Questions for Lucianarchy

[Lucianarchy]

It is not a problem what Larsen's sexuality is, as long as he's not a pedophile.

 

[Lucianarchy]

budddyh
JREF Kid

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: darkest Philadelphia
Posts: 1052

[...]

Here's what I found out so far.
Post in question here:
http://disc.server.com/discussion.c...104&article=220
IP address (view source to see it) 216.112.142.177
Which resolves to concentric.net in California.

All you have to do is tie Lucianarchy to that IP address. I have been unable to do so. So far there is nothing tying Lucianarchy to this post.
[/quote



Now, please, what is "similar" about the IP's?

 

[CFLarsen]

Now, please, what is "similar" about the IP's?

I asked you a question, I got a reply, I am still looking into it.

 

[gnome]

I asked you a question, I got a reply, I am still looking into it.

Claus... I hate to play into Lucianarchy's hands if that's what I'm doing, but I have to call them like I see them.

You made a very specific technical claim linking Luci to the post in question. If you are not going to withdraw the claim, I feel you are obligated by integrity to present the information that leads you to that technical claim.

Even if your study of the matter is not complete, surely you can post what you already know, that led you to say so in the first pace.

Additionally, you have hammered Luci and others in the past for refusing to give direct, informative answers. How can you now make a similar refusal? It has been almost painful to see you dancing around this issue, when you have been a champion of openness and disclosure.

 

[CFLarsen]

gnome,

First, let me make it absolutely clear: I am not dancing around this issue. Quite the opposite. I have met people's enquiries with my explanation, which they can agree with or not, of course. However, I have to stress - again - that I don't link Lucianarchy to the quote, nor do I say that it is Lucianarchy. I see similarities, and I am still looking into it.

To me, it's equivalent to examining the evidence of mediumship: Does mediumship exist? There are some things that point in the direction, there are other things that point against it. I could also point to a political/military subject: WMD in Iraq. Do they exist, or do they not? So far, we have seen none.

Does that mean that they don't exist? No. Should we stop talking about it? No.

Should the point in the list be removed? I don't think so, for the same reasons: It would be equivalent to stop talking about mediumship at all. I think I can run the risk and assume that very few people here are interested in ceasing to talk about mediumship or, for that matter, any other paranormal phenomenon. If no paranormal phenomena exist, then we can still discuss why people believe in them. If they do exist...oy!

Same with WMD: There are still consequences, regardless of they exist or not. If they exist, the rationale for the war was supported by previous claims. If they do not, then quite a few politicians are in deep manure.

I think it is quite alright to have "open issues". If we can find an answer - e.g. test a claim, look for WMD or try to locate Lucianarchy's IPs, we should try, with everything we got. I am doing the latter, as well as having been involved with tests of paranormal phenomena as well. As for looking for WMD..it is a bit harder - but I can assure you there are none in my back yard!

Really.

 

[gnome]

gnome,

First, let me make it absolutely clear: I am not dancing around this issue. Quite the opposite. I have met people's enquiries with my explanation, which they can agree with or not, of course. However, I have to stress - again - that I don't link Lucianarchy to the quote, nor do I say that it is Lucianarchy. I see similarities, and I am still looking into it.

With all respect, Claus, this doesn't cover it.

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Status: Highly likely that it is L's statement. Very similar ISPs.

The statement that needs elaboration is "Very similar ISPs."

I have yet to see any information from you that explains what leads you to say that. Pressed, you say you are still studying it. But this was not presented as speculation or hypothesis, but as a statement of fact. At least three people now have asked you to go further on this particular point and on each occasion you have not. How is that not dancing around the issue?

 

[Thanz]

gnome,

First, let me make it absolutely clear: I am not dancing around this issue. Quite the opposite. I have met people's enquiries with my explanation, which they can agree with or not, of course. However, I have to stress - again - that I don't link Lucianarchy to the quote, nor do I say that it is Lucianarchy. I see similarities, and I am still looking into it.

You actually believe that you are NOT dancing around the issue? Then you shouldn't mind some simple questions:

• On what did you base the statement that it is "Highly likely that it is L's statement."?
• You said that there were "Very similar ISPs". Did you mean ISP as in "Internet Service Provider", or is it a typo and did you mean IP addresses?
• Did that last question make any difference - are "ISPs" and "IP addresses" the same?
• You say that you are still looking into it. Exactly what are you looking at?
• What efforts have you already undertaken to look into it?
• It has been a year. What do you have left to do?

 

[CFLarsen]

You actually believe that you are NOT dancing around the issue? Then you shouldn't mind some simple questions:

Of course not. To mind would be to dance around the issue.

On what did you base the statement that it is "Highly likely that it is L's statement."?

I cannot reveal that - yet. There are a number of people involved, some whose identity I cannot reveal at the present time - some, I have promised to keep their involvement confidential, mostly due to the long history of deceit on Lucianarchy's part. You have no idea how deep this goes.

You said that there were "Very similar ISPs". Did you mean ISP as in "Internet Service Provider", or is it a typo and did you mean IP addresses?

Both. I should have been more clear. Apologies.

Did that last question make any difference - are "ISPs" and "IP addresses" the same?

No, ISP means "Internet Service Provider". IP means "Internet Protocol".

You say that you are still looking into it. Exactly what are you looking at?

Although I am not at liberty to reveal everything - yet - I can say that the investigations are many-threaded and rather complicated. It does not merely involve a brutal Internet search, but also connecting with people. That takes time, I'm afraid, partly because people have been hurt by Lucianarchy's actions before. I am not always met with open arms, I can assure you. Suspicion runs deep.

What efforts have you already undertaken to look into it?

See above.

It has been a year. What do you have left to do?

That's hard to say, since this is not an investigation where I can see the finishing line. When I know sufficient to reach an answer, I will let you and everyone else know.

 

[gnome]

I cannot reveal that - yet. There are a number of people involved, some whose identity I cannot reveal at the present time - some, I have promised to keep their involvement confidential, mostly due to the long history of deceit on Lucianarchy's part. You have no idea how deep this goes.

Finally you're beginning to reach something that answers the question.

But I'll make a gentleman's bet with you (no stakes, just honor)... I'll bet that when you finally reveal what's going on, I can paraphrase it in such a way that would have given a satisfactory answer, without violating anyone's confidentiality, or undermining your efforts.

In other words, I don't believe the total secrecy is necessary. It sounds way too much like what we're expected to swallow without evidence from "believers". But we'll see.

I still contend, however, that if you are unwilling to present your evidence at this time, you should remove that specific claim until you are. You're trying to have it both ways--by mentioning ISP's, you're trying to gain credibility for your statement. But you don't deserve it yet. Representing that you have evidence, but being unwilling to show it is the same thing as offering none.

 

[CFLarsen]

Finally you're beginning to reach something that answers the question.

But I'll make a gentleman's bet with you (no stakes, just honor)... I'll bet that when you finally reveal what's going on, I can paraphrase it in such a way that would have given a satisfactory answer, without violating anyone's confidentiality, or undermining your efforts.

I cannot say anything about that. However, I doubt anyone would take my word for it. Heck, they shouldn't!!

In other words, I don't believe the total secrecy is necessary. It sounds way too much like what we're expected to swallow without evidence from "believers".

Ah, but the difference is that I am not making any claim that it is Lucianarchy.

But we'll see.

Hopefully, we will. Hey, it might even turn out to be nothing! Like with paranormal claims, who knows?

.....however, regarding WMD, I am beginning to lean on the answer that we won't find any...ever...but that's for another thread...

I still contend, however, that if you are unwilling to present your evidence at this time, you should remove that specific claim until you are.

We disagree there. I trust you will understand my reasoning.

 

[gnome]

We disagree there. I trust you will understand my reasoning.

I really don't... you added a detail (similar ISP's) intended to make your statement more believable. By that you are suggesting people draw a preliminary conclusion before the evidence is in.

But I can't make you do anything. If we have to agree to disagree on this point, so be it.

 

[CFLarsen]

I really don't... you added a detail (similar ISP's) intended to make your statement more believable. By that you are suggesting people draw a preliminary conclusion before the evidence is in.

Ehh...no. I added it, because I wasn't clear the first time. I am not suggesting anything - I have repeatedly stated that no conclusion can be reached. Yet.

But I can't make you do anything. If we have to agree to disagree on this point, so be it.

Yup.

 

[Lucianarchy]

I cannot reveal that - yet. There are a number of people involved, some whose identity I cannot reveal at the present time - some, I have promised to keep their involvement confidential, mostly due to the long history of deceit on Lucianarchy's part. You have no idea how deep this goes.

It goes all the way back to Roswell.

Claus, has anyone ever told you that you just might actually be suffering from paranoid delusions?

 

[Timble]

Nobody to lie to on Mia Dolan tonight, Lucianarchole?

 

[gnome]

Ehh...no. I added it, because I wasn't clear the first time. I am not suggesting anything - I have repeatedly stated that no conclusion can be reached. Yet.

You have suggested that it is "likely." That's a little stronger than "inconclusive".

 

[CFLarsen]

It goes all the way back to Roswell.

Not quite. There are some interesting links to some interesting people. And posts. And socks aplenty...

Claus, has anyone ever told you that you just might actually be suffering from paranoid delusions?

Ah, yes, of course: Why not start spreading rumours about my sanity, so people will not take anything I say serious?

You don't really think that anyone fell for that cheap trick you tried to pull at the Mia Dolan board? Sock puppets seem a crucial part of your method.

You have suggested that it is "likely." That's a little stronger than "inconclusive".

Perhaps.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Ah, yes, of course: Why not start spreading rumours about my sanity, so people will not take anything I say serious?

'Rumours'? lol! Claus, the people who dislike me are laughing at you now. lol.

I notice you've devoloped paranoia into thinking the 'sock puppets' are out to get you. I told you, they are from Roswell. Make sure you get your tin-foil hat on.

Don't take this as a diagnosis, but there are plenty of people reading this who know your behaviour is now verging on full-blown clinical psychosis.

Way to bolster your integrity. I am sure the skeptical community is proud of you

 

[JamesM]

Two bald men fighting over a comb.

 

[CFLarsen]

'Rumours'? lol! Claus, the people who dislike me are laughing at you now. lol.

Perhaps. You're the psychic one. Oh, wait - no, you're not....

I notice you've devoloped paranoia into thinking the 'sock puppets' are out to get you. I told you, they are from Roswell. Make sure you get your tin-foil hat on.

I notice that you are still unable to read. I do not think that sock puppets are out to get me. I do have a growing body of evidence that show your many - many - sock puppets. Or perhaps you deny that you have ever used sock puppets? That would help my investigation a great deal.

Don't take this as a diagnosis, but there are plenty of people reading this who know your behaviour is now verging on full-blown clinical psychosis.

I won't, then. I also doubt that you know what goes on in people's minds. Though I have serious doubts about your psychic abilities, I'm sure that you are somewhat familiar with psychiatry.

Way to bolster your integrity. I am sure the skeptical community is proud of you

Judging from the number of hits on SkepticReport and the amount of positive feedback I get, I would say "yes". A big "yes".

So - have you ever used sock puppets, Lucianarchy? Just "yes" or "no".

 

[CFLarsen]

Two bald men fighting over a comb.

Not at all. First, I'm not the bald one....