h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<>

So that's why you hate these guys so much - you can't reproduce and all they have to do is split off into new personalities.

At the risk of reviving threads that should be left fallow, during the upgrade yesterday I got copies of the h2g2 server logs (so I could do some analysis of the speed improvements since the last upgrade).

Out of curiosity I also had a look at the times when Quincy and Satyagraha were logging in, to see what I could find, and I found the following:

* The Quincy account was created by the user of the Satyagraha account.
* The Satyagraha account was used when logging in to the wallflower girl account.

This was all done around the times these accounts were created, before any suspicions had been aroused.

This proves conclusively that all three accounts were being operated from the same machine.

I've posted this to all the relevant Ban/Don't Ban threads for completeness.

I make no pretense about my identity. I also will not rub anyone's nose in it by stating it outright. I am here only to try to salvage the reputations of good people who have suffered as a consequence of the evil imaginings of some other folk. I neither want to be here, nor have I any intention of using this account for any purpose other than to paste this message where I feel it is appropriate, for purposes of clarification. You see, there is always more than one side to every issue. You have not been *allowed* to see all sides in this case. 1. Wall Flower Girl: Yes, that account was started by persons who use this body, not to be part of h2g2 per se, but rather for the purposes of conversing with someone anonymously -- minus the prejudice and baggage that goes with the 'L' word. WFG broke no rule, as the Editors have said repeatedly that they don't mind if a banned researcher comes back so long as s/he behaves hirself. Wall Flower Girl was too timid to do otherwise than behave herself. She merely wanted to talk to someone (who left h2g2 in disgust a day before she did -- she was actually banned after she'd left, as you would know if the Editors had not hidden her page). The other thing the Editors have said is that the banned researcher should not let on who s/he is. Wall Flower Girl did not do so. However, when she left, (and you can ask the Editors to let you see the page if you think that is reasonable) Fenchurch the Honky-tonk Thumper emailed her, to say 'Don't go, I think we could be friends'. Wall Flower Girl responded with 'Sorry, I don't think I want to go back'. It so happened that Fenchurch was copied on an email I sent that same night. Fenchurch took it upon herself to research the IP headers of both emails -- which suggests the first one was intentionally deceptive -- and what resulted can be seen here http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/F647?thread=162083 in a thread called 'IP Addresses' When notified, Wall Flower Girl sent an email to the Editors which they chose not to make public. If you wish to see that email, I will post it and other relevant material at my website in the next few days. She did not want yet another stink, especially since it would have been a charade. Now, surely the Editors did not mean 'not letting on who you are' to include 'expecting people who have expressed friendship in the past to turn around and stab you in the back'. Somehow, I doubt they could possibly have really meant to include 'and don't correspond with anyone who might be of dubious trustworthiness, whether or not you know it' in the bit about letting on. Nevertheless, Wall Flower Girl was leaving any way, and it makes no difference, because everyone who interacted with her knows she did nothing wrong, that she lives in this body. 2. Quincy: Firstly, what gave any of you any reason to believe that his REAL name was 'Murray Strauss, M.D.'? As someone here is fond of saying, you display a 'touching naivete' if you think that people online necessarily tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about themselves. According to him, and he may be telling me the truth, or he may not be, he is in law enforcement, and he's put people in prison for long stretches, and he would no more give out his real name to, and I quote verbatim 'some website where any "random schmuck can walk in off the street" and I don't know the people that run it'. So much for those wastes of your time, and that explains why he would not provide positive ID. I don't know enough about medicine to judge his qualifications. I have asked people who do, and when I hear back, I will email the Editors (despite the fact that they've said they are 'bored' with me) with the information. 3. Satyagraha: I think he's probably just what he says, or close enough to. I also think, as the Editors pointed out, that he does lie a bit. Some people are like that. 4. Silent Stupidity: This is an example of the best-laid plans going awry. I have no intention of trying to explain what happened, here. T

The information I posted is true. All three accounts were used by the same machine. This is incontrovertible and apparent from our server logs. Since WFG is you by admission, then Quincy and Satyagraha *must* also be you. There is no other explanation. There is no room for fudging, equivocation or doubt. This doesn't require IP traces (which can always be dismissed as a coincidence of several people using the same ISP). It is clear simply from our logs.

Call me mistaken if you want (but please provide convincing evidence) but don't call me a liar.

For the record, although the logs show a lot of details all I needed to see was two events:

2002-01-06 16:13:35 (GMT) - Satyagraha logs in as WFG.
2002-01-07 20:39:48 (GMT) - Satyagraha attempts to create the Quincy account - you initially tried to use a different BBC loginname but you discovered it was already taken, so you settled on another.

Hi. I'm Fenchurch. I'm interested in maintaining Universal Tolerance, and in maintaining the truth.

The truth is that I did email WFG with a motive which was not 'intentionally deceptive'.

That's it, there's not much there for me to respond about. I'm not going to post this to the other identical postings, as they've been moderated.

x x Fenny (UT)