 Thank you for your lengthy response. Let me respond to this by dealing with your central theme and if time permits, i shall touch on some of the peripheral matters raised in your post. If properly understood, your assertion would be that my case against Hart for being what he has defined as a troll is rather weak.
Let us examine why you think so. Your first defence of Hart's was "The three members you chose to confront about being the same person are not the only ones who have posted their displeasure with Jim C and the way he brings unrelated items into a topic." I am not sure why you choose to lead with that, for it had been conceded in my post that on its own, it was meaningless given that the majority opinion of Jim was rather unfavourable. It was just the first of many points of perfect agreement shared by the 3 are 1. It along with my second example (a negative view of my comments) of points of perfect agreement were the weakest cited in my case and were readily admitted as being such.
In defence of Hart, you choose to not mention any other examples cited by myself exampling many more things where all 3 are in perfect agreement. And these additional examples could not so readily be explained away, as were the first pair used to start building the case. Rather, you attempted to deal with this part of my case by citing a case from your personal experience. "I'm not surprised that the three you went after as being one work in the same office, I to work with a gal who frequents these forums and has on a few occasion posted. Her views and mine are often very similar, would you go so far as to say that because we agree and we have posted here we are the same person?"
The key part to be understood is that you and your friend from work, neither of you having more than a very few posts under your belt, agree about Jim. As previously stated, that is the majority opinion, so it is not surprising that you would agree on this and be assured that your doing so does not cause me to be suspicious of you. What would be surprising would be finding that the two of you agreed upon absolutely everything, without exception. And it would be even more startling to learn that there is actually not only a third commenter to this site at the place you work, but that they also shared every single last one of the views held by you and your one known co-worker. As presented by you, the two of you often, not always and not about all things, have similar, not precisely the same, opinions. And that is just 2 of you. With Hart there are well over 200 posts from which we can search for even 1 degree of separation without finding a single one. It cannot be shown where even the tiniest divergence of thought occurs in the record, for none exists. Neither Hart nor any who would seek to defend him can point to a single example. And as Hart has pontificated upon quite a far ranging number of subjects by now, the examples of complete and total agreement among his 3 user accounts are too extensive to merely ignore, especially since a number of the positions taken are not in the mainstream.
It was not my intention to imply that any user account that features a German name should be suspected of being another of Hart's aliases. Darenkash was not singled out as another possibility and quite obviously i was not accusing myself of being another of Hart's plants. It was merely pointed out as a curious fact that his 2 aliases have German names. i certainly did not try to make a great deal out of it. It was merely wondered if this might be a tell.
Let us now turn our attention to how you responded to the forensic case. You stated, "If as Hart indicated they all work in the same office then there is a very good chance that they all use the same software, software that would allow for the use of “your” in place of “you’re” when spell check is used. I would also suggest that the same may hold for other people posting here. It could even be something as simple as they all use the same browser which has a spell check function and sets itself to whatever region they live in. Not saying this is what happened, but I am stating that your conclusion is by no means the final word. In this thread you use “your” extensively in your responses where in some places I would have used “you’re”. Any grade school student would tell you’re reading something into nothing."
To begin with, you are being overly uncritical in allowing for yet another point of perfect agreement to be used to explain away all of those other points of complete convergence without noting how very unlikely it would be for 3 of the 100 or fewer posters to this site this year to all be gainfully employed with the same company. But let me allow for the possibility, no matter how very remote it be. We are then left with 3 people who on paper cannot be told apart, all working for the same company. They are all so unsupervised that they can spend large parts of their days using the company's time to write their hate filled diatribes. Additionally, as they all used to make spelling mistakes before the 24h gold site got an upgrade, it would be safer to assume that though they may have all had access to the same softwear, none of them used it; yet another unexplained coincidence. (The region they might live in can have no possible bearing on when to use your and when to use you're in a sentence and it was--quite frankly--ridiculous of you to have offered it as a possible explanation of this extraordinary coincidence). Be that as it may, there is no spell check softwear that would find you're to be a spelling mistake, for it is a perfectly proper word. If the softwear was a bit more sophisticated, at very most would it suggest that its use be changed to you are. If any softwear is being used, then as you suggest, it would not be softwear that catches this grammatical error, for the mistake is never caught. And that would mean that all 3 not only share absolutely everything else in common, they all make the very same mistake and they do so consistently, regardless of where they may be employed, what softwear is or is not used and irrespective of whatever browser they may all be using. Just ask yourself if you and your friend from work both make the very same mistake when writing and that you both do it all the time? Would there really not be someone there who would catch the mistake and correct you? Now we must believe that the 3 of them have not a degree of separation between them in all of their many expressed views, they all work in the same place, they all contribute to this site, they are all particularly zealous in the expression of their mutually shared opinions and not one of them understands that your is not interchangeable for you're....You could not have been serious about questioning my own use of the 2 words. Where exactly might you have substituted you're for my use of your in my post? The 2 words are most certainly not interchangeable. Your conclusion that i am reading something into nothing ignores the common sense notion that tells us where there is smoke there is fire. And in this case, there is an awful lot of smoke coming from many different sources, certainly far too many to be so casually dismissed by you or anyone else capable of looking at the evidence with a dispassionate eye. At very least, it must be admitted that i have presented a far more compelling case for Hart having these 2 aliases then he was able to present in accusing Lovetochat and FreedomFirst, who had all of a dozen posts between them and agreed upon a single thing, their opinion of Lincoln, which itself is the most common to be found in the American mainstream.
Should you or anyone else wish to respond in defence of Hart, you will have to point to at least 1 example where the 3 i accuse of really being 1 have differed from each other on anything if you want to be taken seriously. But i am certain that not a single example exists. Commented 3934 days ago |
