Critter Probe cracked!

"Sierraman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I got him!

Took a little while because he uses at least 4 different posting hosts, but
I clearly have a repeated match on one of the IP's. It's pretty obvious and
I guess a lot of folks know already.

B-

So why don't you tell the rest of us???

Tom

Tom Arsenault said:

"Sierraman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I got him!

Took a little while because he uses at least 4 different posting hosts, but
I clearly have a repeated match on one of the IP's. It's pretty obvious and
I guess a lot of folks know already.

B-

So why don't you tell the rest of us???

Tom

Cuz Lance will sue him if he reveals his secret identity!

Tom Arsenault said:

"Sierraman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I got him!

Took a little while because he uses at least 4 different posting hosts, but
I clearly have a repeated match on one of the IP's. It's pretty obvious and
I guess a lot of folks know already.

B-

So why don't you tell the rest of us???

Tom

Cuz Lance will sue him if he reveals his secret identity!

Tom Arsenault said:

"Sierraman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I got him!

Took a little while because he uses at least 4 different posting hosts, but
I clearly have a repeated match on one of the IP's. It's pretty obvious and
I guess a lot of folks know already.

B-

So why don't you tell the rest of us???

Tom

Cuz Lance will sue him if he reveals his secret identity!

Tom Arsenault said:

"Sierraman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I got him!

Took a little while because he uses at least 4 different posting hosts, but
I clearly have a repeated match on one of the IP's. It's pretty obvious and
I guess a lot of folks know already.

B-

So why don't you tell the rest of us???

Tom

Cuz Lance will sue him if he reveals his secret identity!

Tom Arsenault said:

"Sierraman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I got him!

Took a little while because he uses at least 4 different posting hosts, but
I clearly have a repeated match on one of the IP's. It's pretty obvious and
I guess a lot of folks know already.

B-

So why don't you tell the rest of us???

Tom

Cuz Lance will sue him if he reveals his secret identity!

Tom Arsenault said:

"Sierraman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I got him!

Took a little while because he uses at least 4 different posting hosts, but
I clearly have a repeated match on one of the IP's. It's pretty obvious and
I guess a lot of folks know already.

B-

So why don't you tell the rest of us???

Tom

Cuz Lance will sue him if he reveals his secret identity!

Richard Adams said:

Cuz Lance will sue him if he reveals his secret identity!

It would be a fun experiment to scan posts for the past, say, two years, and
develop parameters on various posters. For example:

* mean posts per day on days posting.
* fraction of days posting.
* average length of words in post.
* average URL's per post.
* fraction of letters which are upper-case per post.
* fraction of quoted lines in posts
* time of first post, per day.
* time of last post, per day.
* fraction of weekend posts
(this could go on almost endlessly)

There's more than enough "clues" people leave, easily parsable by relatively
straightforward Perl scripts, which could draw strong correlations between
individuals. This is even independent of the tendency to use particular,
identifiable words.

Searching archives is straightforward. For example, I might use:
http://cpan.uwinnipeg.ca/dist/WWW-Google-Groups

The problem isn't drawing correlations between anonymous individuals, but assigning
identities to anonymous individuals.

Anyway, I wish I had time for such fun, but alas....

Dan

"Tom Arsenault" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Sierraman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I got him!

Took a little while because he uses at least 4 different posting hosts,

but

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I clearly have a repeated match on one of the IP's. It's pretty obvious

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I guess a lot of folks know already.

B-

So why don't you tell the rest of us???

Tom

If Carl thinks it should be posted, then Carl can post it, since he is the
SR. Otherwise Heather knows I think, ask her. I can't do that but it's an
earth-shaker. I don't anyone can hide from Heather. I suppose if he posts
another 20 in a row, Carl might give the go ahead.

B-

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Richard Adams said:

Cuz Lance will sue him if he reveals his secret identity!

It would be a fun experiment to scan posts for the past, say, two years,

and

Quoted message said:

develop parameters on various posters. For example:

* mean posts per day on days posting.
* fraction of days posting.
* average length of words in post.
* average URL's per post.
* fraction of letters which are upper-case per post.
* fraction of quoted lines in posts
* time of first post, per day.
* time of last post, per day.
* fraction of weekend posts
(this could go on almost endlessly)

There's more than enough "clues" people leave, easily parsable by

relatively

Quoted message said:

straightforward Perl scripts, which could draw strong correlations between
individuals. This is even independent of the tendency to use particular,
identifiable words.

Searching archives is straightforward. For example, I might use:
http://cpan.uwinnipeg.ca/dist/WWW-Google-Groups

The problem isn't drawing correlations between anonymous individuals, but

assigning

Quoted message said:

identities to anonymous individuals.

Anyway, I wish I had time for such fun, but alas....

Dan

Scary stuff, while I was at it I cracked another one that was a mind blower.
I couldn't resist, that stuff can become fun after a while. While sorting
them according to volume, what staggers me was how many there was for
Kunich. Without counting, he seems to scroll by for a long time. Obviously
rbr is one of Toms big hobbies. Henry had a lot in a short span of time, was
the only other thing that came to mind offhand that stood out.

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Richard Adams said:

Cuz Lance will sue him if he reveals his secret identity!

It would be a fun experiment to scan posts for the past, say, two years,

and

Quoted message said:

develop parameters on various posters. For example:

* mean posts per day on days posting.
* fraction of days posting.
* average length of words in post.
* average URL's per post.
* fraction of letters which are upper-case per post.
* fraction of quoted lines in posts
* time of first post, per day.
* time of last post, per day.
* fraction of weekend posts
(this could go on almost endlessly)

There's more than enough "clues" people leave, easily parsable by

relatively

Quoted message said:

straightforward Perl scripts, which could draw strong correlations between
individuals. This is even independent of the tendency to use particular,
identifiable words.

True, Grep, Global Regular Expressions can be used to find matches with
perl, but I haven't fooled with that stuff for quite a while.

Quoted message said:

Searching archives is straightforward. For example, I might use:
http://cpan.uwinnipeg.ca/dist/WWW-Google-Groups

The problem isn't drawing correlations between anonymous individuals, but

assigning

Quoted message said:

identities to anonymous individuals.

Anyway, I wish I had time for such fun, but alas....

Dan

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Richard Adams said:

Cuz Lance will sue him if he reveals his secret identity!

It would be a fun experiment to scan posts for the past, say, two years,

and

Quoted message said:

develop parameters on various posters. For example:

* mean posts per day on days posting.
* fraction of days posting.
* average length of words in post.
* average URL's per post.
* fraction of letters which are upper-case per post.
* fraction of quoted lines in posts
* time of first post, per day.
* time of last post, per day.
* fraction of weekend posts
(this could go on almost endlessly)

There's more than enough "clues" people leave, easily parsable by

relatively

Quoted message said:

straightforward Perl scripts, which could draw strong correlations between
individuals. This is even independent of the tendency to use particular,
identifiable words.

True, Grep, Global Regular Expressions can be used to find matches with
perl, but I haven't fooled with that stuff for quite a while.

Quoted message said:

Searching archives is straightforward. For example, I might use:
http://cpan.uwinnipeg.ca/dist/WWW-Google-Groups

The problem isn't drawing correlations between anonymous individuals, but

assigning

Quoted message said:

identities to anonymous individuals.

Anyway, I wish I had time for such fun, but alas....

Dan

Dan Connelly said:

There's more than enough "clues" people leave, easily parsable by
relatively
straightforward Perl scripts, which could draw strong correlations between
individuals. This is even independent of the tendency to use particular,
identifiable words.

Your data will get skewed if you try to do a location-based plot based
on patterns of follow-ups to individual posters. Too many people would
try to rig the data so that they could get next to heather.

Or on top of, however you arrange the adjacency plot...

Sierraman said:

Scary stuff, while I was at it I cracked another one that was a mind blower.
I couldn't resist, that stuff can become fun after a while.

I'm unsure about your objective here, unless you consider being regarded
as a tool to be a positive.

Here is the model for this sort of thing:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=357D8DD1.2F89%40leland.STANFORD.EDU

Really, the net is ass deep in people that aren't as smart as they are
telling everyone they are.

Bob Schwartz
[email hidden]

"Bob Schwartz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sierraman said:

Scary stuff, while I was at it I cracked another one that was a mind

blower.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I couldn't resist, that stuff can become fun after a while.

I'm unsure about your objective here, unless you consider being regarded
as a tool to be a positive.

Here is the model for this sort of thing:

http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=357D8DD1.2F89%40leland.STANFORD.EDU

Quoted message said:

Really, the net is ass deep in people that aren't as smart as they are
telling everyone they are.

Bob Schwartz
[email hidden]

I know exactly who Critter Pro is, and yes he is a Pro.

Bob Schwartz said:

Quoted message said:

Really, the net is ass deep in people that aren't as smart as they are
telling everyone they are.

This makes it sounds like the net is the same as any other "place."

Sierraman said:

Quoted message said:

If Carl thinks it should be posted, then Carl can post it, since he is the
SR. Otherwise Heather knows I think, ask her.

heather doesn't know.

heather

"Sierraman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

While sorting
them according to volume, what staggers me was how many there was for
Kunich. Without counting, he seems to scroll by for a long time. Obviously
rbr is one of Toms big hobbies.

http://netscan.research.microsoft.com/reportcard.asp?timespan=y&searchdate=2004&NGID=26901&searchfor=rec.bicycles.racing

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/about

"h squared" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >

Quoted message said:

Sierraman said:

Quoted message said:

If Carl thinks it should be posted, then Carl can post it, since he is

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

SR. Otherwise Heather knows I think, ask her.

heather doesn't know.

heather

Carl finds it disquieting that Bruce thinks of him as the SR.