So why the need to lie about the author of the tool?
To me it looks like this might be a possible scenario (assuming you're correct about GE not knowing the tool at all, but of course I don't concede that as that would require proof since you're a confirmed liar).
Scenario: You were mistaken about the tool's author. You discovered your mistake via freepmail so instead of admitting you were wrong you instead say you're trying to trap GE. That makes the most sense since as you say...GE didn't even know what the tool was, so why the need to lie about the author?
Which this backs GEs assertion that you were defending Russian Hackers...why else would you claim it was a Russian hacker that wrote it? According to you...you had GE on not knowing the tool so it makes no sense to also lie about the tools author since it's pretty much just a trivia question anyway.
It appears you're trying to change the issue of your lying about a Russian Hacker creating a tool. You lied to make them look good (as GE claims) because there was no need to trap him as he didn't know what the tool was (as you claim). Which one is more believable:
A) You had GE trapped on not knowing what the tool was and decided to arbitrarily extend the lie to include the author's origin...even though you already had GE nailed on not knowing what the tool was (which would be the most important issue).
B) You thought it was written by Russian Hackers (based on the guy's name) and you put it out as such in defense of russian hackers. You learned that you were wrong via freepmail and said you were laying a trap on GE to keep from admitting you were wrong.
To play on GE's paranoia of Russians. It was perfect given that the author had taken a Russian pseudonym.
Scenario: You were mistaken about the tool's author. You discovered your mistake via freepmail so instead of admitting you were wrong you instead say you're trying to trap GE.
Interesting, but I'll give you a bit of history. I heard of nmap long ago, and used it sometimes. I was never interested in the author. But I have been very closely following the SCO vs. IBM case for a long time (my history shows I posted in my first SCO thread here a week after I joined in 2003). In early 2004 the author pulled SCO's license to nmap due to SCO rejecting the GPL under which nmap is licensed (and which GE seems to think is inherently evil). After that I took interest in the author and have thought he's American since I first read a page at insecure.org. I have never seen writing from a Russian programmer that is so consistently, fluidly American. It would be hard to read everything there and even think he's a Russian programmer, it's just not plausible.
However, admitting to this scenario would have been tempting, as I could have just admitted a mistake instead of wading through all of these "lie" claims. Too bad I'm too honest to do that. I won't take your easy out.
Which this backs GEs assertion that you were defending Russian Hackers...why else would you claim it was a Russian hacker that wrote it?
Because GE is paranoid of Russians, and I was playing to his paranoia. Notice that the final revealing thread isn't even about Russian hackers, so there's no context there in which to defend Russians hackers.
since it's pretty much just a trivia question anyway.
A question that one with GE's claimed monumental amount of knowledge in the appropriate areas would get.
In post 298 I refuted GE's lie that he exposed me in this issue and in the processes exposed his libel (calling me a liar for claiming I gave up the answer myself)
In post 298 I uncovered two of GE's lies in this very thread about that Clinton thread.
In post 298 I exposed GE for taking things out of context in order to paint a false picture of my comments.
I did this in post 298 with direct links to all of the involved posts proving my point, and even posted my entire earlier post in context to show how GE distorts things. This is all absolutely irrefutable with logical argument.
However, I notice that while both of you have found time to comment multiple times since then, over five hours ago, neither of you have dared to reply to that post.
GE, you didn't reply because it puts your lies, libel and distortions right up there for everyone to see. You have no logical counter to that post.
for-q, I believe you didn't reply because it destroys your ostensible argument for believing GE and not me. How can you continue the charade of being disinterested when you support one who runs from his proven lies over one who admitted and explained? You can't. You are not disinterested. You are biased.