Thank-you for your kind words, Dr. Dawg, and for the link.
I notice that Freedominion also linked to me last night. Connie had this to say "His arguments are easily refuted, so Mark and I will just stand back and let the troops do it." So far, no takers, however.
Well Buckets you have certainly put paid to Lucy...turns out that it was just another of Warman's 150 plus "I don't recalls".
Say what you will about Warman but the poor man has virtually no memory at all. And, in the finest tradition of the procedure challenged CHRC investigators, apparently kept no notes of his ongoing investigations.
Based on his faulty memory and the absence of any notes it is a wonder that the man has the temerity to claim he never posted as "90sareover". How could he possibly be able to remember that little trinket when he has forgotten so many other details?
Good post by Buckets, as I told him in his comments. He showed me the error of my ways, so to speak!
Jay:
Are you reading the same post by Buckets? It's his technical arguments that I thought I'd posted to, but I reinstalled the link just in case.
I think I am reading the right post...Buckets correctly notes that the transcript does not contain reference to "Incontrovertible proof" (which is hardly a surprise as transcripts properly record speech not characterizations of evidence) and then shows that Warman, as he often did, forgot what he had done.
As I pointed out Warman, the poor chap, is severely memory challenged. And, to repeat myself, it is difficult to see how someone with a memory this bad and no notes - as well as a pattern of signing up for various neo-Nazi organizations under aliases - is going to convince anybody to take his word for it that he didn't sign up as "90sareover". How could he possibly be expected to remember something like that five or six years later when, on the record, he has such a demonstrably faulty memory?
However, I have beer and popcorn at the ready and will throughly enjoy watching Warman in real court with real lawyers trying to remember what it is that he has previously said he remembered and what he said he didn't remember.
Just for fun, did Warman remember that he knew the password for Jadewarr or had signed in as Jadewarr or was merely present when material from Jadewarr was printed off. And I wonder if he will be able to remember why one Jadewarr printout which was in evidence was removed and another substituted. And will his memory of this wee bit of evidence fluffing line up with Dean Stacey's and Ms. Rizk's of the same incident?
Oh the fun we'll have! And thank you Buckets for continuing to bring to light the sheer hilarity of Warman's many, on the record, stories.
Ah, the link was changed while I was typing my responses...
The post linked to has already been extensively discussed and I think Buckets has made an interesting, but far from conclusive, technical point.
We are some distance from identifying the address Warman was using on the date of the posting. But, as I have written elsewhere, there is a good deal more technical evidence to be analyzed much of it beyond the reach of either Warman or Lemire.
My apologies, Jay. I believe that the fault was mine.
Thanks, Jay, for taking the time to respond. Whatever the truth of his other "I don't recalls", I think that in this case it is easy enough to believe that he didn't remember an account that he created but never used. Can you remember every site that you logged into three years ago?
Jay,
From your comment that Warman is going to have trouble convincing "anybody to take his word for it that he didn't sign up as '90sareover'", you appear to labouring under the misconception that Warman has to prove he didn't make the Cools post. Au contraire, mon frere. That burden rests on the Libelous Five. And based on the work that Buckets has done already, it seems pretty clear that they aren't going to be able to pull it off.
Speaking of which, the Ontario defendants - the Post, Shaidle and the Fourniers -- should be filing their Statements of Defence soon (Kate and Ezra get another 20 days). Wonder if they'll be as keen to post their Statements of Defence as they were to post Warman's Statement of Claim.
Dr, Dawg:
I showed Bouquet's post to a friend who is considered one of Canada's most knowledgeable on internet technology. He says that Bouquet's technical presentation was bang on. No way those two posts came from the same system. No doubt this will go a long way towards the upcoming libel suits.
Now that I have had time to think about Bucket's "catch", and pace Mardechai, I am not quite so impressed.
What Buckets is arguing is that a) the poster used a different browser than the other instances, b) that browser called on a different, Rogers branded, version of IE to complete its tasks, c) that a plus b means it could not have been the same person as the earlier posts.
In fact, as I look at my own rather sloppy setup I have at least two fully functional versions of IE installed. Using the RealOne browser - for whatever reason - requires that that browser hook up with a version of IE. It is unlikely the owner of the machine would have a clue which was being used.
So, what Buckets has said is that the poster used an unusual browser which hooked up with a different version of IE that was used in more conventional circumstances. He concedes that that version of IE was likely supplied by Rogers - which was, at the time, Warman's ISP. It is hardly a refutation but it does suggest some interesting avenues in discovery and cross examination as well as some potential witnesses.
It will also be interesting to see if this unusual configuration shows up in any third party logs.
Keep you butter primed and your beer at the ready it will be a very, very interesting trial.
Jay. Is either of your versions customized? I think you'll find that once you get something into the user agent string (as I did here, it'll show up elsewhere, because it is in the Windows system files, not in Explorer itself). If you experiment with this, I think you'll see what I mean. Best.
Commenting by HaloScan
