A reply from Brigadier Christopher Dunphie

[Slapdragon]

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

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 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brian, your really need to get some new lines -- the ones you have got boring a long time ago. My suggestion remains the same as it always does to you: read some books. I don't care that they made you read one book when you were an undergraduate, try a second. You may like it so much that a third will follow, and then you would not be such a joke in serious conversations.

Seriously, as we said, the posters who have listed themselves as MPs are not very impressive in the first place, so no one figured they were actually politicos, but it bears checking out.

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

[Spook]

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

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the real MP's weren't concerned about all this, then that's their own outlook. Not like the comments on the earlier cited thread were much in terms of controversy.

But if impersonators would later post political views diametrically opposed to those of the real MP's, or started posting racial slurs and personal insults, then would that also be a "great hoot"?

Borrowing someone's identity is lame, obnoxious, and inviting potential legal action. (Anyone further care to ask BTS's tolerance on having their forums utilized in such a way?) As Slap related earlier about C Dunphie having his identity borrowed, the real Dunphie didn't regard it to be funny in the least.

I suppose some people might have also regarded the antics of "Cpt Manieri" & "Jochen Peiper" last year to had been a "great hoot" in their turn.....

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

[Slapdragon]

The fact all three accounts may also be one person who is trying to make his or her position seem of greater importance.

In any case, I have had two replies from people in Australia concerning the real gentleman, and am now ready to contact the gentlemen in question. Identity theft is lame, and it is up to the thinking members of the various BBS on the Internet to assure that people who cannot defend themselves in this forum get some form of protection, especially when the assasinations could lead people to not buying an author's book or voting for them in an election, which is and was a real possibility with some of the lame opinions expressed by some of the people hiding behind pseudonyms.

[Brian]

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

Brian, your really need to get some new lines -- the ones you have got boring a long time ago. My suggestion remains the same as it always does to you: read some books. I don't care that they made you read one book when you were an undergraduate, try a second. You may like it so much that a third will follow, and then you would not be such a joke in serious conversations.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for proving my point so well, Slappy. I couldn't have done a better job myself.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Seriously, as we said, the posters who have listed themselves as MPs are not very impressive in the first place, so no one figured they were actually politicos, but it bears checking out.

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

Just out a matter of interest, what is the difference between calling oneself "John Howard" or "slapdragon", Slappy?

[Brian]

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

If the real MP's weren't concerned about all this, then that's their own outlook. Not like the comments on the earlier cited thread were much in terms of controversy.

But if impersonators would later post political views diametrically opposed to those of the real MP's, or started posting racial slurs and personal insults, then would that also be a "great hoot"?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obviously not. However, that has not happened.

Tell me, do you view Slappy's efforts at ad hominem as a "great hoot"?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Borrowing someone's identity is lame, obnoxious, and inviting potential legal action. (Anyone further care to ask BTS's tolerance on having their forums utilized in such a way?) As Slap related earlier about C Dunphie having his identity borrowed, the real Dunphie didn't regard it to be funny in the least.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tell me, should BTS ban all those people who use pseudonyms and the names of great generals/leaders from the past as their names?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I suppose some people might have also regarded the antics of "Cpt Manieri" & "Jochen Peiper" last year to had been a "great hoot" in their turn.....

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

And what did they do?

I think you're prejudging these people before they have even committed anything more serious than using an (to you) obscure politician's name.

None of the Australian posters have exactly been upset by this happening. Indeed, most of them have treated it as a joke, as I do.

I'd recommend a little less high-horse riding and a little more lightening up. It might make people much happier all 'round.

[ 09-16-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]

[Slapdragon]

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

Just out a matter of interest, what is the difference between calling oneself "John Howard" or "slapdragon", Slappy?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do not hide behind my psuedoname. My full academic, professional, and publication record is available for all to see. In addition, I do not think any famous politicos are named Slapdragon -- although I am sure that someone would have let me know before now if I was taking a politicians name.

As for ad hominem, please for god sake look up another word in the dictionary. You use that every three sentences when you do not want to admit ignorance or defeat. Combined with the term "strawman" which you use to represent any subject you are baffled by, it makes your posts rather repetitive.

I also want you to note that this thread did not turn into a flame fest until you darkened it. It was a serious discussion which you had the possibility of adding too.

The fact that this "Australian Delegation" (which is likely one guy from Sydney who is posting from a asylum) all chooses the route of hiding their idenity AND trying to take on a living persons identityis the issue. Your defense of them is just because they are the only supporters of your British always get screwed BTS sucks viewpoint.

[ 09-16-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Slapdragon]

Turning our backs on the Troll, here is my latest e-mail on the subject.

I have written to the CoS for Howard, and directly to Mr. Beazley through two e-mails provided by contacts in Australia. I am waiting on those responses, although as I said at the beginning they will most likely be negatives.

Other technical means are probably unneeded to solve this issue, although it will be good for BTS to know about the opinions of all three gentleman about using their names and in two cases making links to web accounts, especially if it solves a lot of hassle down the road.

[Spook]

I commend you, Brian. You've helped me wake up a little. (Not easy for me to do on a Sunday morning. )

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

Obviously not. However, that has not happened.

Tell me, do you view Slappy's efforts at ad hominem as a "great hoot"?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why constrain to Slapdragon? I don't consider anyone's ad-hominem efforts on a wargamer forum as amusing. It generates a lot of heat, and often kills off a tangible wargaming or historical issue of discussion. And my preference is not to wade into a verbal war unless there is something I think needs to be said.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Tell me, should BTS ban all those people who use pseudonyms and the names of great generals/leaders from the past as their names?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did assume that you understood the difference in your example above, and to borrowing the name and profession of a living person. The profile details for the MP personalities on this forum don't seem to hint, "Hi, I'm just joking around."

If you want to call yourself "Tony Blair" per example, then knock yourself out. I don't normally "police" personalities. But if you were to put on an act that you really were the actual British PM Tony Blair, then you should get the boot. Rather straightfoward, ya know.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

And what did they do?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Use the search utility and do some "forum history" research. But if you have no luck and are still overly curious, I might link you to a little gem from "Peiper" last year.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I think you're prejudging these people before they have even committed anything more serious than using an (to you) obscure politician's name.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll spell it out again. It isn't just the act of using the politician's name that's the potential damage. It's the borrowing the name, putting on an act, and then later misbehaving as to create the image that it's the impersonated person who's acting like a fool. As what regrettably happened to Dunphie.

But in this case, what you think is probably irrelevant. If BTS thinks that someone's identity is being impersonated, for some unknown purpose or agenda, then the impersonator will likely get banned.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

None of the Australian posters have exactly been upset by this happening. Indeed, most of them have treated it as a joke, as I do.

I'd recommend a little less high-horse riding and a little more lightening up. It might make people much happier all 'round.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And as I said earlier, I haven't really read much from the "MP's" here that has been overly provocative so far. But what bodes the future?

[ 09-16-2001: Message edited by: Spook ]

[Brian]

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

I do not hide behind my psuedoname. My full academic, professional, and publication record is available for all to see. In addition, I do not think any famous politicos are named Slapdragon -- although I am sure that someone would have let me know before now if I was taking a politicians name.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Steve Jackson" Isn't he someone famous?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

As for ad hominem, please for god sake look up another word in the dictionary. You use that every three sentences when you do not want to admit ignorance or defeat.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slappy, I use it because it correctly identifies your method of debate - you invariably do attempt to attack the poster, rather than what they are posting. You don't like Kim 'cause he points out exactly what you're doing and refuses to play your game.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Combined with the term "strawman" which you use to represent any subject you are baffled by, it makes your posts rather repetitive.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, bull****, Slappy. You enjoy deliberately misrepresenting what another poster says simply because either you want to demolish not their argument but the argument you claim they have made. I've pulled you up on it more times than enough. Its not only stupid, its annoying. I don't doubt you have a great deal to contribute to this sort of discussion but you do yourself a severe disservice by adopting these childish tactics when people disagree with you.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I also want you to note that this thread did not turn into a flame fest until you darkened it. It was a serious discussion which you had the possibility of adding too.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I rather think it was very much a "flamefest" - you were attacking IMO rather unfairly someone whose decided to have a joke and thats the point - it is a joke. You appear to need pretty much a humour transplant, Slappy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

The fact that this "Australian Delegation" (which is likely one guy from Sydney who is posting from a asylum) all chooses the route of hiding their idenity AND trying to take on a living persons identityis the issue. Your defense of them is just because they are the only supporters of your British always get screwed BTS sucks viewpoint.

[ 09-16-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*SIGH*, as usualy you attempt to misrepresent the arguments which have been put forward. As both Kim and I have pointed out, you appear to equate a desire for improved historical accuracy with a desire for one upmanship in the game. Perhaps this is how you think but I know I don't.

You appear to have real problems with coping with historically based criticism of this game from a British/Commonwealth perspective. Now, if I wanted to engage in your illogical thinking, I'd perhaps suggest that your an Anglophobe?

[Slapdragon]

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

*SIGH*, as usualy you attempt to misrepresent the arguments which have been put forward. As both Kim and I have pointed out, you appear to equate a desire for improved historical accuracy with a desire for one upmanship in the game. Perhaps this is how you think but I know I don't.

You appear to have real problems with coping with historically based criticism of this game from a British/Commonwealth perspective. Now, if I wanted to engage in your illogical thinking, I'd perhaps suggest that your an Anglophobe?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, we need to move past the Troll in the ointment. I am unsure why you think my name being the same as someone else in real life matters, but if you want to contact Mr. Jackson of Steve Jackson games and tell him an academic is and has published articles under the same name as his, please be a man and do it. The last e-mail I have for him is steve@sjgames.com, but that is rather old -- you may need to update it. Please give him my e-mail address: steve.n.jackson@usdoj.gov as a starting point.

Now Brian -- I am for historical accuracy. That is why I oppose your historical viewpoints. You don't like me because I do oppose them. When you actually present an argument with any evidence -- I take on the evidence. However you rarely do this, and usually dodge the whole evidence thing. Reread every thread you have trolled and see this. For me, the big turning point was your implicatiuon that the Allies did not win Guadalcanal until 1945 because you wanted to support your "US forces hampered Australians and did not themselves win any victories until middle 1944 theory. It was so out of touch with reality that it called into question any reading you had done, and anyone who tried point out the victories you called their arguements strawmen, while anyone pointed out that you were not supporting you accusations with evidence were committing ad hominem attacks. You build an unassailable fortress not based on facts.

The fact that you claim to be making the game "better" is not true. Switch over to proper historical arguement, drop the uberanglo viewpoint, and look at subjects based upon evidence, and then yes - your work would be recognized by BTS and the game would change to reflect your arguments (or at least future games would). As it is, you harm your own cause. I even argued for a few of the more tactical Hobart's Funnies in three other threads, namely the Fascine Carrier and dozers -- but when I take on the role of devil's advocate in that thread people freak and loose all sense of historical argument. When I say that tankers used to blow fascines when under fire, it was SOP and ask how that would be handled I get lots of dodging -- thus showing immediately the weakness of arguments. If you haven't thought through a rather simple issue, then what about the more complex?

Try for once building a Rexford style argument, or a John Waters style argument, or an Andreas style argument, on any historical page rather than waving HM flag, and people will immediately change their mind about your posts. This is a great board full of great people

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

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

Again, we need to move past the Troll in the ointment. I am unsure why you think my name being the same as someone else in real life matters,

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps (as usual) you are missing the point, Mr.Slapdragon? You attack me, because I have chosen as a pseudonym, the same as that of an Australian politician who happens to have a deep interest in military history, not my ideas.

You've decided to be a sanctimonous prat, merely because I challenge your views, something you dislike. Indeed, you appare so insecure that you have to silence your opponents anyway you possibly can.

What is the difference if I appear as, "Kim Beazely MP Ma or as...

[Mulga Bill]

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

Again, we need to move past the Troll in the ointment. I am unsure why you think my name being the same as someone else in real life matters, but if you want to contact Mr. Jackson of Steve Jackson games and tell him an academic is and has published articles under the same name as his, please be a man and do it. The last e-mail I have for him is steve@sjgames.com, but that is rather old -- you may need to update it. Please give him my e-mail address: steve.n.jackson@usdoj.gov as a starting point.

Now Brian -- I am for historical accuracy. That is why I oppose your historical viewpoints. You don't like me because I do oppose them. When you actually present an argument with any evidence -- I take on the evidence. However you rarely do this, and usually dodge the whole evidence thing. Reread every thread you have trolled and see this. For me, the big turning point was your implicatiuon that the Allies did not win Guadalcanal until 1945 because you wanted to support your "US forces hampered Australians and did not themselves win any victories until middle 1944 theory. It was so out of touch with reality that it called into question any reading you had done, and anyone who tried point out the victories you called their arguements strawmen, while anyone pointed out that you were not supporting you accusations with evidence were committing ad hominem attacks. You build an unassailable fortress not based on facts.

The fact that you claim to be making the game "better" is not true. Switch over to proper historical arguement, drop the uberanglo viewpoint, and look at subjects based upon evidence, and then yes - your work would be recognized by BTS and the game would change to reflect your arguments (or at least future games would). As it is, you harm your own cause. I even argued for a few of the more tactical Hobart's Funnies in three other threads, namely the Fascine Carrier and dozers -- but when I take on the role of devil's advocate in that thread people freak and loose all sense of historical argument. When I say that tankers used to blow fascines when under fire, it was SOP and ask how that would be handled I get lots of dodging -- thus showing immediately the weakness of arguments. If you haven't thought through a rather simple issue, then what about the more complex?

Try for once building a Rexford style argument, or a John Waters style argument, or an Andreas style argument, on any historical page rather than waving HM flag, and people will immediately change their mind about your posts. This is a great board full of great people<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma:

[/qb]

Perhaps (as usual) you are missing the point, Mr.Slapdragon? You attack me, because I have chosen as a pseudonym, the same as that of an Australian politician who happens to have a deep interest in military history, not my ideas.

You've decided to be a sanctimonous prat, merely because I challenge your views, something you dislike. Indeed, you appare so insecure that you have to silence your opponents anyway you possibly can.

What is the difference if I appear as, "Kim Beazely MP Ma or as...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simple,

First, by carrying multiple accounts just to make your arguments seem better, as is likely the possibility, you are shaming this entire forum and yourself. Second, by using a real living human being you are committing identity theft, which is wrong even if your moral compass cannot comprehend that. Third, you failed to read any of the previous arguments and comments, so are as is often the case, out of touch. Brigadeer Dunphie was collecting real harm from the troll who took his name. Your taking of Mr. Beazley's name is wrong, and has been reported to them. It is up to them to decide if it is actionable, and how far they want it taken. Brigadeer Dunphie only wanted that I keep him informed of the cowards actions on this board. Your own cowardice I cannot control one way or another, and unless Mr. Beazley wants to do something or ask me to post a disavowal of your commentary to the board, it wont be an issue.

As for my own name -- could just as well use it, and I do in my publications. In addition, I am not too cowardly and craven to post my web site (despite it not being updated for six months) and my real name. Brian took exception of my historical publications under my own name, Steve Jackson, because there was another Steve Jackson. I told him to go ahead and contact that person -- don't just threaten here. If Mr. Jackson of Steve Jackson games has a problem with me publishing under the name Steve Jackson, he can contact my lawyer.

As for what you say -- I have said before you have not really been enough apart of any conversations in a real sense to matter one way or another. I do not care what you have typed in the past, only what you may type in the future with your stolen identity.

[Slapdragon]

A warning to other posters:

Apparently Mr. Beasley et. al. have begun to go the way of the other assaults on the boards by multiplying log in names and posting sham threads (or joke threads). God Posting first on the thread

Athiest Lobby . Note that these actions are the same as what happened with Mr. Pieper last year.

I would advise everyone on the board to look very closely at any under 10 post poster closely, especially if they just seem to be stirring the pot.

[Simon Fox]

Personally I would think the 'real' Slapdragon would be absolutely furious to think that this bloke Jacko has used his name for a 'nick' and is furiously investigating other criminal exploiters of the terminally dim and credulous.

In fact I have the sudden urge to wastefully spend my time locating the 'real' Slapdragon so that I can 'dob' on Jacko. After all we all know how Aussies love a dobber especially somefink really important like this.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

Personally I would think the 'real' Slapdragon would be absolutely furious to think that this bloke Jacko has used his name for a 'nick' and is furiously investigating other criminal exploiters of the terminally dim and credulous.

In fact I have the sudden urge to wastefully spend my time locating the 'real' Slapdragon so that I can 'dob' on Jacko. After all we all know how Aussies love a dobber especially somefink really important like this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, if you read the original thread preTrolling, the disucssion of issue was hijacked identity -- which when brought to the attention of the hijackee was very important. For example, what if I went onto a medical journal discussion group and started to post crap about your views of research, to the point that people started to refuse to buy books by you and your research was discounted or at least given a bad rap.

This is a real issue.

[Simon Fox]

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

Actually, if you read the original thread preTrolling, the disucssion of issue was hijacked identity -- which when brought to the attention of the hijackee was very important. For example, what if I went onto a medical journal discussion group and started to post crap about your views of research, to the point that people started to refuse to buy books by you and your research was discounted or at least given a bad rap.

This is a real issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Your sense of perspective seems somewhat distorted. Pehaps in the first instance there may be some element of merit in what you have to say but continueing your inquisition seems to be worthy of wry amusement, at the least. One man's "real issue" is another man's "storm in a teacup". Feel free to carry on though you're producing more original comedy than any of the gits in the cesspool.

[Triumvir]

Oh, fer crying out loud. They're SEPPOS. Their sense of humour is surgically removen at birth and any remaining shreds of sarcasm are systematically stomped on throughout highschool until they are the very souls of earnestness, able to take offense at a single bound, stopping trains of logic with bare hands.

They're Seppos, and that's all there is to be said about that. There's nothing wrong with being a Seppo, just thank Grud that not all Americans are like that. Something you have to learn to ignore.

[ 09-17-2001: Message edited by: Triumvir ]

[Slapdragon]

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

Oh, fer crying out loud. They're SEPPOS. Their sense of humour is surgically removen at birth and any remaining shreds of sarcasm are systematically stomped on throughout highschool until they are the very souls of earnestness, able to take offense at a single bound, stopping trains of logic with bare hands.

They're Seppos, and that's all there is to be said about that. There's nothing wrong with being a Seppo, just thank Grud that not all Americans are like that. Something you have to learn to ignore.

[ 09-17-2001: Message edited by: Triumvir ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please avoid turning this into a bash America thread, enough of them have come up to last us a life time, and BTS specifically asked that this sort of bashing be refrained from.

As for why everyone is getting so upset, why? If Mr. Beazeley and Howard reply that they are not posting (and we know now that Beazely is not) and that they do not care about the identity theft, then who cares? As for all of the extra identities and spoof threads, those really are a problem that BTS does not need right now, all though it is very difficult to make anyone see that.

[Simon Fox]

Yes! Let's stamp out these devious identity theives. BTS obviously don't need this cos Jacko says so and he knows. Lead on Jacko! The more you rave on about it, the more it will happen.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

Yes! Let's stamp out these devious identity theives. BTS obviously don't need this cos Jacko says so and he knows. Lead on Jacko! The more you rave on about it, the more it will happen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Laugh all you want, but if I found someone claiming to be a medical researcher named Simon Fox posting gibberish in an internationally read science fiction discussion group, I would contact you and say, is this really you?

As for BTS, you need to slow down and read the paragraph better. It is the multiplication of identities and troll posting that BTS does not need, as they said very clearly in the Pieper incidence. It is none of my business what they do about it, but a warning not to take troll bate is not out of place when it is discovered.

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

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

Simple,

First, by carrying multiple accounts just to make your arguments seem better, as is likely the possibility, you are shaming this entire forum and yourself.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Keep up on your high horse, Mr.Slapdragon. Hey is the view from up there really good?

I notice that you've given up talking about historical facts in favour of continuing your attacks on me, personally. Looks like I was right, you seek to silence your opponents, rather than refute their arguments.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Second, by using a real living human being you are committing identity theft, which is wrong even if your moral compass cannot comprehend that.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, you'll be telling all those comedians who do impersonations of other people that they are doing something nasty, Mr.Slapdragon?

Gee, you must be the real life and soul of the party. I must remember not to do my Bluebottle impersonation around you...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Third, you failed to read any of the previous arguments and comments, so are as is often the case, out of touch.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What makes you think I didn't read them, Mr.Slapdragon?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Brigadeer Dunphie was collecting real harm from the troll who took his name. Your taking of Mr. Beazley's name is wrong, and has been reported to them. It is up to them to decide if it is actionable, and how far they want it taken. Brigadeer Dunphie only wanted that I keep him informed of the cowards actions on this board. Your own cowardice I cannot control one way or another, and unless Mr. Beazley wants to do something or ask me to post a disavowal of your commentary to the board, it wont be an issue.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This Mr.Beazley is laughing

[Triumvir]

Oh, come on Slapdragon. I specifically said that not all Americans are Seppos. This is not an anti-American thread -- this is an anti-humourless American thread. A quite different thing, you'll agree. Not all Americans are humourless -- just those who talk about <splutter> identity theft <choke> on the _Internet_. <drum heels on floor in helpless paroxysms of laughter>

It's still the case that no one knows you're a dog on the Net... and hopefully will stay that way.

And to be perfectly honest, this is a quite futile thread and therefore humourous in itself.

[Slapdragon]

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

Oh, come on Slapdragon. I specifically said that not all Americans are Seppos. This is not an anti-American thread -- this is an anti-humourless American thread. A quite different thing, you'll agree. Not all Americans are humourless -- just those who talk about <splutter> identity theft <choke> on the _Internet_. <drum heels on floor in helpless paroxysms of laughter>

It's still the case that no one knows you're a dog on the Net... and hopefully will stay that way.

And to be perfectly honest, this is a quite futile thread and therefore humourous in itself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

E-mail Brigadeer Dunphie, an honorable soldier, scholar, and citizen of his country, whose name was hijacked. He found the content of "his" post and the fact someone would pose as him not amusing in the slightest, and felt real damage was done.

It is actually not surprising that so many people think idenity theft is no big deal. You learn in police training that a dozen people will watch a mugging without taking even a safe action to prevent it, and less henious crimes Or take a real situation where at leat 15 people watch two youths paint phallic symbols on a WW1 war dead memorial. Interviewing them later, and they thought that it was "funny", "not important", "just a prank" which is why not a single person called the police to stop it.

[ 09-17-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

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

E-mail Brigadeer Dunphie, an honorable soldier, scholar, and citizen of his country, whose name was hijacked. He found the content of "his" post and the fact someone would pose as him not amusing in the slightest, and felt real damage was done.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just out of a matter of interest, why did you assume "C.Dunphrie" was the Brigadier?

I saw no reference to his trying to claim he was "Brigadier Craig Dunphrie" - you assumed he was "Brigadier Craig Dunphrie" and acted accordingly.

No one assumes I am Kim Beazley, except yourself for some reason.

I'd suggest you remember what Mr.Shakespeare had to say on the matter of names and identities.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

It is actually not surprising that so many people think idenity theft is no big deal. You learn in police training that a dozen people will watch a mugging without taking even a safe action to prevent it, and less henious crimes Or take a real situation where at leat 15 people watch two youths paint phallic symbols on a WW1 war dead memorial. Interviewing them later, and they thought that it was "funny", "not important", "just a prank" which is why not a single person called the police to stop it.

[ 09-17-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps that merely indicates the importance of WWI in the minds of most people in the 21st century.

Tell me, would you ring the police if you saw someone welding the name of a very contraversial soldier onto say, a 2nd Boer War Memorial, Mr.Slapdragon - if you knew that (a) the person concerned was a descendent of that soldier and ( the soldier's name was one Lt. William Morant?

I suspect so. Here in Australia, people would applaud him for his larrikinism - his unwillingness to accept the "official" view that William Morant - the Breaker, was as he was portrayed by the forces of the establishment.

You'd see it as defacing a public memorial, not the righting of a wrong.