| |
Main
Date: 17 Jan 2008 02:17:26
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Brief analysis of Mottershead report
|
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
>I received an email the following URLs:
>
>http://craic.com/forensics/uscf_usenet_analysis/USCF_Usenet_Abuse_Report_20071206.pdf
>
>http://rs235.rapidshare.com/files/62649719/mottershead.zip
>
>I haven't evaluated them, but I recognize the name of the author of the
>craic.com document, and he is indeed an expert who's conclusions can be
>trusted.
>
>More later.
OK, it's now later.
First I looked at the mottershead report, devoting roughly 30
minutes to it.
The mottershead.zip files says that when Truong moved from AOL to
Lubbock, the fakes moved to Lubbock and when Truong visited Mexico
city, the fakes visited Mexico city. There are six possible
explanations that I can think of, some far more likely than others.
My comments on each are further below:
Possible explanation #1:
Truong is the fake.
Possible explanation #2:
Someone else had physical access to Truong's computer or to another
computer on his local network.
Possible explanation #3:
Mottershead fabricated the data that his report was based upon.
Possible explanation #4:
Someone else fabricated the logs Mottershead relied upon.
Possible explanation #5:
Someone controlling Truong's PC remotely is the fake.
Possible explanation #6:
IP address spoofing
Can anyone think of another possibility, no matter how remote?
Next I turned my attention to the report from Robert Jones of
Craic Computing. Mr. Jones is a well-known expert in this field.
I estimate my own skills in this area to be roughly equal to those
of Mottershead, and both of us to have skills far below those of
Jones. Jones concludes that the data he examined shows that the
fake Usenet posts were sent from the IP address as USCF user
"chesspromotion."
Just to make sure, can someone here please confirm the assertion
that Truong openly identified himself as being "chesspromotion?"
My comments on the possible explanations listed above:
Possible explanation #6:
IP address spoofing
On multiple systems at multiple ISPs? Nope.
Possible explanation #5:
Someone controlling Truong's PC remotely is the fake.
...and managed to pretty much do the controlling while Truong
was at the keyboard? And managed to infect a new PC running
the Tablet PC version of Vista? Hard to believe.
Possible explanation #4:
Someone fabricated the logs Mottershead relied upon.
This requires the USCF servers to have been taken over remotely,
the USCF sysadmins to be incompetent, and no other crackers or
trojans taking over and causing ill effects other than a few logs
being changed. I don't buy it, but I would still scan that network
just to be sure
Possible explanation #3:
Mottershead fabricated the data that his report was based upon.
Hard to say. Has anyone else examined the actual servers just
in case such a fabrication was done through post editing? Or
checked the timestamps and backups of the server data to see
if the supposed fabrication missed a backup or two? Does
Mottershead have motive as well as opportunity?
Possible explanation #2:
Someone else had physical access to Truong's computer or to another
computer on his local network.
No way to tell whether a wife/girfriend or child was pretending to
be Truong, but wouldn't he notice bogus posts in his name on USCF
servers? I don't believe it. As for someone else on a local
network, did the network move to Mexico when Truong visited? Again,
I don't buy it. I would still scan those PCs, though, just to be sure
Possible explanation #1:
Truong is the fake.
Before coming to this conclusion, I would like to invite those who think
that Truong isn't the fake to please weigh in with possible explanations
I may have missed, rational analysis of my comments above, or any other
reasoned discussion. I try very hard to be fair to everyone, and welcome
anyone blowing holes in my reasoning.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >
|
|
| |
Date: 17 Jan 2008 01:00:09
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Brief analysis of Mottershead report
|
On Jan 16, 9:17 pm, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> First I looked at the mottershead report, devoting roughly 30
> minutes to it.
In view of the fact that this report was posted here
and discussed *many times* by the real SS, all that
can be said is "it's about time!"
> The mottershead.zip files says that when Truong moved from AOL to
> Lubbock, the fakes moved to Lubbock and when Truong visited Mexico
> city, the fakes visited Mexico city. There are six possible
> explanations that I can think of, some far more likely than others.
> My comments on each are further below:
>
> Possible explanation #1:
> Truong is the fake.
The above paragraph used the plural, "fakes",
while there is a sudden switch to the singular.
As I've noted before, SS is plagued by this
same problem; nobody seems to be able to
keep things straight in their mind, instead
switching back and forth on a whim.
> Possible explanation #2:
> Someone else had physical access to Truong's computer or to another
> computer on his local network.
>
> Possible explanation #3:
> Mottershead fabricated the data that his report was based upon.
>
> Possible explanation #4:
> Someone else fabricated the logs Mottershead relied upon.
>
> Possible explanation #5:
> Someone controlling Truong's PC remotely is the fake.
>
> Possible explanation #6:
> IP address spoofing
>
> Can anyone think of another possibility, no matter how remote?
How about this: Paul Truong has an invisible
twin, who follows him everywhere and frames
him by posting with his computer as Fake SS?
Or this: some people don't like the idea that SS
"caught" the/a Fake SS, so they desperately try
to avoid facing facts, like the strange way in
which the/a Fake SS traveled to the same places,
at the very same times as PT? It's hard to take,
sort of like when Bill Brock lost the grudge match
to Sam Sloan, so some people tend to go into
denial.
> Next I turned my attention to the report from Robert Jones of
> Craic Computing. Mr. Jones is a well-known expert in this field.
> I estimate my own skills in this area to be roughly equal to those
> of Mottershead, and both of us to have skills far below those of
> Jones. Jones concludes that the data he examined shows that the
> fake Usenet posts were sent from the IP address as USCF user
> "chesspromotion."
>
> Just to make sure, can someone here please confirm the assertion
> that Truong openly identified himself as being "chesspromotion?"
>
> My comments on the possible explanations listed above:
>
> Possible explanation #6:
> IP address spoofing
>
> On multiple systems at multiple ISPs? Nope.
>
> Possible explanation #5:
> Someone controlling Truong's PC remotely is the fake.
>
> ...and managed to pretty much do the controlling while Truong
> was at the keyboard? And managed to infect a new PC running
> the Tablet PC version of Vista? Hard to believe.
>
> Possible explanation #4:
> Someone fabricated the logs Mottershead relied upon.
>
> This requires the USCF servers to have been taken over remotely,
> the USCF sysadmins to be incompetent, and no other crackers or
> trojans taking over and causing ill effects other than a few logs
> being changed. I don't buy it, but I would still scan that network
> just to be sure
>
> Possible explanation #3:
> Mottershead fabricated the data that his report was based upon.
>
> Hard to say. Has anyone else examined the actual servers just
> in case such a fabrication was done through post editing? Or
> checked the timestamps and backups of the server data to see
> if the supposed fabrication missed a backup or two? Does
> Mottershead have motive as well as opportunity?
>
> Possible explanation #2:
> Someone else had physical access to Truong's computer or to another
> computer on his local network.
>
> No way to tell whether a wife/girfriend or child was pretending to
> be Truong, but wouldn't he notice bogus posts in his name on USCF
> servers? I don't believe it. As for someone else on a local
> network, did the network move to Mexico when Truong visited? Again,
> I don't buy it. I would still scan those PCs, though, just to be sure
>
> Possible explanation #1:
> Truong is the fake.
>
> Before coming to this conclusion, I would like to invite those who think
> that Truong isn't the fake to please weigh in with possible explanations
> I may have missed, rational analysis of my comments above, or any other
> reasoned discussion. I try very hard to be fair to everyone, and welcome
> anyone blowing holes in my reasoning.
My guess is that the real SS provided a list of
postings (to which he took strong offense) for
examination by Mr. Mottershead. I don't like
that approach. It seems better if an independent
analyst were to examine many postings,
selected at random, by many different posters,
and then draw any conclusions. That way, if
there were two or three different Fake SS's,
this would have a shot at catching the fact.
The approach of specifically targeting Paul
Truong is a bit unfair, in my view. Suppose
there were three Fake SSs, but because only
one person was "investigated" it was concluded
that "the" Fake SS was PT; in effect, he is
convicted not only for his own crimes, but for
the crimes of all the "copycat killers" as well.
Another issue is that some folks simply aren't
st enough to perform this kind of work. Take
Larry Parr, for instance; he claims to have
performed what he calls a syntax analysis, and
concluded that the people he fears most are
responsible for all his recent troubles. In this
example, the conclusion was predetermined, not
by facts or methodology, but by personal bias
and emotion. Now when you look at it, Mr. Sloan
also seems to suffer from emotional issues with
regard to Paul Truong, so any "work" he does in
this area is automatically suspect.
In conclusion, I think it wise to keep an open
mind as to the possibility of more-than-one
Fake Sam Sloan, and certainly, more than one
Fake everybody-offended. Even if Paul Truong
can be proved responsible for many of these
postings, that is not proof that he did them all.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 17 Jan 2008 17:44:56
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Brief analysis of Mottershead report
|
Typo in previous post. Please disregard.
help bot wrote:
> Well, as far as self-righteous jackasses
[I deleted the rest of the post unread -Guy]
This troll was clearly compiled with inferior tools.
My guess is that it was created with Visual Troll++
and the Troll Foundation Class, or possibly TurboTroll
2000.
These trolling tools are quite limited, and there is
a severe garbage-collection related performance hit
when you try to optimizing the output of VT++ for
insults.
IMO, you will get better results using GTC; the Gnu
Troller Collection. GTC is the gold standard for
creating trolls. It is also open Source, fully
reentrant, and compliant with the Triple Troll,
Troll-On-Troll and YATC protocols.
I hope this helps.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Jan 2008 17:04:06
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Brief analysis of Mottershead report
|
help bot wrote:
> Well, as far as self-righteous jackasses I deleted the rest
of the post unread]
This troll was clearly compiled with inferior tools.
My guess is that it was created with Visual Troll++
and the Troll Foundation Class, or possibly TurboTroll
2000.
These trolling tools are quite limited, and there is
a severe garbage-collection related performance hit
when you try to optimizing the output of VT++ for
insults.
IMO, you will get better results using GTC; the Gnu
Troller Collection. GTC is the gold standard for
creating trolls. It is also open Source, fully
reentrant, and compliant with the Triple Troll,
Troll-On-Troll and YATC protocols.
I hope this helps.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >
|
| | |
Date: 17 Jan 2008 08:33:10
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Brief analysis of Mottershead report
|
On Jan 17, 9:47 am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 17, 8:07 am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>
> > Some of us have actual lives to live. I spent 3 weeks
> > last month at a remote jobsite, too busy to read chess
> > newsgroups, and I go back Sunday. If you have a
> > requirement that I read everything posted here, let me
> > know and I will give you an estimate of how much you
> > would have to pay me.
>
> Yes the old "I am busier than you" nonsense, and of course, demands
> for payment of the time. Underneath all the bravado resides a self-
> righteous jackass.
Well, as far as self-righteous jackasses go, I can
think of one who at least has some *originality* to
offer up. This "guy" is more of a copycat apologist,
whereas nearly-an-IM Innes is a true original. Every
excuse Mr. Macon offered has already been seen
here before; it's old hat, if not outright plagiarism
or parrotry.
How about something new, something original,
for a change? Let's see the apologists try an
insanity defense, or play the race card ("Paul
Truong is a Latino-Phillipino, who have long been
targeted by throngs of anti-LPs, who claim that
Siberian Huns are genetically superior by half").
Or how about this one: "PT did it, but he was
*forced* via blackmail. The KGB, in conjunction
with America's own CIA, held his family hostage
and demanded he make Fake SS postings, or
they would all be killed. Further, they said that
if PT did not make the Fake SS postings, they
would release Elvis Presley, who has been in
the hands of the CIA for decades, and is now
nearly 400 pounds, and just as wacked-out on
drugs as ever."
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 17 Jan 2008 16:20:47
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Brief analysis of Mottershead report
|
help bot wrote:
> Look, dufus:
I deleted the rest of your post unread. Repeated
personal attacks will gain you nothing except plonking.
If you decide to be civil, we can have a reasoned
discussion.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Jan 2008 10:37:46
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Brief analysis of Mottershead report
|
Guy Macon wrote:
> help bot wrote:
>
>> Look, dufus:
>
> I deleted the rest of your post unread. Repeated
> personal attacks will gain you nothing except plonking.
>
> If you decide to be civil, we can have a reasoned
> discussion.
>
I'll bet you $5 that you can't.
--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/
|
| | |
Date: 17 Jan 2008 07:06:54
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Brief analysis of Mottershead report
|
TO GUY MACON
Dear Sir,
We all owe you a debt of gratitude for your analysis
of the Mottershead Report. Yours is an infrequent voice
of reason on these forums.
For the record, Greg Kennedy (help bot) lies when stating
that this writer denies seeing the Mottershead Report.
You need not consult much that Greg writes here.
He is a deeply embittered factory worker in Indiana who
hates his job and hates anyone who has some success
in this life.
Mind you, there is nothing wrong with working in
a factory. That's called honest labor in most
instances. The problem is blaming others for his
blight and plight and the hatred of those whom he
regards as his betters, such as grandmasters.
Guy: here is how our Greg conducts his
intellectual business. Several years back, I
published here several long essays about Edward
Winter's attack on GM Larry Evans. In an initial
posting, Greg said these essays were boring and so
forth. A few days later, forgetting about his little
lie (as all who lie tend to do) Greg said that he
stayed up an entire night reading my stuff.
He also claimed that GM Evans "brainwashed"
America into accepting Fischer's conditions against
Karpov in 1975 when, in point of fact, the 5-time U.S.
champion was virtually the sole voice in Chess Life
opposing Fischer's conditions.
Alas, that's how our Greg happens to be.
JACKASS
Your next attacker here is one Stephen Dowd/James
Rynd. He bifurcates quite a lot here and will
disappear at some point. He then returns angrily.
Stephen Dowd, for your info, is NOT
self-righteous, though "jackass" is not a bad
predicate nominative to represent the man, though
there are still better phrases.
Dowd/Rynd once forged my name at a university
site -- so filled with spite was he.
Forgers are seldom self-righteous types, and our
Dowd does not break the mould.
Yours, Larry Parr
SBD wrote:
> On Jan 17, 8:07?am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>
> > Some of us have actual lives to live. ?I spent 3 weeks
> > last month at a remote jobsite, too busy to read chess
> > newsgroups, and I go back Sunday. ?If you have a
> > requirement that I read everything posted here, let me
> > know and I will give you an estimate of how much you
> > would have to pay me. ?
>
> Yes the old "I am busier than you" nonsense, and of course, demands
> for payment of the time. Underneath all the bravado resides a self-
> righteous jackass.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Jan 2008 06:47:10
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Brief analysis of Mottershead report
|
On Jan 17, 8:07=A0am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> Some of us have actual lives to live. =A0I spent 3 weeks
> last month at a remote jobsite, too busy to read chess
> newsgroups, and I go back Sunday. =A0If you have a
> requirement that I read everything posted here, let me
> know and I will give you an estimate of how much you
> would have to pay me. =A0
Yes the old "I am busier than you" nonsense, and of course, demands
for payment of the time. Underneath all the bravado resides a self-
righteous jackass.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Jan 2008 06:35:17
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Brief analysis of Mottershead report
|
On Jan 17, 9:07 am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> help bot wrote:
> >In view of the fact that this report was posted here
> >and discussed *many times* by the real SS, all that
> >can be said is "it's about time!"
>
> Some of us have actual lives to live. I spent 3 weeks
> last month at a remote jobsite, too busy to read chess
> newsgroups
Look, dufus: if you're so busy, then how is it you
were posting comments on this issue without
knowing the first thing about the evidence? It
seems to me, those comments were just shots
in the dark since you didn't bother to get up to
speed on the facts of the case which had been
posted and discussed here *repeatedly*.
The behavior reminded me of Larry Parr and his
evil ratpack -- a bunch of imbeciles who also
posted comments but who, unlike you, continued
to deny having ever seen the Mottershead report
so as to avoid any inconvenient evidence which
might get in the way of their baseless opinions.
Now you are aping the behavior of prior PT
apologists, by looking for any explanation which
might somehow turn PT into the victim, not the
perpetrator. I find that to be just plain silly, in
view of certain facts which you no doubt could
also claim ignorance of; like SP's vainglorious
Web site, for instance, which is filled with lies
and fabrications -- reputedly the handiwork of
none other than Paul Truong. It fits a pattern,
if you bother to think about it. Unless SP is
wholly responsible, there is no reason whatever
to fumble around for "PT is the victim here"
nonsense. Just look at the facts. IMO, even
if PT was "framed" as a/the Fake SS, he is
probably guilty as hell of the travesty that is
SP's Web site, hence a scumbag loser.
Count 'em: numerous commentaries were
posted by Mr. Too-busy, who now doesn't like
it when I point out the fact of his cluelessness
as to the evidence already presented here.
At least Sam Sloan's comments, biased as
they may be, were not based on complete
ignorance of the evidence.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 17 Jan 2008 14:07:18
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Brief analysis of Mottershead report
|
help bot wrote:
>In view of the fact that this report was posted here
>and discussed *many times* by the real SS, all that
>can be said is "it's about time!"
Some of us have actual lives to live. I spent 3 weeks
last month at a remote jobsite, too busy to read chess
newsgroups, and I go back Sunday. If you have a
requirement that I read everything posted here, let me
know and I will give you an estimate of how much you
would have to pay me. Otherwise, me asking for a URL
for something that has not been recently posted is
something you will have to accept. Feel free to use
your killfile if my not reading every post upsets you
too much.
>The above paragraph used the plural, "fakes",
>while there is a sudden switch to the singular.
Minor variation of wording that is of no import.
fake posts = plural (there was more than one post).
Fake posters may be plural or singular; I refuse to
assume without evidence one or the other.
>As I've noted before, SS is plagued by this
>same problem; nobody seems to be able to
>keep things straight in their mind
Do you have evidence that I am unable to keep
things straight in my mind, or are you just
being an asshole out of habit?
>> Can anyone think of another possibility, no matter how remote?
>
> How about this: Paul Truong has an invisible
>twin, who follows him everywhere and frames
>him by posting with his computer as Fake SS?
Sure. That fits the definition given, "another possibility,
no matter how remote?" If you or anyone else provides evidence
of such an invisible twin, I will evaluate it.
Another remote possibility is documented in the movie
_The Matrix_. That's another one I will evaluate when
someone provides evidence.
> Or this: some people don't like the idea that SS
>"caught" the/a Fake SS, so they desperately try
>to avoid facing facts, like the strange way in
>which the/a Fake SS traveled to the same places,
>at the very same times as PT? It's hard to take,
>sort of like when Bill Brock lost the grudge match
>to Sam Sloan, so some people tend to go into
>denial.
I can't speak for the "some people" you reference.
I can only speak for myself.
I might also point out that personal attacks on me and
arguments based upon them do not strengthen your case.
Rather the opposite, in fact.
>> Just to make sure, can someone here please confirm the assertion
>> that Truong openly identified himself as being "chesspromotion?"
Nor does ignoring a direct question such as I posed above
strengthen your case.
>My guess is that the real SS provided a list of
>postings (to which he took strong offense) for
>examination by Mr. Mottershead. I don't like
>that approach. It seems better if an independent
>analyst were to examine many postings,
>selected at random, by many different posters,
>and then draw any conclusions. That way, if
>there were two or three different Fake SS's,
>this would have a shot at catching the fact.
That seems to be a reasonable request.
>The approach of specifically targeting Paul
>Truong is a bit unfair, in my view. Suppose
>there were three Fake SSs, but because only
>one person was "investigated" it was concluded
>that "the" Fake SS was PT; in effect, he is
>convicted not only for his own crimes, but for
>the crimes of all the "copycat killers" as well.
Not by me. I don't assume things without evidence.
> In conclusion, I think it wise to keep an open
>mind as to the possibility of more-than-one
>Fake Sam Sloan, and certainly, more than one
>Fake everybody-offended. Even if Paul Truong
>can be proved responsible for many of these
>postings, that is not proof that he did them all.
Indeed.
>Another issue is that some folks simply aren't
>st enough to perform this kind of work.
Again, I can't speak for the "some folks" you
reference. I can only speak for myself, and I am
quite able to do this sort of work. My main
limitation at this point is interest; I was willing
to devote 30 minutes to checking a few of the posts
that I chose at random, but am unwilling to give it
the time needed to do the analysis needed to fully
evaluate the report.
>Take Larry Parr, for instance; he claims to have
>performed what he calls a syntax analysis, and
>concluded that the people he fears most are
>responsible for all his recent troubles. In this
>example, the conclusion was predetermined, not
>by facts or methodology, but by personal bias
>and emotion. Now when you look at it, Mr. Sloan
>also seems to suffer from emotional issues with
>regard to Paul Truong, so any "work" he does in
>this area is automatically suspect.
I don't know about Larry, but what you write is
certainly true about Sloan. But what about Help
Bot? Are you sure that *you* are free of personal
bias and emotional issues? That might explain some
of your unwarranted personal attacks against me.
I think not, though. My personal opinion is that
you are simply in the habit of being an asshole.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Jan 2008 08:57:44
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Brief analysis of Mottershead report
|
"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> help bot wrote:
>
>>In view of the fact that this report was posted here
>>and discussed *many times* by the real SS, all that
>>can be said is "it's about time!"
>
> Some of us have actual lives to live. I spent 3 weeks
> last month at a remote jobsite, too busy to read chess
> newsgroups, and I go back Sunday.
In December, I participated in a "debate" (if you can call it that)
on draws with a clueless poster going by "Guy Macon"
So do we have a "fake Guy Macon" or is this just the
real Guy Macon's habitual dishonesty rearing its
ugly head?
In any case, the "fake" did a good job of copying
one trait that the real one seems proud of: a refusal
to analyze evidence.
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Jan 2008 15:26:12
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Brief analysis of Mottershead report
|
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> Some of us have actual lives to live. I spent 3 weeks last month at
> a remote jobsite, too busy to read chess newsgroups, and I go back
> Sunday. If you have a requirement that I read everything posted
> here, let me know and I will give you an estimate of how much you
> would have to pay me. Otherwise, me asking for a URL for something
> that has not been recently posted is something you will have to
> accept.
http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com/?q=Mottershead+report
Dave.
--
David Richerby Confusing Flower (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ flower but you can't understand it!
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 Jan 2008 17:08:33
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Brief analysis of Mottershead report
|
David Richerby wrote:
>
>Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>
>> Some of us have actual lives to live. I spent 3 weeks last month at
>> a remote jobsite, too busy to read chess newsgroups, and I go back
>> Sunday. If you have a requirement that I read everything posted
>> here, let me know and I will give you an estimate of how much you
>> would have to pay me. Otherwise, me asking for a URL for something
>> that has not been recently posted is something you will have to
>> accept.
>
>http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com/?q=Mottershead+report
The above assumes that I asked for a URL for the Mottershead
report. I did not. I asked for a URL containing the evidence.
In a response to my request I recieved a URL to the Mottershead
report and a URL to a report from Robert Jones of Craic Computing.
More importantly, I obtained a vital piece of information that
a Google search would not have revealed; I found out that those
who think Truong guilty consider the Mottershead and Jones reports
to be the main evidence against him, and that there isn't some
third report that I should be looking at.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >
|
| | | | | |
Date: 18 Jan 2008 01:10:31
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Brief analysis of Mottershead report
|
Guy Macon wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>>
>>> Some of us have actual lives to live. I spent 3 weeks last month at
>>> a remote jobsite, too busy to read chess newsgroups, and I go back
>>> Sunday. If you have a requirement that I read everything posted
>>> here, let me know and I will give you an estimate of how much you
>>> would have to pay me. Otherwise, me asking for a URL for something
>>> that has not been recently posted is something you will have to
>>> accept.
>> http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com/?q=Mottershead+report
>
> The above assumes that I asked for a URL for the Mottershead
> report. I did not. I asked for a URL containing the evidence.
> In a response to my request I recieved a URL to the Mottershead
> report and a URL to a report from Robert Jones of Craic Computing.
>
> More importantly, I obtained a vital piece of information that
> a Google search would not have revealed; I found out that those
> who think Truong guilty consider the Mottershead and Jones reports
> to be the main evidence against him, and that there isn't some
> third report that I should be looking at.
>
>
Why do you assume that "those who think Truong guilty" all bothered to
reply to you?
--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 Jan 2008 09:52:37
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Brief analysis of Mottershead report
|
Guy Macon wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>>
>>> Some of us have actual lives to live. I spent 3 weeks last month at
>>> a remote jobsite, too busy to read chess newsgroups, and I go back
>>> Sunday. If you have a requirement that I read everything posted
>>> here, let me know and I will give you an estimate of how much you
>>> would have to pay me. Otherwise, me asking for a URL for something
>>> that has not been recently posted is something you will have to
>>> accept.
>> http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com/?q=Mottershead+report
>
> The above assumes that I asked for a URL for the Mottershead
> report. I did not. I asked for a URL containing the evidence.
> In a response to my request I recieved a URL to the Mottershead
> report and a URL to a report from Robert Jones of Craic Computing.
>
> More importantly, I obtained a vital piece of information that
> a Google search would not have revealed; I found out that those
> who think Truong guilty consider the Mottershead and Jones reports
> to be the main evidence against him, and that there isn't some
> third report that I should be looking at.
>
>
Mr. Macon,
There were persistent rumors of a third report that was to contain
further analysis of the Mottershead report. This report never
materialized. Perhaps the rumors were false, or perhaps the report is
being reserved for the upcoming legal battle.
I place great value on serious reporting by competent professionals on
their field of specialty. I place almost zero value on the bizarre
conjectures by many of the anonymous re-mailers that plague several
sides of this issue. The anons will never make it to the witness stand.
It is unfortunate that the third report did not arrive.
--
Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Jan 2008 11:28:03
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Brief analysis of Mottershead report
|
help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> My guess is that the real SS provided a list of postings (to which
> he took strong offense) for examination by Mr. Mottershead. I don't
> like that approach. [...]
Mottershead, in his report, says that he examined nearly 2,500 Usenet
posts. He says `a number of "Fake Sam Sloan" posts came to my
attention', which may mean that somebody contacted him with a list of
suspect posts. However, it's almost certain that the data on which
the report is based was obtained just by searching for all posts from
the suspect E-mail addresses. It would take forever to compile a list
of 2,500 posts and to look at them one by one.
> The approach of specifically targeting Paul Truong is a bit unfair,
> in my view. Suppose there were three Fake SSs, but because only one
> person was "investigated" it was concluded that "the" Fake SS was
> PT; in effect, he is convicted not only for his own crimes, but for
> the crimes of all the "copycat killers" as well.
I agree that the report does not prove that Truong was the *only* Fake
Sam Sloan. However, there are four IP addresses tied quite closely to
Truong: the long-term Roadrunner address, the two Suddenlink addresses
Lubbock TX and the one in Mexico City. Over the period from July 2006
to September 2007, it many Fake Sam Sloan posts originated from these
addresses. Even if he didn't send all the others, that's still
massively improper behaviour.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Addictive Mexi-.com (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ an E-commerce portal that comes from
Mexico but you can never put it down!
|
| |
Date: 17 Jan 2008 02:38:16
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Brief analysis of Mottershead report
|
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
>Possible explanation #5:
>Someone controlling Truong's PC remotely is the fake.
>
>...and managed to pretty much do the controlling while Truong
>was at the keyboard? And managed to infect a new PC running
>the Tablet PC version of Vista? Hard to believe.
A recent post from one "Stray Cat" relates to my comment above.
I agree that Jones analysis was flawed on this point.
I would welcome a similar refutation of my conclusions
about such malware moving to a new PC with a different OS.
"Stray Cat" wrote:
> <quote Jones>
> It would require considerable sophistication for some one to hijack
> the "chesspromotion" computer and use it to interact with remote
> websites without the real user being aware of it. I do not view
> this as a likely scenario.
> </quote Jones>
> I totally disagree with you on your apparent dismissal of the
> likelihood of a trojan infection explaining the observations. Your
> admitted stated lack of familiarity with the people involved, and
> therefore also with their levels of determination, motivation,
> time-availability, financial resources and, most importantly,
> technical sophistication, renders what might have been, against a
> different backdrop, a perfectly reasonable view, into one that is
> hard to objectively justify.
> Let us hypothetically assume that you possess all the qualities
> stated in the preceding para, saving the technical expertise,
> which I guess I do not have to go hypothetical about. Are you
> honestly suggesting that, given the opportunity for installing
> malware such as
|
|
