Posted on 04/20/2007 11:58:21 PM PDT by the scotsman
What are you a muslim crusader or a Fool?????
Gee - since the prof is keeping the antonymous student anonymous is it a big mystery that *all* of the news accounts based on his interviews say the same thing ?
“I can’t find (out of perhaps 10 stories) a single shred of evidence showing that the student exists. Not a single little bitty shred. Not one.”
How about the statement from the prof that he received an email from him ?
Perhaps you mean corroborating evidence ? ( which kind of negates the entire anonymous concept )
You asked — “I wonder if they will try to have us non-believers, Imused off the FR??”
Oh..., no, I don’t believe so. I still believe that Free Republic encourages free speech on issues which can be intelligently discussed as long as they don’t descend into a personal attack on any particular poster by calling him specific and unmentionable names... :-)
And as long as the information is logical and has some real attachment to the “real world”, I think discussion can be vigorous and even “heated” but still be done.
I still have faith...
Regards,
Star Traveler
P.S. — I’ve been on threads that have been pulled. It usually revolves around either copyright issues or else a significant number of posters degenerating into absolute hate messages towards one another. Otherwise, most stay up.
You said — “How about the statement from the prof that he received an email from him ?”
No evidence of it even existing; we’ve never seen it... that’s one of the problems.
What would be a “half-way” gesture, in that regard, although not completely satisfactory, would be for him to present the e-mail in its entirety and blank the originating IP number, and the sender’s e-mail address (but leave all other header information totally intact — because that can be forensic information. Let us see the *exact wording* of the e-mail.
It wouldn’t solve all the problems, but it would be a simple “gesture” of openness.
Regards,
Star Traveler
I agree. It COULD possibly be that the wounded man moved for any number of reasons. He had no idea of knowing that his movement would prevent anyone else from being shot because Cho came back to each of the rooms and continued shooting.
This sounds like the anonymous person, as a survivor, is trying to understand and make sense of the carnage. Possibly attributing a movement from a wounded person as a life saving effort helps him/her to feel better. And since the wounded man was a Muslim he gets more attention in this PC society, just like the homosexual man did on flight 93.
“No evidence of it even existing; we’ve never seen it... that’s one of the problems.”
How do you see email ? a page printed on anyones computer ?
You don’t want evidence — you ( and I ) would like to see the original wording -— but it appears the prof is keeping it under wraps, doing what he can to keep it anonymous
Did you realize that you just did a “666” post??
LOL
Okay, back to the post...
“How do you see email ? a page printed on anyones computer ?”
One of the keys to e-mail is the header information, which can be checked out by experts to see if it’s real or made up. There are ways to find that out. And it can be seen if it was received by the institution or not. There are markings that will indicate if the servers at the institution received this or not and they are unique to each e-mail. That’s why the header information must be intact.
.
You don’t want evidence — you ( and I ) would like to see the original wording -— but it appears the prof is keeping it under wraps, doing what he can to keep it anonymous”
Oh, but I do want evidence, all right. It might only be 1/2 of the evidence, since two items will be wiped out (one IP number and one e-mail address), but I would also insist on having the evidence of a sending server and a receiving server. That’s evidence all right.
In addition to that, yes the wording...
Regards,
Star Traveler
“Did you realize that you just did a “666” post??”
Damn ... should have been more profound ...
“One of the keys to e-mail is the header information, which can be checked out by experts to see if it’s real or made up.”
... and can be tracked back ... negating the anonymous concept ... duh
“but I would also insist on having the evidence of a sending server and a receiving server. That’s evidence all right.”
LOL - you want a printed sheet that says ANY server numbers and you consider that evidence ?
Gee, all we have to do is look at the “sending server” and we can stop all the Nigerian emails !
You said — “... and can be tracked back ... negating the anonymous concept ... duh”
Not the server information, minus the originating IP#. You might get it to a particular server in a bank of servers — but that’s not going to take you to a particular computer or user.
And, besides that, the “receving end” will be important, too — but we know who the receiver was, so that should not present any problem with the full information for the receiver. This will also verify if it’s a real e-mail. Also, there are “size parameters” that can be checked to see if this is the actual e-mail that was sent or not. In other words, someone might just grab some headers off another e-mail, instead and paste in made-up words. But, then the size parameters would be different. So, there’s a lot of stuff to check and cross-check.
Regards,
Star Traveler
You said — “LOL - you want a printed sheet that says ANY server numbers and you consider that evidence ?”
It’s more like this is actually the server that sent a real e-mail, versus one that was made up. And you can verify that not only was it this server that sent it, but it was “that server” that received this one particular e-mail. So, it’s showing that it was actually an e-mail that was sent.
And, that’s why I said it was only a 1/2 way gesture, because it’s not satisfactory. But, it would at least be 1/2 way.
To avoid the situation in which someone takes an actual e-mail and just puts in some made up language, versus what the e-mail originally had, we can check the server information for other clues. One of those clues will be size. We can verify the size of the e-mail in bytes.
And, I’m sure that there are a list of other checks to verify things.
Regards,
Star Traveler
P.S. — If this is a student to a professor, it was all handled “in house” anyway, and then it would be much easier to check, and also much easier to verify authenticity.
By the way, in reference to further information and anyone supplying the text or more info from the e-mail — I don’t think this is going to happen (from the source)...
At this point, it seems that this whole thing is stuck at nowhere. I can’t see any more information coming out. I mean, there’s actually no need for that to happen.
Why?
Well, basically because the original purpose was completed, which was to get that one “news” piece out, which was picked up by the New York Times and Fox News and now is in Lexis/Nexis database for posterity — whether it’s true or not. It will be *referenced* as true.
So, what’s the incentive for anyone to supply any more information. They’ve got their “documented” information. That’s how this kind of stuff works, actually, the MSM. You get the information out, false or not. It gets “documented” and databased in permanent database files. Someone else doing future research has the “reference” now — and the whole thing becomes “truth” — whether it’s true or not.
So, probably not too much more will be able to be said about it. You see, any more “information” that is supplied by the source, at this point in time will only serve to raise questions.
It’s already been accepted by the MSM, so they *stop* and it’s the “end of the story*. That’s it, goal accomplished....
I doubt we’ll ever hear another peep out of this source — ever again..., the original goal has been accomplished.
Regards,
Star Traveler
” If this is a student to a professor, it was all handled “in house” anyway”
Again, you don’t know that, and it really makes no sense to assume that it’s right.
It MAY have been, but it could very easily have not been.
Without access to the prof’s online in box, assuming the email has not been deleted from the server, you may never have your evidence.
You said — “Without access to the prof’s online in box, assuming the email has not been deleted from the server, you may never have your evidence.”
It would involve the cooperation of the professor. If he did not want to cooperate, then no one is going to go anywhere with this. I mentioned this as a way to prove it, but the professor may not be interested in proving it. And really, why prove it, since, as I was saying up above, the goal has been acomplished, to get it out into some major media sources and *document* it, to use for future propaganda. That’s the nature of “leaks”, too. That’s the purpose of leaks, besides a few other purposes.
This is sort of akin to a leak, in the way it’s been presented to us. So, there’s no incentive and no need (in terms of the goal being accomplished) to cooperate with any requests for proof.
.
In terms of what I said about “in-house” was simply to say that it would be easier if it were in-house. And it’s more probable than not. Everyone has access to an in-house account at all the universities. Now, whether someone uses it or not, is another story. However, they have a lot of resources for students using “in-house” accounts, therefore you will find students doing that. For example, you’ll get Lexis/Nexis information for free (in a lot of cases) by signing into your university account. You have a lot of bonuses for doing that. And they had an in-house communication system going on with the student’s. I picked that up by reading a few of their blogs.
It’s definitely more likely than not likely.
Regards,
Star Traveler
“It would involve the cooperation of the professor. If he did not want to cooperate, ...”
Cooperate ... meaning breaking the confidence of anonymous ?
Tell me, just how would he prove it without allowing anonymous to be revealed ?
No, just smart enough to not use a single label for an entire race of people.
Obviously, you are not.
“save others in V Tech killings, Erik Latranyi wrote:
What are you a muslim crusader or a Fool?
No, just smart enough to not use a single label for an entire race of people.”
Curious ... Without tracking back - just what race are you discussing, and do you consider they they were called “muslim crusaders” or “fools” ?
Well, as I said above, it would be a half-way gesture, more than absolute proof and it would not be entirely satisfactory at all. But, as a half-way gesture, I guess it’s better than nothing.
You said — “Cooperate ... meaning breaking the confidence of anonymous ?”
It simply means that “text” can’t be read, without him supplying it. Headers can’t be seen without him supplying it. Basically “cooperate” means that nothing can be supplied unless he supplies it. That’s about the only meaning of “cooperate”.
.
You said — “Tell me, just how would he prove it without allowing anonymous to be revealed ?”
Well, we’re back to the half-way measures that I was talking about. That’s about what it amounts to. But, that is better than nothing at all. And as how you don’t reveal the “anonymous student” — it’s also like I said up above, you drop the originating IP number and the originating e-mail address. Everything else remains intact.
BUT, we’re once again back to my own premise (mentioned up above) is that when someone “leaks” something out to the press but doesn’t want any “accountability” this is how you do it. You put it out as a leak (and this is akin to a leak, because the source is anonymous) — and then you drop it.
It gets picked up by major MSM news sources, it *becomes* news and it’s *documented* and that’s the end of it. You now have it in the “record” for posterity and you can use it as *reference* material (i.e., someone says, “It was in the New York Times and Fox News”, which is then the “proof” that someone can say that they have).
And since that is all that was meant to be accomplished — there is no incentive to ever bring it up again or prove it or anything like that. That’s because the original “leak” served its purpose and now there are millions of people running around saying — “This was in the New York Times, so it’s obviously true!” That’s all that was desired to be accomplished, nothing more.
In that light — being a “leaker” one then *drops it* and never mentions it again — or you risk “blowing up” your original story with more questions. More questions can only raise unanswerable issues...
So, my prediction is that you’ll never hear from this professor again, on this story. And you’ll never hear anything from any such “anonymous student”. There’s no need for it at this point in time. Goal accomplished....
Regards,
Star Traveler
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.