away." > > While I was over at the Chronicle I came across a March 21 letter from > Lott responding to a February article in the Chronicle. Lott writes: > > Given the space that the article devoted to my use of a pseudonym > in Internet chat rooms, I should note that I stopped using my own > name because discussions often turned personal and resulted in > people calling me at my office with threatening or obnoxious > remarks. In retrospect, either I should not have participated in > chat rooms or I should have continued to do so under my own name. > > Unfortunately for Lott's story, Google has archives of the discussions > he was in and they never turned personal--everybody was polite to > Lott. Googling will not turn up private, off-list emails or telephone conversations. Also, does google.com have a facility for searching chat room traffic? > Indeed, in one of his postings Lott even complains about getting > threatening phone calls, but not about phone calls from other Internet > posters: > > "You ought to see what happens to my telephone calls when someone > like a Charles Schumer or Josh Sugarmann or Sara Brady makes this > charge. I get lots of threatening telephone calls and > letters. These calls don't bother me, though they do greatly upset > my wife." This quote (absent any context) addresses only situations where 1) some famous anti-gunner 2) makes a certain, unspecified charge. It does not address chat traffic at all unless one of the specifc accusers makes the charge on chat room. -- Charles Curley /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign Looking for fine software \ / Respect for open standards and/or writing? X No HTML/RTF in email http://www.charlescurley.com / \ No M$ Word docs in email Key fingerprint = CE5C 6645 A45A 64E4 94C0 809C FFF6 4C48 4ECD DFDB
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
