Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:43:59 -0500
From: User43 <deleted>
Subject: Your page about Scientology (side menu)
I was looking for some information on Scientology IP blocks and I came
across your "Trolls" page here:
And I noticed that you claimed that email@example.com was a sock
puppet of Phil Scott (firstname.lastname@example.org). Since I'm on Usenet a
lot (though not the Scientology newsgroups) and I often have to look at
headers (I'm dealing with a forger currently) it made be curious.
You'll pardon me if I didn't take your word, but not knowing the
situation I decided to poke around Google Groups myself and compare the
headers myself. I compared the post by suer9965 that you posted the
headers for with this one by Phil Scott I found from just three days
prior to the suer9965 post:
Here are the headers the Phil Scott post had:
Subject: Greetings CULTIES
X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x28.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 220.127.116.11
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Sep 20 07:36:41 1999 GMT
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98; DigExt)
Now, if we compare these to the suer9965 headers, two glaring
differences stand out:
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 www.proxymate.com:3128 (Squid/2.2.STABLE4), 1.0
x37.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 18.104.22.168, 22.214.171.124
You can see that this line is quite different from Phil's, and is not in
the same IP block, despite what you claimed. Phil's IP block
(126.96.36.199 - 188.8.131.52) belongs to "The Diamond Lane" in
California, while suer9965's IP block (184.108.40.206 - 220.127.116.11)
belongs to "Bell Laboratories/Lucent Technologies" in New Jersey.
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.07 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i686)
You can see that suer9965 was using Linux, while Phil was using Win98.
They aren't even posting using the same operating system. So, your
claim #2 "Examine the respective NNTP by choosing 'View original Usenet
Format' - they are the same." doesn't seem to be true.
Perhaps that claim might be true for some other Phil Scott posts, but I
couldn't find one that was any closer than that. If you can find one
you should link to it on your web page.
Furthermore, the #3 argument that suer9965 and Phil Scott were the only
people talking about using Efudix on Usenet for cancer was false. See,
for example, this post from 1998:
The problem with your search is that you didn't run it using the correct
spelling, you only searched on "effudix", not "efudix". Yeah, Phil and
suer9965 both misspelled it the same way, but that doesn't make them the
same person. Google gives 79 web pages (including your own) that use
Also, searching suer9965 posts for "Phil Scott" comes up dry:
I don't know. I wasn't around when this happened, but your case looks
pretty weak to me.
Considering that some still use your web page to attack Phil Scott, for
example this post:
you might want to update your page to mention some of these possible
problems with your original claims if you cannot explain them.
If you want an example of sock puppet trolling I'd recommend looking for
something more verifiable and more recent. It wouldn't surprise me if
the problem was real, but this doesn't look like a particularly clear
example of it.
Random Quote :
|This web site is NOT created by a Scientologist. It is created by a Scientology EX-MEMBER who is critical of Scientology. However, this ex-member is ALSO critical of the anti-Scientology movement. This does not make him a Scientologist, nor a defender of Scientology.|
Quick Map :