E
E. Robert Tisdale
Note that this is *not* <[email protected]>.
D
Default User
E. Robert Tisdale said:
As if one wasn't bad enough.
Brian
K
Keith Thompson
E. Robert Tisdale said:
I'm posting this followup for those who have ERT killfiled.
It appears that someone has been posting as "E. Robert Tisdale"
<[email protected]>; ERT of JPL says (and I have no reason to
doubt) that this isn't him. (It did seem a bit odd that ERT would be
asking for a C99 tutorial.)
It's conceivable, I suppose, that this happens to be someone else with
the same name, but it's more likely that someone is attempting to
masquerade as ERT for some reason.
To whoever is posting as (e-mail address removed): Knock it off.
Post as yourself or under a pseudonym if you like, or not at all.
We've had our quarrels with the real ERT, but that doesn't mean we're
going to tolerate identity theft.
O
Old Wolf
E. Robert Tisdale said:
Obviously. His post wasn't a troll.
C
CBFalconer
E. Robert Tisdale said:
Oh, maybe it is the new ERT, abandoning his trolling and
misinformation. We can always hope.
I
infobahn
E. Robert Tisdale said:
Did he (the gmail guy) claim that it was?
K
Keith Thompson
infobahn said:
I think that using "e.robert.tisdale" as an e-mail address in a
newsgroup with a regular poster by that name is effectively such a
claim (unless, by a remarkable coincidence, the gmail.com user happens
to have the same name).
R
Richard Bos
Keith Thompson said:
However, the initial post in that thread (which does ask for "a textbook
to replace K&R2" that "should explain all of the new C99 features", and
has Message-ID <[email protected]>) _is_ by ERT of JPL.
Only the follow-up comes from GMail.
Richard
B
Ben Pfaff
Keith Thompson said:
Do we even know that the guy with the JPL address has that name?
C
CBFalconer
Keith said:
While I don't have any special sympathy for Trollsdale, any such
fake identity needs to be stomped on early and often on general
principles. It is actually pretty harmless, because I suspect a
large proportion of c.l.c regulars have ERT in the plonk bin
already.
Of course ERT should have complained to gmail in the first place.
In the past such free email accounts have been remarkably
cooperative in shutting down impersonators.
T
Thomas Stegen
Ben said:
Whether E. Robert Tisdale is a real name or not of someone working
at JPL is highly irrelevant. It is by this handle we know this guy
and anyone using a "fake" handle with the same name to cause
confusion is in the wrong.
K
Keith Thompson
A bit of searching on groups.google.com shows 3 articles posted by
(e-mail address removed), all in comp.lang.c, and all within a few
minutes on February 24. The headers indicate that they were posted
through groups.google.com from an ISP in Quebec.
D
Default User
Old said:
ERT is a tough one to clone. I mean, how does one make posts more
trollish than the original?
Brian
M
Mark McIntyre
Its neither identity theft nor preventable. If either were the case, then
every older John Smith would be busy suing the parents of every younger
John Smith for identity theft.
Its identity theft when someone claims to be you, not when someone
coincidentally has the same name.
Or did personal names get copyright protection over the pond, along with
software, and I didn't notice?
K
Keith Thompson
Mark McIntyre said:Its neither identity theft nor preventable. If either were the case, then
every older John Smith would be busy suing the parents of every younger
John Smith for identity theft.
Its identity theft when someone claims to be you, not when someone
coincidentally has the same name.
Or did personal names get copyright protection over the pond, along with
software, and I didn't notice?
If the gmail poster actually has the same name, it's obviously not
identity theft. If the name in question were "John Smith", a
coincidence of names would be likely.
But "E. Robert Tisdale" is not a common name, and the gmail user
posted using that name in the same thread that E. Robert Tisdale of
JPL had posted to. When I posted a followup, I didn't even notice the
site name; if I had, I would have assumed that ERT of JPL was simply
using a gmail address.
The most likely explanation is that someone, probably in Quebec, is
deliberately using a gmail.com address to masquerade as ERT. It might
even be a comp.lang.c regular trying to annoy ERT (for the record,
it's not me). I have no idea whether it's illegal or grounds for a
lawsuit, but it does appear to be a form of identify theft.
There are other possibilities. The gmail user could really be named
"E. Robert Tisdale" (and either didn't notice that there's already a
regular in this newsgroup with the same name, or didn't bother to
mention that he's not the same person). The real ERT of JPL could be
playing games with us (and has gone out of his way to post through an
ISP in Quebec, and is blatantly lying about not being the same
person). But I don't think either of these explanations is likely.
I agree that the real ERT should complain to gmail; perhaps he's
already done so.
At this point, the best thing for the fake ERT to do would be to just
go away. Since groups.google.com still shows only 3 articles from the
gmail user, he or she may have already done so. I suggest dropping
this until or unless we hear something more on the topic from either
of the ERTs.
A
Alan Balmer
Do you know that to be the case? Possible, of course, but seems
unlikely.
M
Mark McIntyre
Last time I checked, the principle of "innocent till proven guilty" still
applied.
Of course, in 72 hours, this may no longer apply in the UK, what with the
latest plans to introduce internment without trial. :-(
K
Keith Thompson
Mark McIntyre said:
In a court of law. This is not a court of law; we have no authority
to put anybody in prison, and nobody has been accused of a crime.
Because of that, we're not bound by the same rules of evidence. We're
free to apply common sense.
R
Randy Howard
Freedom has long been a non-issue in the UK. Why should this be
a surprise now?
I
infobahn
Mark said:
It has never applied. The principle is closer to "not found to be
guilty of this crime until proven guilty of this crime". Judges and
policemen are perfectly aware that /everybody/ over the age of about
two days[1] is guilty of some crime or other, and that therefore there
is no such thing as an innocent.
[1] In case you're wondering, "breach of the peace" if nothing else!
The UK has been going to hell in a handbasket ever since Queen
Victoria died. This is just part of a continuing trend. Will the
last free man to leave the UK please turn out the light at the
end of the tunnel?