Where is MAURA MURRAY

John, It is more than just Mason. Advocate's site re:dawn is now used to find a persons ip to trace. How nice.

Okay, that may be. But the posts in the last 24 hours re: dawn - at least as far as I oould see - pertained to Mason.

I guees I don't quite understand "advocate's site re: dawn".

It seemed like her mention of Mason kicked off this discussion. But maybe more happened before I got involved in this forum.

John wrote:

<quoted text>
Please see my earlier post. Mason brought that on himself with his incredible claim of being Fred Leatherman. All Dawn did was debunk that often offered lie (which was offered to legimate false and bogus information). She did not learn Mason's true identity or post it. She simply showed conclusivelly that Mason was imitating a semi well known person. Good for the forum, good for the real Fred Leatherman and no harm to anyone except that dangeros psycho posing as the real Fred L.

Mason sent me an email. If you know how to read an email header - you can tell from roughly where it was sent by using a program called Traceroute.

Traceroute traced his IP address to the city of Peducah, Kentucky - exactly where he said he is from.

Today, Dawn said she went to the Washington State Bar web site - where everyone that has or had a Law license in the state of Washington has their current address posted - and said that the addresses match up. Then she says she called the phone number listed at the Washington state bar web site for Fred Leatherman - and says "its not him."

I'm sorry - but I'm not going to call anyone at home. But I do note - that on his web page - is the email address the state Bar has of record - and it is the same email address he placed in the forum a month ago when this was brought up.

I posted the results of the Traceroute because I always thought he was who he said he was - and I found the proofless accusation unwarranted - frankly annoying - so I checked for myself. It had nothing to do with Advocator.

John - what I find curious about you - is that you felt the references to sexual practice offensive - but nothing else that has gone on here offensive at all.

As to Johnny Bravado myself - I've not reported or complained about what he has said - because at the end of the day - I feel it important that he express himself - no matter what he says to me.

John wrote:

Okay, that may be. But the posts in the last 24 hours re: dawn - at least as far as I oould see - pertained to Mason.
I guees I don't quite understand "advocate's site re: dawn".
It seemed like her mention of Mason kicked off this discussion. But maybe more happened before I got involved in this forum.

It's not just Mason John. She is trolling for IP addresses and I think we should be told why.

***Dawn wrote:Johnny
Please sign up on the other forum so private messages can be sent to you and you identity can be confirmed.

If this is a joke - this is a very sick joke and unfair to those that care about the Murrays or Maura.

It is not a funny joke.

If you are who you say you are - you can join the other forum where your IP can validate who you are.***

Why would one care unless they had something to hide?

Angel wrote:

Why would one care unless they had something to hide?

Do you know all the posters on this forum personally? I doubt you do. Would you like one of them finding out who and where you are and showing up at your door someday? Do you not see how dangerous that can be?

gvmeabrk wrote:

<quoted text>
Dawn, Is that why Advocate's forum was started to verify IP addresses? Oh well.

No. Advocate started the forum after several people mentioned how unwieldy it is to search through 600+ pages of disorganized forum (which is constantly interrupted by random BS for pages at a time) when it has no search function.

Re tracing IP addresses via the forum I set up. To the best of my knowledge, no one's IP address shows up on a Private Message (PM). If members on the forum EMAIL ONE ANOTHER, then I think IP addresses can be gained from email headers, but I think that has always been the case when it comes to email headers.

I absolutely did not create the site for the purpose of tracing IP addresses. I don't give out IP addresses. And I don't support tracing IP addresses in attempts to undermine anyone's right to privacy.

Angel wrote:

Why would one care unless they had something to hide?

That is not the point. Individuals have the RIGHT to privacy. And if you don't agree with the right to privacy and think that anyone who wants to protect his/her privacy must have something to hide, then YOU GO RIGHT AHEAD AND POST YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER AND WHATEVER ELSE YOU FEEL LIKE LETTING THE WHOLE WORLD KNOW, HONEY!!

Plus, nevermind that this entire discussion revolves around what may have been a terrible crime and there may well be criminals reading it.

Advocator, thank you for your response....
Most of us, those of us with minds, know your
rationale for starting the Forum for Maura and her
family...as for the rest...Phhffftttttt!

Topix has not traditionally been responsive to flagging, and it would seem to take a court order to raise a complaint to the level of a reprimand, so I would surprised if Mason has been escorted out of the door.
It is puzzling to recall his disdain for Fred Murray...and, at the same time, his bold claim to be someone he wasn't.
With the volume of his posting, I wouldn't be surprised if he has already, or will soon re-emerge as another identity from another location.

Benjamin Franklyne wrote:

<quoted text>
Mason sent me an email. If you know how to read an email header - you can tell from roughly where it was sent by using a program called Traceroute.
Traceroute traced his IP address to the city of Peducah, Kentucky - exactly where he said he is from.
Today, Dawn said she went to the Washington State Bar web site - where everyone that has or had a Law license in the state of Washington has their current address posted - and said that the addresses match up. Then she says she called the phone number listed at the Washington state bar web site for Fred Leatherman - and says "its not him."
I'm sorry - but I'm not going to call anyone at home. But I do note - that on his web page - is the email address the state Bar has of record - and it is the same email address he placed in the forum a month ago when this was brought up.

Both because of Dawn's contributions and other reasons, I am sure Mason is not the real Fred Leatherman, but I am going to back away from this discussion becuase it is not my object in being here. Whoever he is, I ignore his posts because he is not credible.

Benjamin Franklyne wrote:

I posted the results of the Traceroute because I always thought he was who he said he was - and I found the proofless accusation unwarranted - frankly annoying - so I checked for myself. It had nothing to do with Advocator.
John - what I find curious about you - is that you felt the references to sexual practice offensive - but nothing else that has gone on here offensive at all.
As to Johnny Bravado myself - I've not reported or complained about what he has said - because at the end of the day - I feel it important that he express himself - no matter what he says to me.

I have found a lot of things that have gone on here offensive. Mason put his own identity at issue here by repeatedly claiming to be some one and buttressing his points based on that claim. In that context, following information he provided and that is publicly available, it is actually a service to this forum and real Fred for Dawn to have merely verified whether this guy is who he says he is. He is the one who made it an issue, and repeatedly. I don't see the issue with this.

Anyway, I am going to try to back away from this discussion, as in the end, I don't care. I am not stupid enough to put my info out here (true or false) so nobody is gonna come checking on me. I know what you are going to say - oh but they could through this software that traces IP addresses - but I don't care. Nobody will and nobody really could - without extraordinary efforts - track me or anyone down, unless you put stuff out there. And someone who wants to take those extraordinary efforts ... will living in fear of them, beyond reasonable precautions, is paranoid.

Anyway, I respect and understand your view. Just stating mine. You probably know more about the technical side of the topic. No offense to you, I just don't care about this and wish I were not right now thinking about it so much. But that is my fault, not your fault.

Advocator wrote:

<quoted text>
That is not the point. Individuals have the RIGHT to privacy. And if you don't agree with the right to privacy and think that anyone who wants to protect his/her privacy must have something to hide, then YOU GO RIGHT AHEAD AND POST YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER AND WHATEVER ELSE YOU FEEL LIKE LETTING THE WHOLE WORLD KNOW, HONEY!!
Plus, nevermind that this entire discussion revolves around what may have been a terrible crime and there may well be criminals reading it.

On the topic of Fred L/Mason, this is my point also. Mason made his false identity an issue. By calling him out, Dawn did a service to this forum and the real Fred L.

Snowy White wrote:

Topix has not traditionally been responsive to flagging, and it would seem to take a court order to raise a complaint to the level of a reprimand, so I would surprised if Mason has been escorted out of the door.
It is puzzling to recall his disdain for Fred Murray...and, at the same time, his bold claim to be someone he wasn't.
With the volume of his posting, I wouldn't be surprised if he has already, or will soon re-emerge as another identity from another location.

I think he may have briefly at one point.

The administrator of topix can ban people at her discretion, without too much of a limit. While they might not be responsive in general, repeated posts that involve personal attacks which - if made in person and in public - could lead to a charge of harrassment, might tend to get them to ban someone. I think Mason crossed that line a lot.

As for him showing up here under another identity, I think he may have briefly already. But - not sure about this - he probably would have to do it from another computer and with a different handle.

And if he shows up with a different handle, behaves himself, and makes contributions, happy to have him back cause it makes no difference to me.

John wrote:

<quoted text>
Both because of Dawn's contributions and other reasons, I am sure Mason is not the real Fred Leatherman, but I am going to back away from this discussion becuase it is not my object in being here. Whoever he is, I ignore his posts because he is not credible.

My documented suspicion, long ago, was that Mason was not credible. I did not act on that suspicion, however, to confirm the veracity of the contact information Mason provided.

Note, too, that Sophie Bean and others have doubted the authenticity of poster's identities, and with good reason.

There is a line...a boundary...however, that should discourage someone from attempting to extract personal information or identify someone who wishes to remain anonymous.

Asking someone to post elsewhere, or communicate in a manner such as to facilitate identification, crosses that boundary.
Anonymity and privacy, IMO, should not be routinely challenged in this way, EVEN THOUGH I, TOO, HAVE DOUBTS ABOUT THE IDENTITIES AND PURPOSE OF SOME POSTERS.

If Advocator's forum is used by anyone as a vehicle to screen and verify a poster's identity, then this practice casts suspicion against the intended purpose of that forum.

I'd say, overall, that credibility/trust is achieved by authentic representation of self and consistency of content over time.
I regard these as important issues and have made my opinions clearly known in recent weeks.

I believe that the content/information conveyed by posts ARE framed and influenced by the reader's perceived reputation of the poster.

While there is no obligation to present an authentic self, an online reputation will either stand or fall according to the personal choices we make each and every time we post.

John wrote:

<quoted text>
I think he may have briefly at one point.
The administrator of topix can ban people at her discretion, without too much of a limit. While they might not be responsive in general, repeated posts that involve personal attacks which - if made in person and in public - could lead to a charge of harrassment, might tend to get them to ban someone. I think Mason crossed that line a lot.
As for him showing up here under another identity, I think he may have briefly already. But - not sure about this - he probably would have to do it from another computer and with a different handle.
And if he shows up with a different handle, behaves himself, and makes contributions, happy to have him back cause it makes no difference to me.

While I agree with what you are stating,and don't mean to be argumentative, it has been my direct experience, and the experience of others, that a very abusive poster was not banned elsewhere from a Topix thread in the recent past.
It is quite possible they are becoming more responsive, as evidenced by the links I posted yesterday.

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
No, I got you. I'm always in favour of clear and precise language.(It's a pretty sad state that we've come to, that we have to explain that we're not mad when we disagree or clarify something. Yikes.)

Thanks FireCat,

I appreciate you taking that in the spirit in which it was offered.

Bill

Shack wrote:

Advocator, thank you for your response....
Most of us, those of us with minds, know your
rationale for starting the Forum for Maura and her
family...as for the rest...Phhffftttttt!

How sad that one must try to make others appear to be stupid to make themselves look smart. Shack you never fail to come out with some nasty or rude comment. I don't think I need to tell you what you can do with that Phhfffttttttt but I'll give you a hint.....an area where the sun doesn't shine would be a good place~~