Your IP address is 220.127.116.11
View Author detected.
view author posts with search matches:
Retrieve source record and display it.
Your IP address is 18.104.22.168
q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'JackT%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC
DB_result: Resource id #6
|Date: 2008/05/22 00:19:22, Link|
Um. Yeah. I am banned.
I only know about this forum via the link on the "Apology Thread" thread in question on Telic Thoughts. In fact I just joined here a few minutes ago.
"anon9" is most certainly not my sock puppet. He seems to be merely a rabble-rouser having some fun: that thread has 119 posts and counting.
I must say I am surprised. Anyone with access to the server logs would immediately be able to confirm that "anon9" is not a sock puppet (of me, anyway). But it would appear that everyone assumed it, whereupon it became true. Who would have thought that ID proponents would believe in something without evidence?
|Date: 2008/06/01 16:32:31, Link|
I emailed Guts (his address was listed at Telic Thoughts) asking him to check the server logs to verify that I have no sock puppets. I do not know if he is the site administrator, but based on posts here it looks like he has some sort of admin priviledges. His response,
Since I was banned before I had a chance to post on that thread ("The Apology Thread"), I left a response to Bilbo at his blog. In that I said, in part: I am tempted to wax philosophical about how ID proponents are inclined to believe in propositions without evidence. It is enough, however, to merely state the facts: (1) "anon9" is not my sock puppet; (2) several members of Telic Thoughts assumed he/she is a sock puppet, without evidence; (3) I was banned on this assumption; (4) It would be trivial to clear my name by checking to server logs to confirm that anon9 is not my sock puppet; (5) This check was requested and (very immaturely) refused.
|Date: 2008/06/01 17:32:20, Link|
|And may I add: is it not ironic that Mike Gene is himself a sock puppet? It is no secret that for years the person who currently calls himself Mike Gene posted at talk.origins under the name Julie Thomas using the nntp feed at Case Western Reserve University. And Michael Thomas (http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/orpages/or122/thomas.htm) is probably the same person as well.|
|Date: 2008/06/07 17:38:35, Link|
Wow. You are either being willfully blind to counter-evidence or you are being outright dishonest. You failed to mention that most of my posts were *not* made from an anonymous proxy.
I do use a proxy when I post from work. I would advise everyone to use a proxy when posting from work. Given the ideologically charged nature of the subject, it is not unlikely that a deranged kook could launch a DoS (or some other) attack on the originating IP address. This does not matter so much for an anonymous residential ISP, where one can either ask the ISP to block the attacks or obtain a new IP by resetting the cable modem. But for a work IP address the problem is huge, causing loss of business while threatening one's job security in the process. If it is not commonplace for people to use a proxy from work, then it should be.
Now if I had *always* used an anonymous proxy then the situation would be completely different. There would be no anchor point at all, no unique signature. But you do have a unique signature: the Comcast Cable IP address used for the vast majority of my posts, which is obviously not a proxy. By omitting this fact you have willingly made a fraudulent argument. How many of my posts used a proxy? One? Two? Shame on you.
So that explains the proxy. No case there. Next:
As I said previously in email, my questions were no more strident than what a British journalist would ask a British politician. And as olegt said, it seems that it wasn't just my tone that offended you. My tone is a different matter, however, which may be set aside for the moment.
Wait! I just mentioned olegt, and I used almost the same phrase as he did: "it seems that it wasn't just my tone that offended you." Does this mean I am a sock puppet of olegt? No, I referenced olegt by name and attributed the quote to him. In the same manner, anon9 referenced my post directly and repeated the same phrasing. That you we see this as suspicious is odd to say the least.
In anon9's post, he or she made reference to a weeks-old post. If you do not assume what you are trying to prove, namely that anon9 is me, then the conclusion is that anon9 is a lurker. He's talking about a post in the past! He was lurking and he knows about JackT. The vast majority of posters have *not* made the "Jack T"-instead-of-"JackT" mistake. This puts anon9 into that vast majority. Again I am quite amazed that you would view something like this as "evidence."
Again, if you do not already assume what you are trying to prove, then the conclusion is that anon9 is a lurker. And again I am in near disbelief that I have to point the following out to you. The thread was about JackT. It was an apology to JackT from Bilbo. But Bilbo does not link to or reference what he is apologizing for. Before the days of google, you *may* have had a point. But since we do not live in the early 90s, and since anon9 is probably motivated to find the wrongdoing on behalf of Bilbo, he conducts the simple search:
And with that he sees the complete history of JackT at Telic Thoughts. Whether I made a post in a thread with 200 comments, 20000 comments, or 20 comments is immaterial. My comments are all in plain view. As you mentioned, there aren't many of them.
Joy made an extraordinary claim: that she witnessed "the only legally established miracle in American jurisprudence." Just pause for a moment consider how significant this would be. If there were such a "legally established miracle," it would be made famous by apologists and trumpeted ad infinitum.
When asked for a way to verify her claim, Joy did not answer. A skeptical person would conclude that in all likelihood Joy is mistaken. Thus your argument here boils down to: "JackT and anon9 are both skeptical, ergo they are the same person."
And Mike, I *hope* you did not mean to imply that anon9 made his post *after* I was banned. That would indeed be suspicious. But in fact I anon9 posted *before* I was banned. Big difference.
I need only quote the first sentence of the first post I made at Telic Thoughts, http://telicthoughts.com/the-rabbits-eye-view-of-the-duck
Most or many of my posts at Telic Thoughts were focused on trying to understand your position, up to and including the last questions I asked you. As you see above, I said at the very beginning that I was reading the archives.
And again you are operating under early-90s assumptions. Google is your friend. A key ingredient in assessing a person's point of view of ID is his attitude toward religion. If you google "site:telicthoughts.com MikeGene religion", Myers is the third hit and Dawkins is the tenth. Both are on the first page. Since I read Dawkins and Myers, my curiousity was piqued. You may choose not to believe me, but you cannot claim that your argument has merit, especially when I told you explicitly that I was rummaging through the history of Telic Thoughts.
The rest of your response consists of the proxy red herring, which I have already covered.