Question #4: Proxies and IP’s
Posted in Blogosphere, Questions on | 1 minute | 16 Comments →
I am requesting your help here, people. I suspect twimfanboy will never let the light of reason shine on this issue unless other people get involved. If you care at all about truth, or me, or twimfanboy, or web technology… or if you’re just bored and enjoy puzzles, please get involved here. The question presumes one has at least a basic understanding of web technology, without which a meaningful answer can’t be supplied. As addressed here and here, twimfanboy has accused me of “blatant dishonesty” because, in a thread three years ago, I said both that I comment using different IP addresses, and that I’ve never commented by proxy in my life. From those statements, twimfanboy concluded that I was lying. I submit that twimfanboy’s conclusion does not follow from his premises, and I grant that the premises are sound (IOW it is true that I often comment using different IP’s, and that I’ve never commented by proxy).
The question: does a concession to using different IP addresses falsify a claim that one has never commented via proxy? Is twimfanboy’s logic tight? Why or why not?
Karl Grant
says...No, the only thing commenting by different IP addresses usually means is that you have access to more than one computer. A lot of people do. For example, I own both a laptop and a desktop and I also have a desktop at work that I sometimes use for blogging and forum discussion during my breaks. The IP addresses for all three machines is different. But that is not proof you comment via proxy, for that you would need something more, like a two comments from two different machines with the exact same time-stamp.
cl
says...Yeah, that’s exactly what I would expect to hear from somebody who A) understands the basics of web technology, and B) doesn’t have an anti-cl or anti-twimfanboy axe to grind. Funny thing is, twimfanboy himself comments from multiple IP addresses scattered all over Los Angeles. A quick query just returned at least a dozen of them.
Again, spot-on. So, would you say that twimfanboy’s conclusion is rational or irrational?
Karl Grant
says...Irrational and if he is commenting from multiple IP addresses scattered all over Los Angeles add hypocritical and dishonest.
cl
says...I agree, but…
How so? Wouldn’t that only be true if twimfanboy condemned posting from multiple IP’s (which seems silly, as multiple IP’s are almost unavoidable), or, if twimfanboy denied that he (or his many other monikers) post from multiple IP’s? Since I’ve never known him to do either of those things, I can’t endorse those charges. Do you know something I don’t? I mean, I’m all for exposing his irrationality, but don’t we need more before we can say he’s hypocritical and dishonest (at least WRT this issue)?
Karl Grant
says...Because if he does comment from multiple IP addresses than he should know that multiple IP addresses does not equal comment via proxy. By using the same standards of evidence he is using to support his argument we can also level the same charge against him. Nor can he claim ignorance of this fact since he by even attempting this argument shows he has a basic understanding of how internet technology works. He is hypocritical by accusing you of dishonesty because you use multiple IP addresses, yet we are expected to take him at his word despite the fact he also uses multiple IP addresses. He is dishonest because if he is able to track comments via IP address therefore he should know many people comment using different IP addresses and this in-of-itself doesn’t mean much but he is presenting it as a smoking gun for his case.
Karl Grant
says...Ok, allow me to break this down.
A. TWIMFB says that CL comments from multiple IP addresses and this is proof that CL is commenting via proxy.
B. CL say that TWIMFB is commenting from multiple IP addresses scattered all over Los Angeles (I have since confirmed this myself).
What can be inferred from these two statements?
1. TWIMFB understands enough about web-tech to know what an Internet Protocol address is and that every computer hooked up to the net has its own unique IP address.
2. TWIMFB is also capable of identifying the IP addresses of computers used to comment on forums and/or blogs, demonstrating slightly above-average knowledge of the internet.
3. Since TWIMFB knows that every computer hooked up to the net has its own unique IP address he should know this also applies to the computers he uses himself.
4. Therefore, TWIMFB should know from first-hand experience and prior knowledge that multiple-IP does not equal comment by proxy.
Yet, he is leveling this charge against CL. That means nothing good. Either A) he is dishonest because he knows from first-hand experience and prior knowledge that his argument is junk and his evidence is inconclusive but he is going ahead with it anyway in an attempt to smear CL. Or B) he has failed to critically examine his argument and see how it could also be used against him and/or C) he has failed to draw appropriate lessons from experience and prior knowledge.
cl
says...Karl, please check your email before we continue here.
cl
says...Karl, first I want to say “thanks” for getting involved, I wish more commenters had the guts and/or desire to stand in the gap WRT issues like these. I really hope you don’t take my questioning as an affront to your generosity, but I just want to be very clear here, lest I fall into the trap twimfanboy fell into (confirmation bias based on irrational logic). I also suggest reading my entire comment before firing anything back.
True, he *SHOULD* know that, but he’s an admitted “cyber-klutz.” What if he didn’t realize he was using different IP addresses? Certainly ignorant, not necessarily hypocritical (at least WRT to this issue).
Actually, he accused me of dishonesty because I use multiple IP addresses *AND* I denied using a proxy (I also deny ever changing my IP address in any way, in response to his newest allegation). Technologically inept, sure, but… how is that hypocritical? I define “hypocritical” as “doing that which you tell others not to do.”
Well, if you’ve been over there, he’s now admitting, “No, Karl, this in itself DOESN’T mean much.” IOW, he’s distancing himself from his former claim. So, though we’ll never know whether he was being dishonest or not, we can say—with certainty—that he is dishonest *NOW* if he refuses to retract the claim. I gave him the benefit of the doubt before, because being ignorant about technology + having an axe to grind != dishonesty. But now there’s no more excuses. The paucity of the accusation has been revealed. Any honest man would retract the claim. For me, this will be the acid test. Sure, we’ve had our blowouts, but at the end of the day I’ve always given Jim the benefit of the doubt. If he is honest, he will admit the error in logic and retract the claim.
Actually, I don’t think that follows. The only reason he knew I used different IP addresses is because he asked (or someone else, I can’t remember), and I told him.
Right, *NOW*, but the evidence suggests he made the accusation *BEFORE* he learned this. He’s an old-timer who really doesn’t know anything about technology. Only since I pressed him on it has he shown any inkling of understanding whatsoever. So, I think he made the accusation honestly thinking it was on solid evidence, then, when called out later, realized it was the flimsiest of evidence, and now wants to escape the responsibility of charging me with dishonesty, because he’s too prideful to just say, “Okay, you’re right cl, I overstepped my bounds with that claim.” This all goes back to the cognitive dissonance idea I posted here. My hypothesis is that when the cognitive dissonance resulting from a concession would be too high, rationality is precluded.
Well, like I just said, I think at first, he really believed he had a good argument. But now, that’s no longer an option. He’s conceded the logical failure.
So, in closing, I don’t think he was necessarily being hypocritical or dishonest *BEFORE* now, but I do think he’s being both hypocritical and dishonest now. Hypocritical, because he puts up the pretense towards rationalism and solid evidence then goes on to libel me with neither; dishonest because he’s now aware of his logical failure, yet, won’t respond appropriately.
Either way, you’re right… nothing good.
Karl Grant
says...My bad, I had just assumed if he was going to try something like this he would have some understanding of the subject matter. After all, most people don’t yell John Doe killed Smith with this revolver while the coroner is busy extracting shotgun pellets from the corpse. I didn’t realize at the time you had given him the information rather than he found it out himself, so I was wrong at the time to label him both dishonest and a hypocrite.
But after seeing the Rather than post Karl’s and cl’s lovefest in entirety post I don’t think I will be apologizing to him.
cl
says...Hey, at least you’ve got enough integrity to utter those words. I honestly doubt he can do that. Although, there are no more excuses. Now that he knows, we *ARE* justified in calling him a dishonest hypocrite, until the day he admits that he was wrong, and that his “evidence” didn’t support his allegation.
Can’t say I blame you. Personally, it makes me feel sorry for the guy. I’d hate to be in my mid-fifties wasting my time off with nothing better to do than post false accusations about people I don’t like online. If I was an atheist, that’d be the last way I’d spend the last 20% of my life. Believe me, if I ever become an atheist, I won’t even blog. I’ll feel like a total fool for all the time I wasted blogging.
Also, I just realized something: I *HAVE* posted two comments via proxy, actually three, all on this blog. When TFB first hit the scene, I suspected it might be Stephen R. Diamond hiding behind Hurford‘s proxy. So, to test the theory, I posted a few comments via said proxy. The IP’s didn’t match up. Interestingly, Hurford’s proxy seems to have been removed.
For some funny side material, check this out. It’s a video where Jim ironically prefaces his antinatalist, gloom-and-doom views by stating what a great time he’s having at his daughter’s beach rental.
“Oh, life is so bad, so futile, people shouldn’t have kids but I sure am living it up at my daughter’s beach house!”
Classic. Listen to these two guys talk. By three minutes, you’ll feel a dark gloom over your soul. It’s not funny, it’s actually pretty sad.
Peter Hurford
says...Believe it or not, the proxy started to account for over 90% of my hosting costs. I had to shut it down to save the money. It just stopped being relevant to me, especially once I graduated from high school and moved on to an institution that no longer censors the internet.
I wonder how many people used the proxy… Pity I never got around to putting Google Analytics on it…
cl
says...I had a feeling you’d show up and not answer the question. Too bad, as you’re actually qualified to speak on the subject!
Peter Hurford
says...Thanks, but the battle between you two doesn’t really concern me, to be honest.
cl
says...So? If somebody was out there libeling you, and I could bring clarity by answering a simple question, I’d do it in a heartbeat. But I guess we’re just different that way. At the end of the day it doesn’t matter to me. The last 24 hours have convinced me that Jim Crawford will take this hate to the grave. Even if you did try to talk technological sense into the guy, it wouldn’t matter.
Ironically, this is a perfect example of the hypothesis I alluded to here. Jim Crawford is to me what Loftus is to Christianity. He’s made a veritable “career” out of spreading hate and false allegations about me, but it used to amiable between us. So, continuing the analogy, the hypothesis suggests the cognitive dissonance that would ensue from recanting the false allegations is so strong that rationality cannot take place. The prediction? Jim will take this hate to the grave, despite the fact that the paucity of his “logic” has been exposed. Note the prediction is falsifiable.
lackofcheese
says...Using different IP addresses is most commonly the consequence of using devices in different locations (e.g. home and work or a smartphone), and is hardly indicative of anything else.
Now, it seems that what twimfanboy is really trying to say is that you are a habitual sockpuppet. This, however, is rather lacking in evidential support; the whole “sfatheist” thing discussed here is not very significant, really.
cl
says...Hi lackofcheese. I’ve always wanted to say that I love your gravatar…
I know, this is basic information for your average high school freshman, but before we enlightened him, ol’ Jim Crawford apparently didn’t realize the difference between different IP addresses and proxies.
Well, yeah, he’s saying that, but it’s much worse than that. He said I’m a “blatant liar” because he *THOUGHT* a concession to using different IP’s falsifies a claim to have never used a proxy. It’s weird what people can see when they’re convinced they have the truth at hand. This is a textbook example of the intellectual havoc confirmation bias can wreak.