A reply from Brigadier Christopher Dunphie

[Slapdragon]

I am choosing to put this in the regular forum rather than the General because the original C. Dunphie post occurred here.

More than two weeks ago, a cowardly individual chose to post to this forum using a pseudonym (C.Dunphie) attacking the game as anti-British . Inside the article, the person claimed to be a published historian of note, meaning that C.Dunphie was suppose to be Brigadier Christopher Dunphie of the British Royal Army, a well known historian and educator. (The other choice, Major General Charles Dunphie, died last year)

Through two contacts in Britian I began to look into Brigadier Dunphie, finally finding a way of contacting him to see if he was indeed responsible for writing the rather poorly researched an patently untrue comments that started the thread.

I was going to post my findings to this site when my job at the Department of Justice working with video went into extreme overdrive, for obvious reason, combined with a short need for me in my night position as a deputy sheriff. Otherwise this would have long since been posted, so I must say sorry to the Brigadier for the delay in clearing his name.

I am happy to report that the honorable Brigadier did not write that post, and indeed is very interested in finding out who did so he could "blacken his eye". The opinions of the original poster, and some who jumped on the bandwagon, are indeed quite opposite the Bridagier, to the extent that he has any dog in that battle at all. In addition, a second source of mine confirms that Brigadier Dunphie is not what you would call "Internet Literate". His interests are directed to other arenas, and it would have been quite impossible for him to have monitored this BBS closely enough to post some of the things that the "C.Dunphie" imposter posted.

No matter what Brigadier thinks of this simulation and the historical topics discussed here, identity theft is wrong, and I hope that the cowardly "C.Dunphie" imposter realizes how close I came to his actual identity before I was forced to cease by world events.

Again, please know that Brigadier Dunphie had nothing to do with the posts attributed to him.

[ 09-14-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Slapdragon]

[dalem]

Thanks for doing this, Slappy. I believe I was the first one to raise the possible connection between the poster and Gen. Dunphie. Although I took care to try to use qualifiers such as "maybe" and "might", I was a little dismayed to see a lot of conclusion jumping after my post. I think I may have to go and pick up some of the General's books in atonement. A harsh punishment to inflict upon myself, reading more WWII history, but I'll wear that albatross if I must...

-dale

[Spook]

I also offer my appreciation, Slap, for your efforts to ensure that a military historian's reputation isn't tainted from someone else's misbehavior.

Pretending to be someone else on an internet discussion group, so as to put a negative light on the one being impersonated, is a particularly cowardly act. Please give my regards to the hon. Brigadier Dunphie the next time you contact him, if you can.

[lcm1947]

Good job Slapdragon. It's nice to know this but I think most of us realized it anyway but nice to confirm it. So it was probably simply someone from this board just trying to have some fun with us. So, let's get him!

[Spook]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947:

Good job Slapdragon. It's nice to know this but I think most of us realized it anyway but nice to confirm it. So it was probably simply someone from this board just trying to have some fun with us. So, let's get him! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Motion seconded. But who's got the van this time? :confused:

[Andreas]

Nice one Slappy!

[Slapdragon]

I know some things about the person who posted that, but I must have permission to discuss them. Also, several suggestions came from England as to who knows of Dunphie, would read this chat group, but is rather clueless otherwise.

Again, when the times comes again, I will be looking further, and am happy that others who I respect on this forum feel the same way about identity theft as I do.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

I know some things about the person who posted that, but I must have permission to discuss them. Also, several suggestions came from England as to who knows of Dunphie, would read this chat group, but is rather clueless otherwise.

Again, when the times comes again, I will be looking further, and am happy that others who I respect on this forum feel the same way about identity theft as I do.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reminded me of the plagiarism case we had here. Some people think that on the internet they can get away with anything.

[JonS]

Good job Slap.

One point though ...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

... Brigadier Christopher Dunphie of the British Royal Army ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no such thing as the "British Royal Army".

Individual regiments bear the 'Royal' honourific (Royal Regiment of Artillery, Royal Tank Regiment, Royal Green Jackets, Royal Engineers, etc. There are lots of them), but unlike the Navy and Airforce, the overall organisation isn't 'Royal'. FYI, FWIW.

Regards

Jon

[Gen. Sosaboski]

Nice job Slapdragon! I am glad to hear the brigadier is not a suspect (didn't really think he'd do something like that).

[Cybeq]

Thanks slapdragon. I was one of the ones who vowed to steer clear of any material published by the real Dunphie. It's nice to know it was an imposter.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Just in case anyone else gets sucked in by other identity stealers I feel pretty safe in stating that the chances of the alleged Hon. John Howard and or the Hon Kim Beasley being the real thing are "buckleys and none". i.e. they are also clearly imposters, just in case anyone else thinks otherwise.

Regards

Jim R.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

Just in case anyone else gets sucked in by other identity stealers I feel pretty safe in stating that the chances of the alleged Hon. John Howard and or the Hon Kim Beasley being the real thing are "buckleys and none". i.e. they are also clearly imposters, just in case anyone else thinks otherwise.

Regards

Jim R.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, having met asome really dumb politicians, I was just assuming that they actually were australian politicos.

Does anyone in Britian or Ausrtralia know if your respective parliaments know if there is really a politico by these names? If Yes, I may just contact them also.

[M Hofbauer]

if beazley isn't Beazley, then that's a much worse case of identity theft IMHO, because our board-Beazley gives the official website of the real Mr Beazley as his homepage and a picture of the real Mr Beazley in the profile. Go to the website linked there, there's an internet email contact form there, I was already about to inquire whether this guy is for real, but then I figured (just like Slappy) that actually his behavior *does* fit the stereotypes that exist about politicians...

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

if beazley isn't Beazley, then that's a much worse case of identity theft IMHO, because our board-Beazley gives the official website of the real Mr Beazley as his homepage and a picture of the real Mr Beazley in the profile. Go to the website linked there, there's an internet email contact form there, I was already about to inquire whether this guy is for real, but then I figured (just like Slappy) that actually his behavior *does* fit the stereotypes that exist about politicians... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, are we sure that this is a real web page for an MP, and not a sham in and of itself? Doesn't do any good to e-mail the MP only to have that e-mail routed to a sham artist.

I can see I need to start a new invesitgation. Any volunteers to share the load?

[Slapdragon]

I also should add that since my name indeed is Steve Jackson, I have to fight identity theft all the time. There is this guy in Texas who claims to be a game designer that has made my job at the Department of Justice quite difficult at times.

[Spook]

Ah, yes, ol' Steve Jackson of the Metagaming group. I still have his rules set of "The Fantasy Trip" that was an admirable attempt in its ambition to compete with AD&D.

As to the Beazely & Howard "logged in" here as BTS members, I don't think that their prior comments have struck any overly provocative tones, even in the locked "US Lobby in Combat Mission" thread in the General Forum. Thereby, I presume the provided identities are legit. One interesting comment that MP Howard made to MP Beazely in that thread, however:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> So my old sparrig partner "Toys for the Boys" has condescended to grace us with his presence !

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That could be a reference point to check into the linkage between the two, and to ascertain if their identities here are indeed legit. For the present time again, however, I am assuming them to be.

[Spook]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

First, are we sure that this is a real web page for an MP, and not a sham in and of itself? Doesn't do any good to e-mail the MP only to have that e-mail routed to a sham artist.

I can see I need to start a new invesitgation. Any volunteers to share the load?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doing some web-searching, I have found a link for the Australian Parliament that might aid as a starting point:

Parliament of Australia

Of more direct use, however, is the following:

MP List by Surname

Phone numbers & e-mail addresses are provided there. TAKE NOTE, HOWEVER, all fellow BTS forum members: "Confirming legitimacy" for these two is a valid as a sanity check, but do it with tact, and keep from jumping to conclusions. As I stated earlier, my inclination is to regard the BTS forum identities of Beazely & Howard as legitimate, though I might be proven wrong.

[ 09-15-2001: Message edited by: Spook ]

[M Hofbauer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

First, are we sure that this is a real web page for an MP, and not a sham in and of itself? Doesn't do any good to e-mail the MP only to have that e-mail routed to a sham artist.

I can see I need to start a new invesitgation. Any volunteers to share the load?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well if this

http://www.alp.org.au//kimbeazley/

is a sham website then this guy is surely going to great lengths to provide for his fake identity.

besides, the URL looks pretty much official to me.

Therefore, my conclusion is "real website", the question remains "real Beazley" or "fake Beazley linking to real Beazley Page to cover his fake ID".

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook:

As I stated earlier, my inclination is to regard the BTS forum identities of Beazely & Howard as legitimate, though I might be proven wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, I've been assuming all along that it was just an inside "Aussie" joke. I'd be flabbergasted if an actual head of state were posting to the CM forum under his real name (or under any name). I suppose it is possible, but it seems highly unlikely to me.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook:

Doing some web-searching, I have found a link for the Australian Parliament that might aid as a starting point:

Parliament of Australia

Of more direct use, however, is the following:

MP List by Surname

Phone numbers & e-mail addresses are provided there. TAKE NOTE, HOWEVER, all fellow BTS forum members: "Confirming legitimacy" for these two is a valid as a sanity check, but do it with tact, and keep from jumping to conclusions. As I stated earlier, my inclination is to regard the BTS forum identities of Beazely & Howard as legitimate, though I might be proven wrong.

[ 09-15-2001: Message edited by: Spook ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Certianly we need to proceed with tact, but the issue is not the idiocy of their viewpoints, which are afterall just opinions and open to free posting without let or hinderance, but to their use of another persons identity in a forum in order to puff themselves up. Since their opinions may be diametrically opposed to the real life people whose names they have assumed, and since their opinions started just when this uberaustralia load started to hit the discussion groups, then of course assuring that the people posting here are indeed the people who claim to be posting -- if not then the real people need to be notified, as does BTS whose forum is being used for dishonorable purposes.

I might add that C.Dunphie and the two uberaussie MPs came on within a few short days of each other. Which proves exactly nothing, but would allow any person wanting to make sure that a fraud is not being essayed to stop for a second and question the coincidence, and perhaps look more closely into the issue.

The proper method of checking identity is to first find out about the person in general from contacts close enough to know them and have spoken to them in person. This was not hard with Dunphie. Then you present your case to those contacts, saying that either it is identity fraud or not but that it is important that it be confirmed both by third parties and by the individual. Next you send a letter point blank to the person saying what you have so far found, identifying the venue, and asking if this is his or her posts or not. Finally you announce the facts to the world.

This of course was the procedure in the old Usenet days, before spam and vitriol killed that admirable venue. Then, most people were generally known to the groups, but new comers would come in, and if they claimed a high position or unusual creditials (one guy claimed to be CMH Vietnam Seal, but his DD214 and was a dud and he said he could not remember his swim buddy and named a class number for BUDS that did not match regular formats. Plus, when his CMH came up and he claimed it was sealed by order of the president, it was obvious he was a faker.) people would just check. I was one of the people who did some checking. The result: most people are who they say they are.

[Spook]

I agree as what you've laid out by method. What often helps as a giveaway is how an impersonator acts or chooses his words, as you would note also.

By example, if a "Jenna Bush" would start posting here saying, "Oh, how I want to get it on with Maximus...."

(j/k from earlier forum thread history, Max, if you're reading this. )

In the case of the Australian MP personalities here in the BTS forums, the BTS forum profiles are rather detailed. Even photos and the "honorific" qualifier are included. Anyone impersonating the MP's (who ARE indeed listed by name in the second link I provided) would be asking for a world of hurt.

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Hmm, I've been assuming all along that it was just an inside "Aussie" joke. I'd be flabbergasted if an actual head of state were posting to the CM forum under his real name (or under any name). I suppose it is possible, but it seems highly unlikely to me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think its rather obvious that Slappy and Spook take themselves far too seriously, which is why these people have assumed these names. Personally I think its a great hoot, from an Australian perspective but then we are well known for taking the piss and stirring the pot.

Its interesting though, that Slappy, perhaps one of the worst ad hominem debators I've seen in a long, long, time has decided to attack the persons of these posters rather than answer their points.

[ 09-15-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]

[Mace]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

well if this

http://www.alp.org.au//kimbeazley/

is a sham website then this guy is surely going to great lengths to provide for his fake identity.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can confirm it's a proper web site...Kim Beazley is the head of the Australian Labor Party, which is something similar to your Democrats.

btw, I'd have to support Brian on this, It's in our Psyche to 'take the p*ss' hence these 'psuedonyms' based on key Australian politicians.

I think it's quite amusing myself...as long as they don't take it as far as the good general did.

Mace

[ 09-15-2001: Message edited by: Mace ]