ABD, The scenarios aren't even in the same league... there are so many variables with Rossi's situation compared to my simple one. There are just as many facts re: Rossi that one can weave together to support any of several different scenarios (legit, fraud, misinformation, etc.). As I said, speculating about tech/science/processes is what we do here, but people with integrity should try to refrain from speculations about people, unless they have first-hand infomatin; what if you were Rossi, and you were legit? For the most part, I was just adding to Steven's humor by subjecting Guenter to a little of what he was dishing out... there was no indications in his postings that he was doing this purely for the entertainment value! -Mark
-----Original Message----- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 3:16 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi conspiracy. Part III I don't know if Guenter Wildgruber is *his* real name, but Mark_-ZeroPoint most certainly is not a real name. But I'll happily apologize if it is. Mark, here, speculates on something, along with SVJ, about Guenter's mail, that makes some crazy assumptions. If you hit a reply to an actual "vortex-l" post, what happens to the reply depends on, not only the list settings, but also your own email program's settings. It has little or nothing to do with the original email. If the mail is echoed through the list, it will have a Reply-to header supplied by the list. If you look at the headers from his mails, they look quite like headers from other mails. However, how do we know that a mail is from the vortex list? If you only rely upon the [Vo] in the header, you could be easily misled. Some people do send mails to both the list and the individual. That could easily be done by the user who originates the mail. A mail that was cc'd to the individual, as well as sent to to the list, if the individual replies to it, will behave exactly as described. I don't see a cc in Guenter's mails to the list, but he might be bcc'ing the private emails of some. That would produce the same effect for those people. Again, people might do this to suppress further cc's being sent, but to notify an individual that a mail has been sent to the list. Embarrassing, messages like this, assuming a "nefarious reason" for something quite ordinary, don't you think? None of this has any bearing on the cogency of the alleged "Rossi conspiracy." As with most Matters Rossi, we don't have enough information to do more than flap the meaning-making machine, which can churn out endless speculations. I think Guenter was just having fun. He seems to have some level of grasp of the situation, more than can be said for many others. At 12:57 PM 7/14/2012, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: >SVJ wrote: >"While I'm at it, I think Gunter might turn out to be an agent too - >with his own personal agenda. I base this suspicion of mine on the fact >that whenever I hit the reply button from one of Gunter's vortex-l >posts my replies are automatically sent to Gunter's personal email >address, not Vortex. I have come to the disquieting conclusion that >this is a deliberate act of sabotage on Gunter's part, perhaps to >siphon off information from entering the general public domain. You >certainly have to admit the fact that inserting one's personal email >address in lieu of vortex-l may be due to a highly suspicious agenda! >;-) > >I think you're onto something, Steven! > >In another rambling post, Guenter goes on about how adept he is with >technology and wondering whether he should teach his non-techy friends >how to use an iPad, but yet, he can't even configure his email client >to ReplyTo: the proper vortex-l address. there would only seem to be >two possibilities. 1. His computer skills are what he implies, quite >adept, and thus should know how to properly configure his email client, >but doesn't for some nefarious reason; or 2. He isn't what he says he >is, in which case, it might excuse his inability to properly configure >his email client, but then he is misleading readers about his >tech-skills/knowledge. > >I think the first is the more likely one. > >-Mark >
