I'll be travelling on business for a few weeks and so blogging will be minimal.In the meantime, if you've landed here looking for what I've written about Richard Warman, Bernard Klatt, and the Cools post, there's a lot to read. The more important posts, which summarize many of the others, are the following:
- "Why there is room for doubt that Richard Warman wrote the Cools post", which points out that the IP that Warman and 90sAREover shared was a web-caching proxy that during this period will have been shared by hundreds of thousands if not millions of Rogers customers;
- "Load-balancing in action: did Richard Warman and 90sAREover really have the same IP?", where I demonstrate that it is not completely clear that 90sAREover and Warman did in fact have the same IP;
- "One of these things is not like the others: why Richard Warman is innocent", where I point out that the computer used to write the Cools post was different from the one Warman was using when he visited these sites;
- "Klatt's Clunkers: why Bernard Klatt should be disbelieved, which lists posts in which I demonstrate deficiencies in Bernard Klatt's testimony about this matter;
- Revisiting the lucy-90sAREover identification, where I consider each element of the Cools case.
- Blog about others as you'd have them blog about you.
Buckets
2 comments:
Dear Bouquets of Grey,
I am sympathetic to your argument that the bloggers in question rushed to judgment on Warman (and I defer to your claims re the i.p. addresses).
But I would still like to know what you think of Warman's tactics. After all, even if he didn't post about Cools, we know he has been making racist comments on the internet for years. Do you think this is OK if his aim was to uncover the identities of neo-Nazis? I certainly don't.
Finally, if he didn't write the Cools post then why did he and the CHRC try and stop Lemire from obtaining Rogers' i.p. Surely if he was innocent he would have been happy to uncover the real culprit.
A good series of questions, Craig.
On Warman`s posting on the internet, I don`t know enough to say. There are a lot of wild accusations around, but everytime I begin to look at one, I find half-truths, mistakes, and mischaracterization. Discovering exactly where the untruths are, however, is pretty time consuming. (Cools took months to figure out.)
As to the tactics regarding Rogers,I don´t pretend to know much about court room strategy. Since the technical evidence points elsewhere, however, I think we have to assume that the reasons for opposing the Rogers subpoena lie elsewhere. (Wouldn´t it go without saying that parties in court will always try to minimize avenues for discovery in the other side?)
Post a Comment