Ontario (199 = 208 = 200 = 204 = 197 = 209 = 206)

We have been seeing several examples of how quickly the IPs could change for Rogers customers. Another good example comes from the wikipedia article on Ontario. Here is the article'sedit history (again, wikipedia logs read from bottom to top):

	16:30, 19 February 2005	24.235.186.61
(diff)	02:17, 18 February 2005	69.197.107.164 (Talk) (→Introduction (In the begginning))
(diff)	03:27, 16 February 2005	66.185.84.199 (Talk) (→Introduction (In the begginning))
(diff)	03:19, 16 February 2005	66.185.84.208 (Talk) (→The Social Contract)
(diff)	03:16, 16 February 2005	66.185.84.200 (Talk) (→Politics)
(diff)	03:15, 16 February 2005	66.185.84.204 (Talk) (→Politics)
(diff)	03:15, 16 February 2005	66.185.84.197 (Talk) (→Politics)
(diff)	03:14, 16 February 2005	66.185.84.209 (Talk) (→Politics)
(diff)	03:14, 16 February 2005	66.185.84.206 (Talk) (→Politics)
	07:13, 15 February 2005	Earl Andrew (Talk | contribs) m (→Territorial evolution 1788-1899)

Clearly the edits done by 66.185.84.xxx are done by the same user, who has been assigned at least six IPs in five minutes beginning at 03:14, and a seventh within the next few minutes.  (The edits at 03:15 and 03:15 use x.x.x.2o4 and x.x.x.200, the IPs that are associated with the famous Lucy post.)

Toddlers (203 = 199 = 205 = 197 = 198 = 201)

Another example of the fluidity of Rogers' IPs is illustrated by the short-lived wikipedia article involving toddlericon a sub-genre of Lolicon (a kind of Hentai). Its edit history (which is read from the bottom up):

21:36, 21 February 2005	66.185.84.201
01:51, 18 February 2005	66.185.84.201
04:20, 17 February 2005	66.185.84.198
04:19, 17 February 2005	66.185.84.197
04:03, 17 February 2005	66.185.84.197
04:03, 17 February 2005	66.185.84.205
04:02, 17 February 2005	66.185.84.199
04:01, 17 February 2005	66.185.84.203

Again, some anonymous editor has made four edits within two or three minutes, but these edits used four different IPs.  A few minutes later, two other IPs were used in the next two edits.  

Scottsonline (199 = 205 = 200; 204 = 208)

There are many details to be extracted from logs for miscellaneous websites that help illustrate the impermanent nature of Roger's IPs in the years 2003 and 2004. Below are some Rogers IPs extracted from a log for scottsonline.com. Especially, to be noted are the coloured entries.

IP	pages	hits	bandwidth	last visit date
66.185.84.71	2	7	124154	2004 09-02 08:29:00
66.185.84.199	1	1	1686	2004 09-08 13:12:10
66.185.84.205	1	1	1686	2004 09-08 13:26:30
66.185.84.200	4	18	112762	2004 09-08 13:27:06
66.185.84.197	26	86	4103099	2004 09-08 13:28:08
66.185.84.204	1	1	25877	2004 09-12 18:20:44
66.185.84.208	6	41	568401	2004 09-12 18:20:57
66.185.84.69	14	77	959341	2004 09-22 08:09:40
66.185.84.76	6	9	25130	2004 09-24 20:20:29
66.185.84.80	34	284	7429937	2004 09-28 14:01:20

Beginning with the blue entries, it is theoretically possible that four Rogers customers showed up within a few minutes of one another at 13:12:10, 13:26:30, 13:27:06, and 13:28:08 of Sept. 08, 2004. But especially with the last three log entries, it is easier to believe that this is one person, and that it is yet another example of the fluidity of the Rogers IPs, and within a minute-and-a-half, the Scottsonline customer had cycled through 66.185.84.205, -200, and 197.

The same point can be made about the two red entries, from four days later. The two red log entries are only 15 seconds apart, and x.x.x.204 "hits" only a single page once before disappearing and giving way to x.x.x.208.  This is easiest to explain if this is one user whose IP has changed suddenly, as these IPs can be seen to do elsewhere.  

Whether the other IPs reflect the same users, and whether the 'blue-user' and 'red-user' is the same person, is less clear.  But given that these IPs often seem elsewhere to shift into one another, it seems highly likely not only that the red IPs and blue IPs all belong to the same user, but so, too, do the other IPs that we find here: x.x.x.69, x.x.x.76, and x.x.x.80.

video gaming (or, 208 = 80 = etc.)

We have seen that in 2003 and 2004 (and since), Rogers IPs bounce around quite a bit. Indeed, once one begins to look, it is not hard to find other places where the instability of Rogers' IPs can be seen. Consider the postings of a certain Necros at a message board dedicated to video-game graphics in the years 2003-2004. Each post includes not only Necros' name and message, but his IP-address, too, which allows us to detect some more IP-bouncing. 

Necros' first couple dozen posts on the board are from an AOL account. Beginning in September, 2003, however, he begins to post from a series of Rogers IPs:

no. 348	2003/10/02	66.185.84.208 (Rogers)
no. 374, 380	2003/10/19-20	63.139.3.74 (Rogers)*
no. 443	2003/11/30	66.185.84.208 (Rogers)
no. 460, 471	2003/12/27, 2004/01/03	63.139.106.197 (Rogers)*
no. 499, 500, 532	2004/01/11, 17	66.185.84.208 (Rogers)
no. 553, 560, etc.	2004/01/28 - 02/24	63.139.106.197 (Rogers)*
no. 724, 729	2004/03/16, 17	66.185.84.208 (Rogers)
no. 749, 756, etc., etc.	2004/03/24-05/27	69.193.41.176 (Rogers)
no. 1117, 1126, etc.	2004/06/02, 06, 19, 07/15	66.185.84.208 (Rogers)
no. 1214, 1225, 1238	2004/08/08, 11, 13	66.185.84.80 (Rogers)
no. 1256	2004/08/17	66.185.84.208 (Rogers)
no. 1265, 1274, 1292	2004/08/21, 23, 25	69.193.222.114 (Rogers)
no. 1355	2004/07/07	66.185.84.208 (Rogers)
no. 1398	2004/09/21	142.150.5.189 (U. of Toronto)
no. 1402, 1407, etc.	2004/09/22-10/26	66.185.84.80 (Rogers)
no. 1497	2004/10/21	142.150.5.189 (U. of Toronto)
no. 1502	2004/10/26	142.150.5.189 (U. of Toronto)
no. 1508, 1512, etc.	2004/10/30 - 11/01	66.185.84.80 (Rogers)
no. 1551	2004/11/06	66.185.84.208 (Rogers)
no. 1556	2004/11/11	142.150.107.117 (U. of Toronto)
no. 1585	2004/11/25	142.150.107.159 (U. of Toronto)
no. 1600	2004/12/12	66.185.84.74 (Rogers)
no. 1616, 1620, 1624	2004/12/28-29	66.185.84.80 (Rogers)

The IPs, with the exception of those from the U. of Toronto seem to be all Rogers (with the possible exception discussed below), and again we see the propensity of the IPs to shift. Very common are 66.185.84.208 and 66.185.84.80.

Beginning in 2005, we can add a few more IPs.  A few more posts are here

no. 99, 100

2005/01/19

66.185.84.76 (Rogers)






*According to ARIN: 63.139.106.197 now falls within a block that belongs to PaeTec Communications. In 2004, however, the similar IPs seem to have belonged to Rogers: see this log (search for the IP), and this one under Tue Nov 25 22:58:23 2003 , and this one under 2004/03/07 .

What's in a name: or, 200 = 196 = 197 = 198 = 199 = 205 = 206

We have been seeing that wikipedia histories show that Rogers' subscribers' IP addresses are not completely fixed: one can begin with one IP, shift to another, and then back within a very short space. Klatt testified that when 66.185.84.204 visited the freedomsite, the logs show shifts to 66.185.84.200 and back, and it is clear that this happened a good deal.

A good example of how much shifting could happen comes from the wikipedia article List of Biblical names. As its name implies, it is merely a long alphabetical list of characters who appeal in the bible.

Consider this section of its edit-history from February 2005. (Wikipedia logs are read from the bottom up.)

• 18:01, 14 February 2005 PFHLai (Talk | contribs) (remove {{Vprotectedsmall}})
  
• 03:42, 14 February 2005 PFHLai (Talk | contribs) (+ {{Vprotectedsmall}})
  
• 03:41, 14 February 2005 PFHLai (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by 66.185.84.200 to last version by PFHLai)
  
• 03:37, 14 February 2005 66.185.84.200 (Talk) (→K)
  
• 03:36, 14 February 2005 PFHLai (Talk | contribs) (restore a previous version after vandalism by an Anon. with multiple IPs)
  
• 03:33, 14 February 2005 66.185.84.197 (Talk) (→J)
  
• 03:26, 14 February 2005 66.185.84.198 (Talk) (→I)
  
• 03:24, 14 February 2005 66.185.84.206 (Talk) (→H)
  
• 03:21, 14 February 2005 66.185.84.205 (Talk) (→G)
  
• 03:18, 14 February 2005 66.185.84.199 (Talk) (→E)
  
• 03:13, 14 February 2005 66.185.84.198 (Talk) (→D)
  
• 03:09, 14 February 2005 66.185.84.206 (Talk) (→C)
  
• 03:06, 14 February 2005 66.185.84.196 (Talk) (→B)
  
• 03:03, 14 February 2005 Rje (Talk | contribs) m (rv to last edit by Ihcoyc, semi-blanking)
  
• 03:01, 14 February 2005 66.185.84.200 (Talk) (→A)
  

Here you can see that an editor began with 66.185.84.200, the IP mentioned by Klatt in his testimony, and in the course of 36-minutes, his IP was shifted at least 9 times. (I say 'at least', because there is no way of knowing that there weren't shifts between these postings.)

(It is clear that the user is the same -- he is engaging in what in wikipedia is called blanking-vandalism.)

Thomas the Tank Engine III: or how 208 = 202 = 200 = 80 = 78 = 81

We have been exploring the edits made to Wikipedia by a series of Rogers IPs in 2003 and 2004. The editor shows consistent interest in a group of articles, many of which relate to the children's program Thomas the Tank Engine.

One such article was its American spin-off Shining Time Station.  Here is the edit history of its first six weeks (the logs read from the bottom):

14:42, 31 December 2003 66.185.84.208
20:22, 30 December 2003 66.185.84.208
20:21, 30 December 2003 66.185.84.208
20:19, 30 December 2003 66.185.84.208
23:27, 12 November 2003 Dysprosia m (fmt)
23:27, 12 November 2003 Minesweeper (fmt)
23:00, 12 November 2003 66.185.84.208
20:59, 12 November 2003 66.185.84.208
20:58, 12 November 2003 66.185.84.208
20:44, 12 November 2003 66.185.84.208
20:41, 12 November 2003 66.185.84.208
00:15, 12 November 2003 66.185.84.208
20:30, 10 November 2003 66.185.84.208
20:14, 10 November 2003 66.185.84.202 (Talk)

As you can see, the article was first created on Nov. 10, 2003 by an anonymous editor using the Rogers IP 66.185.84.202. Only minutes later, 66.185.84.208 edited it, and continued over the next few days. Over the coming months, it is slowly built-up by Rogers IPs such as 66.185.84.200 in this edit of March 2004.  And those of 66.185.84.208, 66.185.84.80, and 66.185.84.81 here:

22:56, 20 November 2004 66.185.84.81
00:10, 10 November 2004 66.185.84.208
21:33, 23 October 2004 66.185.84.80

The five or six Rogers IPs related to this article do not, presumably, show that there was a hot-bed of interest for Shining Time Station in one neighbourhood in Southern Ontario.  Rather, this is again an illustration of how fluid the IPs were in those years: one editor with an interest in Thomas the Tank Engine was assigned different IP addresses at different times.

Thomas the Tank Engine II: or how 208 = 80

At the following link you can see the edit history of the wikipedia article for Salty the Diesel Engine, a minor character in the Thomas the Tank Engine series.

Salty's article was created as a 'stub' on 15 Oct. 2004 by 66.185.84.208; an attempt was made to redirect it to the main Thomas the Tank Engine page, a couple hours later. Within a day, the original editor returned and undid the redirect.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that an editor who uses 66.185.84.208 might sometimes use 66.185.84.80.

Rammstein: or, 204 = 207

We've been looking at the fluidity of Roger's IPs in the years 2003 and 2004. Another example of this comes from late 2004, when a wikipedia used 66.185.88.204 to edit the rock group Rammstein and the song of the same name. A week later, the same editor (one assumes) returned to edit the rock group's article, and then two months later, when they had 66.185.88.207

Rick Mercer's Monday Report I: or, how 204 = 206

I pointed out here that on Sept. 5, 2003, a Rogers customer using 66.x.x.204 seems to have been temporarily rerouted through 66.x.x.200 (and perhaps back-and-forth several times). And here that on Jan. 2, 2004, one was rerouted through x.x.x.208.

On Jan. 1, 2004, someone used 66.x.x.204 to edit Rick Mercer's Monday Report. A snippit of the log for these days can be seen here, where you can see that x.x.x.208 was used Jan. 1, x.x.x.204 on Jan. 3, and yet another IP, 66.185.84.206, on Jan. 5.

Thomas the Tank Engine I: or how 204 = 208

We have already seen here that on Sept. 5, 2003, a Rogers communications customer was routed through both 66.185.84.204 and 66.185.84.200 during a short visit. Below I will point out that sometimes the x.x.x.204 user is routed through x.x.x.208.

One of the largest data set for IPs is wikipedia, since it allows its editors to choose whether or not sign in when they edit. By examining an article's history, you can see the names of editors who signed-in and the IPs of those who didn't.


Take the article Gullane Entertainment Ltd. (which redirects to Gullane Entertainment, a television production company that produces children's programming, best known for the series Thomas the Tank Engine

Now, if you click on the "history" tab above the article, you can see its editing history, where you'll see that on Jan. 2, 2004, 66.185.84.204 made a small edit to the article, replacing an internal link with an external. Only a few days earlier, however, the article was created by 66.185.84.208 and had provided all of the information in it, and within a few months 66.185.84.208 edited the article again.

Now, it is fairly clear that these two IPs are the same editor, and what this illustrates is something that several commentators in other blogs have noted. No one seems to hold these IPs long.

Klatt's testimony, or sometimes 204 = 200

Here are pages 1636-8 of Richard Warman and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal v. Marc Lemire (T1073/5405 vol. 9) of Feb. 8, 2007. In it, Bernard Klatt is testifying about the logs of Lemire's site.

The point to note is that during his visit to the site on Sept. 5, 2003, the user "90sareover" showed up in Lemire's logs both as 66.185.84.204 and as 66.185.84.200, although only visiting the site briefly. Klatt is unable to explain this, but it is a phenomenon that is worth keeping in mind, since if 90sAREover had hit return in one of the moments when his traffic was being channeled through 66.185.84.200, we'd not be having this discussion.

p. 1636:

p. 1637:

p. 1638:

steyn's america alone

The best criticism of Steyn's America Alone.

Ezra Levant bashing

Ezra Levant gets a good tongue-lashing.

double heh

heh

Ontario in decline! (Maybe.)

According to this article in the National Post, some think-tank economist has decided Ontario's position is threatened.

In his analysis, Mr. Orr said that in the mid-1980s, Ontario's standard of living was 15% above the Canadian average, and for a time was briefly tied for first with Alberta in 1986 and 1987. But that has dropped, to roughly 9% above the national average in 2002 and only 7% last year. And it is set to fall farther, according to Global Insight's forecast, to 5.5% above average this year and only 4% by 2010.

The problem with this kind of argument is that Ontario is so large within the Canadian picture that it more or less defines the average.

The Department of Finance and Google Ads

Many odd-balls and cranks inhabit the internet: that is no surprise. The oddest and crankiest add radio their repetoire. Exhibit A, Craig Chandler of Freedom Radio Network. Exhibit B, Doug Aldridge of www.therightside.ca. Doug, as he tells us, spent 26 years in various radio jobs until becoming the Reform candidate in Leeds-Grenville in 1997.


Aldridge now has an internet radio show, where you'll find a collection of the usual suspects: recent interviewees include Gerry Nicholls (formerly of the Taxpayers Federation), Pierre Bourque (Nascar Driver and would-be Drudge), and "the true story of how the Dominion Day tradition was hi-jacked by 13 sneaky Liberals". Interesting! (Or perhaps not.)

Also interesting is the ads on the side. Adwords, in case you didn't know it, are how Google makes much of its money. Advertisers buy an ad, and then pay Google for every internet surfer who clicks on the link and goes to the site. Google uses complex algorithm to place ads where they are most likely to be clicked, and then pays the site-owner (blogger, etc.) on a per click basis.

The top on of these ads leads to a webpage at the Dept. of Finance touting a presentation of Flaherty on Income Trusts under the heading of Tax Fairness Plan. Click through (thus earning both Google and Mr. Aldridge a few cents and you find yourself at Minister Flaherty’s presentation on Income Trusts to the Finance Committee – January 30, 2007

But why is the Department of Finance paying to advertise this page and on a pay-per-click basis?

I hate …

… can't even say the word

And the further one has to ______, the more unpleasant the task of _____ing.

Lemire's motion to subpoena Bell

Below is the motion of Marc Lemire applying that Bell Canada be subpoenaed for information about an IP address that at some point had been associated with "jadewarr", a pseudonym used by Dean Steacy of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. (I've placed copies here to function as archive; the original was posted at Lemire's own site: http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/infiltrators_target_lemire-Motion_filed_for_Bell_Subpoena.html.

Here is a text version that should be easier to search.

Motion by Marc Lemire for Subpoena of Bell Canada ’s Records to Ascertain identity of Stormfront User Account “Jadewarr” May 14, 2007 Re: Warman v. Lemire, Tribunal No. T1073/5405 To: Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, This is a motion by the respondent for a subpoena of Bell Canada for all documents and information concerning the IP Address 70.48.181.203. The facts which form the basis of this motion are as follows: On December 12, 2006, during questioning of Richard Warman by Paul Fromm in the matter of Warman v. Beaumont, he asked about an exhibit filed by the Commission from the Stormfront website which was headed “Welcome, Jadewarr”. Mr. Warman testified that it came from the Commission. T1106-8705 2006-12-12 Warman-Beaumont CHRC attempts to put into evidence a post from Stormfront entitled “ Italy for Italians” at Tab 17. Warman V. Beaumont. The top of the page showed the login name as “Jadewarr’ MR. FROMM: Can you explain what that is, "Welcome, Jadewarr? MR. WARMAN: It appears to be a name that was logged in under. MR. FROMM: By whom? MR. WARMAN: I'm sorry, I don't know. (Page 273, Transcripts) MR. FROMM: Is it your testimony, then, that it's a Commission document? MR. WARMAN: It originates with the Commission. I do not know its providence. (Page 275, transcripts) The person using the account “jadewarr” on Stormfront has attempted to engage Marc Lemire in public conversations on the message board; The person using the account “jadewarr” has engaged a person using the account “fenrisson” numerous times in private conversations on the Stormfront system; The Stormfront “fenrisson” user posts have been used at least twice by the Commission to dismiss complaints against Richard Warman and CAERS as “vexatious”; In March, 2007, Marc Lemire requested and received the e-mail address, IP address, hostname and access to the Stormfront account “jadewarr” from the owner of the Stormfront website, Mr. Don Black The information regarding “jadewarr” provided by Mr. Don Black was as follows: IP Address: 70.48.181.203 Host Name bas2-ottawa23-1177597387.dsl.bell.ca E-Mail address used: jadewarr@yahoo.ca During the hearings in Ottawa on May 10, 2007 , the Commission claimed Section 37 of the Canada’s Evidence Act over questions relating to the Stormfront Account “Jadewarr” The respondent is requesting a subpoena of Bell Canada ’s records to ascertain the user account and subscriber information for the following: User account and subscriber information for the user of IP Protocol address: 70.48.181.203, with hostname bas2-ottawa23-1177597387.dsl.bell.ca, that was connected to the Bell Sympatico and/or Bell Canada network on: December 8th, 2006 at 03:29 PM (EST) (Also Known as: 3:29 PM “ Ontario time” to Bell Canada Corporate Security) It is submitted that this information is relevant to the hearing of the constitutional issues in this case as it shows the activities of the Commission under section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act are going far beyond attempting to ameliorate discrimination, and are impacting the fairness of its procedures, the rights of complainants and respondents both, and the guarantees to Charter rights. The Commission appears to be actively engaging with respondents on message boards, in particular with relevance to this case, Mr. Lemire. The respondent should be able to question Commission witnesses concerning these matters upon the resumption of the hearing in Ottawa in June if in fact “Jadewarr” is proven to be the Commission.

(Note: I've back-dated this in blogger to its original composition date.)

May 10, 2007: Dean Steacy's CHRT testimony

Below is a section of the transcripts from Dean Steacy's testimony from May 10, 2007 (Warman v. Lemire, T1073/5405, vol. 21, pp. 4792).

(This post has been back-dated to the date of the testimony for archival purposes.)

MS KULASZKA:	Mr. Steacy, you were talking before about context and how important it is when you do your investigation. What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate one of these complaints?	p. 4792, line 24
MR. STEACY:	Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value.	4
MS KULASZKA:	Okay. That was a clear answer.	6
MR. STEACY:	It's not my job to give value to an American concept.	8
MS KULASZKA:	I will give you an example. The AOL complaints you spoke about earlier and you said that they dealt with postings about the same-sex marriage debate. Is that right?	10
MR. STEACY:	Yes.	15
MS KULASZKA:	Did you give any kind of consideration to the fact that people were participating in a political debate at the time?	16
MR. STEACY:	Yes.	19
MS KULASZKA:	How did you do so?	20
MR. STEACY:	In evaluating the information or the postings that were given by the posters, what was looked at were the arguments that were being made by the complainant and/or the respondent, and basically the positions of the parties. In one case, one of the respondents put the issue forward of freedom of expression. That was part of his defence, and what he had posted was what he had posted. That information was provided to the complainant for his comment, and, again, based on the facts raised or the information provided by both parties, that is what was presented in the investigation report. I didn't make a value judgment as to whether or not the complainant or the respondent -- that the positions they were taking were right or wrong, I presented both parties' positions. My job is not to evaluate the intent or the reasons why the individual posted what he posted, or evaluate the reasons why the complainant is complaining. He has made an allegation and my job is to investigate whether it happened and, based on the pertinent facts, I come up with a recommendation, and that recommendation is presented to the Commission and the Commission makes the decision to deal with it or not to deal with it, and it recommends what it is allowed to recommend.	p. 4793, line 21
MS KULASZKA:	Do you take into account, for instance, in that case, that there is a political debate, it is very heated, and that people might get emotional about it?	p. 4794, line 23
MR. STEACY:	Yes, that was one of the factors that was taken into account in one of the cases. But, at the same point in time, the comments and how far they went, and where they went, and the level of the intensity that they went, was also factored into the position of the parties.	p. 4795, line 2
MS KULASZKA:	So if someone claims freedom of speech for what they said, it is rejected out of hand?	9
MR. STEACY:	If somebody is claiming freedom of expression, it is not rejected. As I said, freedom of speech is an American concept, it is not a Canadian concept. If somebody said, "I am doing this because of freedom of speech," I would equate that to somebody raising a freedom of expression concept.	12
MS KULASZKA:	But you do realize that freedom of expression is protected under the Charter of Rights in Canada.	19
MR. STEACY:	To a point it is.	22
MS KULASZKA:	Yes, so I am asking you if you try to balance these values, these rights, in an investigation of section 13.	23
MS DAVIES:	Mr. Chair, is the witness being asked to do a constitutional analysis? It is not his job to determine whether section 13 is constitutional, he just applies it.	p. 4796, line 1
THE CHAIR:	Yes, I understand that. That is clear, but I think it is important to understand how the Commission undertakes its investigations. I think that is what is being asked for here, on what basis does he exercise his duties to make recommendations. That's understood. It is certainly quite enlightening to hear what he is saying. Go ahead.	6
MR. STEACY:	What specific type of language am I allowed to use?	16
THE CHAIR:	You are free to use any language you want.	18
MR. STEACY:	I mean profane language.	20
THE CHAIR:	Oh, it's permissible, given the nature of the subject matter. You may use profane language.	21
MR. STEACY:	If, for example, a posting says, "Every gay person should be taken out and whacked because they are butt fuckers," like was in some of the postings, in my interpretation, in the training I received, that goes beyond what is allowable. If somebody writes in a posting, "I disagree with gay marriages because my religious beliefs tell me that it's against my religion," that's freedom of expression.	24
MS KULASZKA:	Do you take into account on message boards that people are sitting in their homes and they perceive message boards as being a private space?	p. 4797, line 9
MR. STEACY:	No.	13
MS KULASZKA:	Do you take into account the fact that they believe they are conversing with other people?	14
MR. STEACY:	Yes, I do.	17
MS KULASZKA:	How do you take that into account?	18
MR. STEACY:	Regardless of the fact that you are conversing with somebody else, you don't have the right to say absolutely anything you desire, especially when it's in a written format.	20
MS KULASZKA:	Would you agree that a lot of this material, like the example you just gave, is almost barroom talk? If you were in a bar, you could hear this kind of talk.	24
MR. STEACY:	Yes, but that doesn't mean it's acceptable.	p. 4798, line 4
MS KULASZKA:	No, it doesn't mean that it's acceptable, but it is the equivalent, isn't it?	6
MR. STEACY:	No.	9
MS KULASZKA:	Except one is written and one is oral.	10
MR. STEACY:	Yes.	12
MS KULASZKA:	I am going to give you an example. This is something from my personal experience. This is a friend who had retired and her husband was driving her crazy, because he had retired, too, and she was complaining to someone I know about it, and she said, "You know, I think I'm going to have to shoot the bugger." She was talking about her husband, because he kept following her around their apartment. In an oral conversation it's humorous, but what if she had put that on a message board?	13
MR. STEACY:	I would think that the police might think there had been a death threat made.	25
MS KULASZKA:	That's right. It would stop being funny. It would stop being a little profane, but funny, a bit of a joke, and it would become quite serious, simply because it's written. Is that right?	p. 4799, line 2
MR. STEACY:	Yes.	7
MS KULASZKA:	Do you ever take into account that context?	8
MR. STEACY:	Yes, I do, and I have.	10
MS KULASZKA:	Do you take into account the fact that people who post on a message board are not part of a large-scale scheme to promote hatred?	11
MR. STEACY:	Again, it depends on the case. It depends on what was posted on the board. It depends on what the allegations of the complaint are.	15