>>Hmm... if this issue isn't my concern, why did you post the UT message footer in the first place? You made it everyone's concern. You seemed quite happy for me and others to discuss it earlier... why the change of heart?

>No change of heart Al.

Ah, so it is my concern. For a moment there, I thought that you, a champion of free speech, were trying to discourage my continued participation in this thread.

>The relevant issue is censorship on the wiki. Obfuscation on your part to detract from that issue is apparent.

This issue has expanded to include an examination of your role in it. There are two parties to the dispute: you and Steve. If you want a discussion of Steve's actions and behaviour it's fair to discuss yours as well. You might not welcome this expansion; well, tough.

>>BTW I haven't threatened you - that's paranoia on your part.

>To threaten, one must be taken seriously. I don't take you or Steve seriously.

Nice about-face - I suppose your claim that I "threatened" you doesn't meet your own exacting legal standards. I'll take this as an admission that I did not threaten you. I'll ignore the remaining bluster.

>>I think this thread has been very enlightening for anyone wishing to follow it through carefully. I'm glad we were able to flesh it out beyond your original message footer.

>What did you flesh out?

Everything we've learned about this issue that's not in your original message footer. Partial summary provided below.

>As far as I can tell, the censorship issue is still there - unchallenged. About all I have seen coming from you is a bunch of half-baked theories that asserted I committed trespass, libel, etc. In each and every case, I refuted and de-bunked your point. In that regard, you were/are just like your friend Steve - lots of bullet points - but full of hot air and no substance.

First of all, I can't consider Steve Black a friend - I've never met him, he and I have exchanged a handful of e-mails, that's been the extent of our relationship.

Second, Steve has, to my mind, admitted that he deleted some posts he allowed you to make on the Wiki, apparently in late November. I was wrong - you did not, in fact, libel Steve. Is it ironic that my own investigation - inviting Steve to write a message that I later posted - led to this conclusion? Of
course - but it revealed other interesting tidbits as well.

************************************
Some definitions from Webster's New World Dictionary:

Trespass: Both non-legal and legal definitions are given.

Non-legal: (v.) "to go on another's land or property without permission or right"

Legal: (v.) to commit a trespass (n.), which in turn is "an illegal act done forcefully against another's person, rights, or property"

To me, the non-legal definition describes the act of "going on" or "visiting" a web site without permission or right. You've argued that, somehow, the legal definition does not apply. To say I'm still skeptical would be an understatement.

For the purposes of this post, here's another definition:

Intrude: (v.) "to force (one's self or one's thoughts) upon others without being asked or welcomed". The section on synonyms states "intrude implies the forcing of one's self or something upon another without invitation, permission, or welcome"

I believe computer and/or network "intrusion" is a criminal offence in some jurisdictions. Is it an offence in Pennsylvania at the state or federal levels?

From this point on I'll use the terms "computer intrusion" or "intrusion" to describe the unauthorized access of, posting of messages to, or other modification of the content of, the Wiki web site.

************************************
This is my understanding of some of your interactions with the Wiki this year:

- You are banned from the Wiki "several months" prior to June 21. Steve starts blocking IP addresses you use to interact with it. Most likely, you quickly realize you're banned; however, we can't pin a rough date on your deductive abilities until:

- On or around June 21, you use your friend Rod Paddock's resources to circumvent the blocked IP address list (the Wiki's security) and intrude on the Wiki. The result is that Rod's IP address is blocked. You assure Rod that you "won't do it again".

We haven't yet heard any complaints from you that your IP addresses are being blocked, and (most likely) your posts are being deleted. Why not?

- At other times in this calendar year you intrude again on the Wiki, involving third parties such as Rutgers University and one or more IP-spoofing web proxies such as anonymizer.com. How many times did you intrude on the Wiki? I've already asked you directly - you failed to respond.

- According to Steve, at some time most likely in November the Wiki site suffered a technical failure that required a server change. Reading between the lines, one effect was that the blocked IP list was deactivated or lost. Threads started here on the UT in late October and early November noted problems while trying to access the site.

- To this point you have no indication from Steve that your banishment has been lifted. Given your mutual animosity, that's extremely unlikely.

- Sometime after the Wiki failure, you notice that IP addresses that were once blocked, are now able to access the Wiki. Did you contact Steve to confirm that he lifted your banishment? No. Instead, while knowing you were probably still banned, you intrude once again on the Wiki and make a post (call it Post A).

- Steve and others engage you in a thread on the Wiki. By allowing and responding to Post A, Steve nullifies the intrusion offence it represents, lifts your banishment and allows you to access the Wiki.

- A short while later, Steve decides to banish you again, and deletes your posts. Yes, it's questionable behaviour. Yes, it makes him look bad. It seems Steve is not perfect. Ultimately, he admits to a "lapse of judgement" and apologizes on this forum.

- Another short while later, someone, without attribution, defaces Steve's personal profile page on the Wiki with a message that was similar, if not identical, to the message footer you created here on the UT. If you want to talk about violating the spirit of the Wiki, the coward who did that is a shining example. Were you that coward, John?

- Finally, you create, of all things, a custom message footer here on the UT and this thread starts. I've already commented on the cowardice of that act; again you have failed to respond.

Another example of "fleshing out"? It turns out you're a student of Rutgers University, which has an interesting Code of Student Conduct. I pointed out a few potential shortcomings of your behaviour according to that Code. Your "each and every" rebuttal didn't address points (h), (m) or (s) - somehow you thought 2 out of 5 was good enough. That's too bad, (m) is my favourite, I was hoping you would explain how your behaviour has been consistent with the ethical code of your intended profession.

************************************
You wanted to show only one side of this issue - your own. You selected a forum where you knew Steve couldn't participate. You discouraged discussion of your role in this mess. You ignore direct questions, and employ bluster, insults and patronizing "advice" when all else fails. You are attempting censorship of your own.

In trying to come up with a single word to describe your behaviour, "disappointing" doesn't do it justice, "appalling" is true only of some aspects - I think "sad" says it best.