Re: Someone impersonating Brian McLaren

Hi there,

I've just had a message from Brian too.

He is taking the impersonation pretty seriously, and I'm not surprised.
I think anyone would if they were impersonated on a mailing list.

If one looks back at the posts, there are a few things that would
raise doubts.

First, the first post to tuning_gossip is in response to comments
that he may have some kind of mental affliction.

> online, let's hear the music. I want URLS. I want WAVS. I want MP3s
> and STANDARD MIDI FILES. You do that much and I'll get the bipolar
> medicated by then, too. -mclaren

I've known a couple of people who did indeed have mental illness and who
were taking medication for it.

My experience has been that they don't like to take personality changing
medication (who would), but do as they feel that it is the only
way they can continue to get on in society.

Also they present as normal as possible appearance to others, and are
slow to get into situation in which they will be labelled that way
by others - again who would like to be labelled in that way.

Post to tuning_gossip doesn't well fit this pattern - it treats medication
for mental afflictions in far too light a fashion to be very easily believable.
More in the way that people treat it who haven't had to take these
personality changing drugs themselves.

Another comment - most of the posts are far shorter than Brian's ones usually are.
He isn't noted for quick three or four line rejoinders!

Then some comments from Brian himself to me:

He points out that his user name at yahoogroups is
xenharmonic, not zenharmonic

His standard signature is
-- mclaren

not

mclaren

or

- mclaren,

but always with the two dashes.

He also suggests we check the e-mail address the impersonator sends
e-mails from.

His e-mail address is xed@...
and as he says impersonator can't be using that one.

The posts to practicalmicrotonality are shown as
From: xed@...

and to TL as
From: "The Clever Mr. Zill" <zenharmonic@...>

I can't think what else he can do to clear his name. He suggests we ask
the imposter for his dead mother's maiden name, but we don't seem to
have got into enough of a dialog with him / her for that to be
a possible thing to do.

I too think this is a pretty serious matter. Everyone has copyright and right
for protection against impersonation. It doesn't matter what their
views are.

It doesn't seem that this writer has done their research very well,
so it is unlikely that they are faithfully representing Brian's views
in all it's particulars. But even if they were, they would still require
his permission to post them under his name!

Perhaps it was a joke, or something of that sort, that went wrong,
and then became hard for the original author to back out of?

Perhaps if that is the case, original author could now post an
apology to the TL under the name of "The Clever Mr. Zill"
- as such it would be anonymous, so we wouldn't know who
it was.

However, I notice that zenharmonic is no longer subscribed to
either the TL or to tuning_gossip.

Maybe an apology relayed under another name, or forwarded by
someone author trusts not to reveal their identity, would be
appropriate.

I think if someone has impersonated Brian in this way, they
must have some kind of affliction themselves, and doubtless
need help more than anyone. (Even if it is a practical joke
that went wrong, to continue it to this extent suggests the
author does need some help).

Though, myself, I have some doubts about the merits of
personality altering medication, from what I have heard
about it, and I've been advised that it is better
if the person afflicted can find people who they trust
to support them through a difficult episode.

It is really often just a much more extreme form of things
that everyone has to go through at one point or another
and work out in one way or another. Even when it involves
distorted reality - everyone also has that to some extent
- emotionality can colour experience to the extent that one
sees things rather differently than one normally would,
and may be over sensitive to things that actually have
no particular significance in themselves.

Sometimes medication may be the only thing that works,
at least in our society, which is particularly complex in
some ways, and some people in it find one can't step far out
of the norm easily (while others, as eccentrics, are able
to do so more easily). So one may need help to be able to
keep going and function in society, and avoid offending
people by ones behaviour, and sometimes medication may seem
the only alternative that will work.

The professionals can keep people going in this way, but it seems
to be genuine human warmth and responding in a natural
way to people's needs as best one can (includes ignoring
them when that is the most appropriate response, and
done out of compassion) that works best in terms of long
term cure.

Of course, some of the best professionals will do that too
and may be main reason for their "success rate", while
it seems others may not, and may take a more clinical
approach (appropriate in other contexts, but perhaps less
so in this area) which possibly doesn't much get to the
root of the problem.

One thing that can help is sleep - often those afflicted
aren't getting nearly enough sleep.

Allowing oneself time for daydreaming is also probably
pretty useful.

If it is a short term thing that has just flared up, with
no long term history of such things, and if it is caused
by tiredness and overwork, then sleeping as much
as one can for a few days may be all that is needed.

I believe that is also part of the treatment used for those who
have a temporary "nervous breakdown.

I haven't been directly involved in helping those who
are mentally afflicted, but have had to live in shared
houses which had tenants who have had severe personality
disorders, including someone who was very sweet tempered except when
she stopped taking her medicine, when she did the craziest
things. She was in the mental hospital for a few weeks or
months at a time every few years. She very definitely didn't
like to have to take the medicine!

I also have a friend who is very active in this
area of trying to help those who are mentally ill to
recover without the need of drugs, and some of this is
advice that he has passed on. He has had some success
in this approach, and isn't alone in trying it - it is
part of an alternate approach in treatment of mental illness.
I can contact him and ask him to forward web site urls
etc with more details if anyone is interested.

He says it works best if one can organise a network of
people to help, as the stress can sometimes be rather a
lot for just a single helper friend to cope with.

Anyway, I'll get more details if anyone is interested.

Robert

--- In metatuning@y..., "Robert Walker" <robertwalker@n...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_237.html#237

>
> Then some comments from Brian himself to me:
>
> He points out that his user name at yahoogroups is
> xenharmonic, not zenharmonic
>
> His standard signature is
> -- mclaren
>
> not
>
> mclaren
>
> or
>
> - mclaren,
>
> but always with the two dashes.
>
> He also suggests we check the e-mail address the impersonator sends
> e-mails from.
>
> His e-mail address is xed@e...
> and as he says impersonator can't be using that one.
>
> The posts to practicalmicrotonality are shown as
> From: xed@e...
>
> and to TL as
> From: "The Clever Mr. Zill" <zenharmonic@y...>
>

Well, this is a pretty convincing argument that something "fishy" is
going on... I, myself, had a short off-list conversation
with "zenharmonic" about getting some more microtonal materials and
the response was rude and strange, at best...

Most probably, then, it isn't McLaren but we *do* know that it is
someone who knows him and this field and probably somebody who
feels "wronged" by McLaren in one way or another. Since McLaren is
known for his strong views, this is an easy possibility to envision...

It *certainly* is somebody who is deeply involved in the
microtonality community... so the list of candidates is short...

_________ ________ _______
Joseph Pehrson

> He points out that his user name at yahoogroups is
> xenharmonic, not zenharmonic
> >
> His e-mail address is xed@e...
> and as he says impersonator can't be using that one.
>
> The posts to practicalmicrotonality are shown as
> From: xed@e...
>
> and to TL as
> From: "The Clever Mr. Zill" <zenharmonic@y...>

...and I was so impressed that he had toned it down so much! The
most unusual things about the "Mr Zill" posts were the short length
and the relative calm. I mean, the treatment of Margo by "Mr Zill"
was pretty courteous compared to the thrashings received by Stearns,
Finnamore and Grady on the PM list.

So how do we know the guy on PracticalMicrotonality was really Brian?

kp

By his exchanges with Jacky!

kris peck wrote:

> So how do we know the guy on PracticalMicrotonality was really Brian?

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In metatuning@y..., "kris peck" <kris.peck@t...> wrote:
> the treatment of Margo by "Mr Zill"
> was pretty courteous compared to the thrashings received by Stearns,
> Finnamore and Grady on the PM list.

Oh, he wasn't that hard on me, really. I mean, it felt like being hit
square in the face with a shovel at first reading. But that was
because it was a needed rebuke. He had something substantive to say,
and he was essentially correct. His style was severly lacking in
graces, to say the least, but his underlying point was dead on and
sorely needed, IMO. I suppose I should add, that certainly doesn't
excuse any actual wrong he has indisputably done to Kraig or Dan or
anyone else. After all, what's more important, musical harmony or
social harmony? "Without love, I am become like blaring brass or
jangling cymbals."

> So how do we know the guy on PracticalMicrotonality was really
Brian?

Because he responded directly to several of us, including me, after PM
was disbanded, using his xed... address. His responses quoted
portions of our posts to PM. Strangely, in that post he was kind,
considerate, respectful, and reasonable. Well, to everyone except
Plato, whom he considers to be more evil than Hitler. OK, whatever.
:-)

I'm with Margo. Love your enemies, turn the other cheek. "Let he who
is without sin cast the first stone." It's no good sinking to the
level of the lowest common denominator.

David

Graham!
The first part is an underestimation unless you haven't notice that such
things effect some us more than unpleasantness. I guess you missed the
private E-mails where your name was mentioned.
Not a single one of his arguments, which "sound" even good to me, have
any merit and don't hold up. If you listened to him you would think my music
would sound the same in I3 Et or some random number crunching of Square
roots and such. Where are these great concepts he has given us. where are
the good scales, where are harmonic concepts, general principles.
I do agree that the rhetoric would be very difficult to fake.

graham@... wrote:

> Because along with the unpleasantness, there was a depth of intelligence,
> knowledge, experience and rhetoric that would be very difficult to fake.

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In metatuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> Graham!
> The first part is an underestimation unless you haven't notice
that such
> things effect some us more than unpleasantness. I guess you missed
the
> private E-mails where your name was mentioned.
> Not a single one of his arguments, which "sound" even good to
me, have
> any merit and don't hold up. If you listened to him you would think
my music
> would sound the same in I3 Et or some random number crunching of
Square
> roots and such.

IF you take him entirely literally. He has a tendency to exaggerate
and overstate his point in the process of trying to make it. That
on top of his demeaning attitude makes it very difficult to get his
point. He's his own worst enemy. But if you sift a set of his posts
in a thread, a good and needed point usually shakes out, in my
experience. On PM, it was a two-fold but unified point: good math
does not equal good music; good music is a product of human (he would
say organic) beings who have practiced their craft. So stop
theorizing and blathering and start composing. Speaking for myself,
the truth hurts. I'm certain, though, that it doesn't apply to
everyone around here, especially not to Kraig, who wastes no words and
has a respectable body of music.

> Where are these great concepts he has given us.
where are
> the good scales, where are harmonic concepts, general principles.

That's just it - he doesn't seem to believe in good scales, harmonic
concepts, or general principles. He seems to consider them a waste of
time. I don't agree with him about that. But it was good to be
forcefully reminded that it does no good to go on talking about things
I don't have much experiential knowledge of.

David

Graham!
So you are saying someone on the list busted into someone else computer.
How?
and if so, are we all not compromised where anyone could be anyone else
--mclaren

:)

Graham Breed wrote:

>
> Okay, well, it seems I was wrong initially. The person I thought sent
> them had his account compromised. So somebody had been impersonating
> somebody else impersonating Brian McLaren. I do have names but I
> won't pass them on.
>
> I don't know why a message wasn't sent, directly or otherwise, to the
> list explaining this, but there you go. If anybody else goes checking
> the IP addresses, don't jump to conclusions (it seems I wasn't the
> first).
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Okay, there's probably some more I can say about this.

Kraig wrote:

> So you are saying someone on the list busted into someone else
computer.

I'm not saying that person's on the list. But yes, probably the
security breach was at the ISP.

Anybody can tell who was being impersonated by checking the IP
addresses the way I did. And if he wasn't to blame, there shouldn't
be any problem with me naming him. It was Daniel Wolf. Given his
previous run-in with Brian, it's just about believable that he could
have tried impersonation through a Yahoo account and not realize his
IP address was being logged. Although it still reflects badly on me
for believing that. It's also just about believable that Brian would
suddenly lose his marbles and go for crass, sexist trolling. So I
don't think this was a joke either way: it was a calculating,
malicious attack.

Daniel also says his website's been defaced (it's news to me he had
one). He's away in Romania, and will be returning and notifying the
police tomorrow.

> How?

Daniel suggests the following, which sounds right.

"""
http://webopedia.internet.com/TERM/I/IP_spoofing.html

"IP spoofing
Last modified: May 29, 1997

IP spoofing

A technique used to gain unauthorized access to computers, whereby
the intruder
sends messages to a computer with an IP address indicating that the
message is
coming from a trusted port. To engage in IP spoofing, a hacker must
first use a
variety of techniques to find an IP address of a trusted port and
then modify
the packet headers so that it appears that the packets are coming
from that
port.

Newer routers and firewall arrangements can offer protection against
IP
spoofing. "

and this article, describing how to do it:

http://www.fc.net/phrack/files/p48/p48-14.html

(endquote)
"""

It's all complicated, something to do with SYN/ACK packets and random
number generators. But in practice, I think it's script kiddie
level. If you're lucky enough to find an insecure box, and you have
the right scripts, you're in. Getting away with it is a bit harder,
because the box you're compromising will probably be logging your
real IP address.

> and if so, are we all not compromised where anyone could be anyone
else
> --mclaren
>
> :)

In fact, I would like somebody who's spoken to Brian confirm that the
most recent messages weren't spoofed. There's no way you can tell
from e-mail, although a message that replies to your private message
is more trustworthy: it's harder to receive than forge somebody
else's e-mail. Really, we should be signing our messages with strong
encryption to be sure of the authorship. I might look at installing
PGP and digging out the key pair I used before.

The Mr Zil posts were sent via the web, but I don't think that means
e-mail is safe. I doubt Yahoo itself is vulnerable to IP spoofing,
so it would require a certain level of effort to impersonate each new
subscriber. It is, however, very easy to forge the *e-mail address*
on an e-mail. If you get anything suspicious, check the headers for
the originating IP address. (The Yahoo server is fairly smart about
checking IP addresses -- witness my failure to post here under a
false name.) If the IP address is spoofed, you have a perfect
forgery, and although most people don't know how to do that we are
dealing with somebody who does.

There's no reason why a list subscriber's ISP had to be used for
this. Any compromised web proxy or SMTP server would do. And you're
not likely to get the right Hungarian ISP by accident. You could
reasonably expect somebody to connect the IP address to the ISP to
the user. That's why, although his name didn't appear on the
messages, I count this as a deliberate, malicious impersonation.

For the immediate future, don't believe it if any member appears to
act out of character, especially if it's Daniel Wolf. Although he
does say he's been locked out of his Yahoo account which under the
circumstances is probably good. The spritual tuning list also gets a
mention, but as I'm not subscribed I don't know what happened over
there.

Daniel does name the person who appears to be behind all this. But
given the level of deception we already have, it may be that's
another impersonation. So I won't pass it on here and I suggest
nobody does so on a public forum. If you want to know, you could try
e-mailing Dan, and it may even be the message I got was an auto-reply.

Graham

[Graham wrote:]
>Daniel also says his website's been defaced (it's news to me he had
>one). He's away in Romania, and will be returning and notifying the
>police tomorrow.

The web address I have for Daniel is

http://home.snafu.de/djwolf/

And as of Monday morning it looks pretty normal at first glance - he's
always had that bright blue background with the bright red letters, as
I recall (very hard to read; must ask him about it some time...). Maybe
he's already fixed it, or I'm missing more subtle defacement.

I'm confused about this IP sleuthing: the last e-mail I've had from
Daniel (May and early June) used these two numbers, one in each:

145.236.220.202
145.236.220.31

But Graham says that zenharmonic used:

145.236.119.140
145.236.222.159

So... the first two numbers match; doesn't that just mean the impostor
used the same ISP as Daniel? And why, in any case, does one person's
number change from one e-mail to another?

I hope the truth in all this comes out! The guilty person needs to
apologize and promise not to do anything similar again.

JdL

Hmm, the last mail didn't get through, so either Yahoo's filters
really are good or "anyone can post" doesn't mean *anyone*.

John deLaubenfels wrote:

> The web address I have for Daniel is
>
> http://home.snafu.de/djwolf/

That's interesting, as the zenharmonic posts came from matavnet.hu
(or matav.net). So could he have been h4x0red twice, or does he have
another site?

> I'm confused about this IP sleuthing: the last e-mail I've had from
> Daniel (May and early June) used these two numbers, one in each:
>
> 145.236.220.202
> 145.236.220.31
>
> But Graham says that zenharmonic used:
>
> 145.236.119.140
> 145.236.222.159
>
> So... the first two numbers match; doesn't that just mean the
impostor
> used the same ISP as Daniel? And why, in any case, does one
person's
> number change from one e-mail to another?

Yes, IP addresses are given out in chunks to organizations. So it
could be a legitimate user of that ISP, although it's unlikely
because of the background knowledge they'd need. You get a new
address assigned to your machine each time you connect.

Graham

Graham,

I would like to take exception to a couple of comments you've made,
but at the same time state that I take it on faith you are operating
with the best of intentions.

--- In metatuning@y..., "Graham Breed" <graham@m...> wrote:
> And if he wasn't to blame, there shouldn't be any problem with me
> naming him. It was Daniel Wolf.

Maybe there "shouldn't be any problem", but a lot of the current
trouble is that people are speaking for others or offering
information about third parties without their knowledge or
permission. Had Daniel Wolf told you that he doesn't mind this being
posted?

> Given his previous run-in with Brian, it's just about believable
> that he could have tried impersonation through a Yahoo account and
> not realize his IP address was being logged. Although it still
> reflects badly on me for believing that.

No kidding it does. In the many years of the tuning list, I can't
think of too many other people that have stayed on topic, kept a
collegial and civil tone, and refused to stoop to the lower levels of
communication as well as Daniel. There are so many other people that
have used insults, innuendo, and worse to impune parties that they
disagreed with that to say "it's just about believable" is highly
insulting.

If I have misconstrued your statement, then I apologize, especially
if you can be more clear. If you truly believe Daniel Wolf capable of
these kind of behaviors, then I would suggest that your sense of
objectivity is may be in question. I am perfectly willing to stand
correction on any of this.

> It's also just about believable that Brian would
> suddenly lose his marbles and go for crass, sexist trolling.

I myself don't equate the two parties past behavior to indicate an
equal amount of probability.

> So I don't think this was a joke either way: it was a calculating,
> malicious attack.

If indeed these are forged messages, this statement is absolutely
correct.

> In fact, I would like somebody who's spoken to Brian confirm that
> the most recent messages weren't spoofed. There's no way you can
> tell from e-mail

You also have to be able to take someone's word when you speak to
them. I would suggest speaking to Daniel if you are implicating
anything in his direction as well.

> Really, we should be signing our messages with strong
> encryption to be sure of the authorship. I might look at
> installing PGP and digging out the key pair I used before.

Really? This is _tuning_, for heaven's sake! If I have to encrypt
messages just to talk about intonation, I am outta here -- it simply
is NOT that important. It's not rocket science, it's not national
security, it's tuning. If this community can't be trusted, even if it
is outside wackos, it ceases to be of interest at all.

That, of course, is only how it strikes me.

> For the immediate future, don't believe it if any member appears to
> act out of character, especially if it's Daniel Wolf.

Couldn't someone start spoofing *you*? I realize (I think!) that what
you are saying is that messages from DW could still be faked, but the
end result is the innocent party is looking like the culprit.

> Although he does say he's been locked out of his Yahoo account
> which under the circumstances is probably good.

What does that mean -- that if he is locked out we are able to ignore
any messages attributed to him, or question their validity? And just
*how* did he get locked out of Yahoo?

> The spritual tuning list also gets a mention, but as I'm not
> subscribed I don't know what happened over there.

You don't say what it is, but I think he was a member and now is not.
This happened to me: I was summarily unsubscribed by the owner of the
list, only to be reinstated with an apology. If you have fed
information to the owner of that list that wrongly implicated DW and
it resulted in him being kicked out, you might want to write to him
and explain, as well as the owner.

> Daniel does name the person who appears to be behind all this. But
> given the level of deception we already have, it may be that's
> another impersonation. So I won't pass it on here and I suggest
> nobody does so on a public forum.

I don't get it, and it may be that I've completely mistaken a key
issue: whether or not you are posting the information on Daniel at
his request (or at least with his permission). That would ease a lot
of my qualms.

But it seems -- at best -- curious that you are picking and choosing
who to talk about, and asking others to not release information in a
public forum. I'm willing to be told that I am misreading all of
this, and hope that is the case. Otherwise, it continues to trouble
me, and further erodes my trust in this community.

Sincerely hoping the matter gets cleared up in the near future,
the innocent get back to speaking on tuning issues,
the problem children go somewhere else,
and world peace is achieved,
I remain,
Yours,
Jon

--- In metatuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

> Not a single one of his arguments, which "sound" even good to
me, have
> any merit and don't hold up. If you listened to him you would think
my music
> would sound the same in I3 Et or some random number crunching of
Square
> roots and such. Where are these great concepts he has given us.
where are
> the good scales, where are harmonic concepts, general principles.
> I do agree that the rhetoric would be very difficult to fake.

This is all very true, Kraig. As of a few years ago, Brian had
virtually zero understanding of the vast quantity of literature that
he likes to reference. Apparently his rhetorical skills are good
enough that he manages to pull off his empty rants to the
satisfaction of some genuinely intelligent people. That's rather
unfortunate. I'm glad to hear he's had a positive effect on some
people . . . hope to see more of that in the future.

Graham!
Thanks for all this it was quite informative!

Graham Breed wrote:

> Okay, there's probably some more I can say about this.
>
> Kraig wrote:
>
> > So you are saying someone on the list busted into someone else
> computer.
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In metatuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Couldn't someone start spoofing *you*?

Oh, this is getting too Cartesian. How do we know the impersonator is
not now impersonating Graham in order to draw suspicion away from
himself for impersonating Brian?

Yikes. Why does it suddenly feel like we're all in some bizarre
cyber-space version of the movie "Clue"?

David

You are
-mclaren

"David J. Finnamore" wrote:

> Why does it suddenly feel like we're all in some bizarre
> cyber-space version of the movie "Clue"?

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

David,

--- In metatuning@y..., "David J. Finnamore" <daeron@b...> wrote:
> How do we know the impersonator is not now impersonating Graham in
> order to draw suspicion away from himself for impersonating Brian?

The tuning lists are trapped in an Escher print...

Jon

WAIT A MINUTE I'M JON!

Jon Szanto wrote:

> David,
>
> --- In metatuning@y..., "David J. Finnamore" <daeron@b...> wrote:
> > How do we know the impersonator is not now impersonating Graham in
> > order to draw suspicion away from himself for impersonating Brian?
>
> The tuning lists are trapped in an Escher print...
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jon Szanto wrote:

> Maybe there "shouldn't be any problem", but a lot of the current
> trouble is that people are speaking for others or offering
> information about third parties without their knowledge or
> permission. Had Daniel Wolf told you that he doesn't mind this
being
> posted?

No, but he didn't say I couldn't. As his Yahoo account's been
closed, perhaps he tried and failed. Perhaps I've already said too
much, in which case the less I say now the better.

> > Although it still
> > reflects badly on me for believing that.
>
> No kidding it does.

Sure. I could have deleted that message from the group. And as I
own it, I could have pulled all the replies too, maybe even come up
with a valid reason for it (subjudice or whatever). But I don't mind
my own stupidity being made public.

> What does that mean -- that if he is locked out we are able to
ignore
> any messages attributed to him, or question their validity? And
just
> *how* did he get locked out of Yahoo?

I don't know. He is still listed as a member of Tuning. I said it's
a good thing because it stops spoof messages being posted under his
name, and then being proxied, archived, etc.

> But it seems -- at best -- curious that you are picking and
choosing
> who to talk about, and asking others to not release information in
a
> public forum. I'm willing to be told that I am misreading all of
> this, and hope that is the case. Otherwise, it continues to trouble
> me, and further erodes my trust in this community.

I'm choosing not to make accusations without proof of guilt, or at
least getting that person's side of the story. I didn't name Daniel
when I thought he was behind this, not even by private e-mail (except
for the one I sent to him). Even if, by some astounding lapse of
judgement, it had been him I'd have prefered that *never* to be
stated in a forum with public archives, in light of his past
character.

Yes, this kind of thing erodes trust. That's not so important,
because we don't need to trust each other. I certainly never asked
anybody to trust me.

Graham

Graham,

In general, thanks for the clarifications.

--- In metatuning@y..., "Graham Breed" <graham@m...> wrote:
> I'm choosing not to make accusations without proof of guilt, or at
> least getting that person's side of the story. I didn't name
> Daniel when I thought he was behind this, not even by private
> e-mail (except for the one I sent to him). Even if, by some
> astounding lapse of judgement, it had been him I'd have prefered
> that *never* to be stated in a forum with public archives, in light
> of his past character.

I guess, then, that the confusing part was that you mentioned Daniel
without (apparantly) him asking you to do so, and not in service of
clearing his name. If he had nothing to do with it but was simply the
target of someone else, it would have been good to make that clear. I
think your post left a very ambiguous notion about DW's role in this,
and it would have been better to not mention him unless you either
cleared his name, allowed him to, or absolutely pointed to him as the
culprit. I guess that is _my_ judgement call.

> Yes, this kind of thing erodes trust. That's not so important,
> because we don't need to trust each other.

Hmmm. I guess I feel totally different about that one. Completely
different.

Regards,
Jon

Graham Breed wrote:

>
> Yes, this kind of thing erodes trust. That's not so important,
> because we don't need to trust each other. I certainly never asked
> anybody to trust me.
>
>
>
> Graham
>
> I'm not so sure Graham. Trust is sometimes the only bond we have.

Regards.

>
>