The Fulfillment of Matthew 24:14 about to Be Revealed...
Comments
-
@Bill_Coley wrote
Your report that you're not convinced that the two posters in question are the same person puzzles me. We witnessed identical content posted twice within a handful of minutes under different user IDs, but which prior to its second appearance in the thread, was clearly deleted by the first user ID and replaced by a single sentence. The day after I set out in question form what seemed to me to have been the sequence in which those posts unfolded, the second user posted an unconventional word which appeared to announce the end of his or her posting in these forums. What possible chain of events OTHER than a common source could explain those outcomes?
I never said that the two posts didn't have a common source. They obviously do. However, that's not the same as claiming that @GaoLu and @Truth are the same person.
There are other explanations, for example that @GaoLu brought @Truth on the forum because they know each other in real life. That's not an entirely improbable scenario. For example, my bet friend and I are in many of the same Christian groups because we brought each other in. Now should I use my friend's computer, for whatever reason, and post something without first checking who is logged in... ooops. Something like this would happen.
Now if @Truth says that there's another explanation, that's entirely within the realm of the possible. Of course, one user posting under two IDs is also in the realm of possibility. The evidence we have here isn't sufficient to prove one or the other beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, I'm not convinced.
@Bill_Coley wrote
the second user posted an unconventional word which appeared to announce the end of his or her posting in these forums.
That would be very unfortunate, because most of the time I've really valued his contributions.
@Bill_Coley wrote
But in my view, we deserve closure on this matter in light of the magnitude of the irony should @Truth, one who on multiple occasions falsely accused me, @BroRando, and the since-deleted user Wolfgang of posting under aliases, be the ID of someone who posted under multiple user IDs.
I concur. If (!!!) he uses multiple IDs, that'd be called "projection", which is quite a common phenomenon.
@Bill_Coley wrote
p.s. FWIW, I wouldn't be at all surprised were a person who posted under multiple IDs to employ a VPN to add authenticity to the feigned uniqueness of those IDs.
I concur.
I suggest that @Truth can send me his explanation by PM, which I will then review, and give some feedback here whether the explanation is in any way acceptable (without giving any further details on the nature of the explanation).
And then we'll close the matter ans stop accusations of multiple IDs in general (everyone...)
-
@Jan posted:
I suggest that @Truth can send me his explanation by PM, which I will then review, and give some feedback here whether the explanation is in any way acceptable (without giving any further details on the nature of the explanation).
And then we'll close the matter ans stop accusations of multiple IDs in general (everyone...)
I applaud the depth and candor of your response here, Jan. Thank you.
Were I to post accidentally under an unintended ID, as in your example, I can't imagine that I would replace the mistaken content with an off-topic and barely meaningful sentence such as happened in this thread. I might replace it with "POST DELETED BY USER" or something similarly minimalist yet explanatory, but I wouldn't replace it with a non-sensical sentence.
In the specific example you cited, without a doubt I would note that I originally but mistakenly posted the material using my friend's ID. The only reason I would delete posted content, replace it with an innocuous statement, re-post that content under a different ID without explanation, AND THEN not give an explanation for my actions other than "you're close but wrong" when I was called to account would be that I didn't want to acknowledge that I owned and managed both IDs, especially if I had a history of making insinuations about other posters' owning and managing multiple IDs.
I repeat: I don't think there is anything wrong with posting under multiple accounts per se. But posters who do so then mistakenly reveal themselves the way I believe @Truth did in this thread don't have much available cover and shouldn't expect much sympathy if the revelation shatters the glass house in which they've been posting.
And then we'll close the matter ans stop accusations of multiple IDs in general (everyone...)
Amen to that!
-
@Bill_Coley wrote
Your report that you're not convinced that the two posters in question are the same person puzzles me. We witnessed identical content posted twice within a handful of minutes under different user IDs, but which prior to its second appearance in the thread, was clearly deleted by the first user ID and replaced by a single sentence. The day after I set out in question form what seemed to me to have been the sequence in which those posts unfolded, the second user posted an unconventional word which appeared to announce the end of his or her posting in these forums. What possible chain of events OTHER than a common source could explain those outcomes?
I never said that the two posts didn't have a common source. They obviously do. However, that's not the same as claiming that @GaoLu and @Truth are the same person.
@Bill_Coley wrote
But in my view, we deserve closure on this matter in light of the magnitude of the irony should @Truth, one who on multiple occasions falsely accused me, @BroRando, and the since-deleted user Wolfgang of posting under aliases, be the ID of someone who posted under multiple user IDs.
I concur. If (!!!) he uses multiple IDs, that'd be called "projection", which is quite a common phenomenon.
I think it will be a hard sell to explain that using multi-ID's is "Christian Behavior". But I notice that @Truth seems to know a whole about this forums website. For example:
Curiosity and the Cat DDoS
@Truth continues and writes
I noticed that on occasions, this site becomes temporarily unavailable. I might presume this is Azure space--so downtime is unlikely.
I recall reading near the end of the old .com site (using Wayback) that something similar seemed to happen to take it down. Oddly, then, a person gone "quiet" seemed to be suspect.
I am not a computer person, but I do have a brain. I have no idea what it means, but I am prone to detecting details.
How would a person who recently signed up as @Truth in October 2021 and claims not to be a computer person know so much about Cat DDos, Azure space and Wayback since he is relatively new?? https://www.christiandiscourse.net/discussion/1068/curiosity-and-the-cat-ddos
I have a strong inclination that @Jan is not totally being truthful here by reading his response saying:
No, this was no DDoS. I've not found the root cause yet. The web server simply becomes unresponsive until I restart it. It's not been happening again now for a couple of days, after I applied all the latest patches. Let's hope it's resolved.
I do have some basic protection against DDoS attacks. So unless someone launches a major attack with a lot of force, the site should be fine. It's not Azure space either, but a virtual server in a data center somewhere near Seattle, with a provider where I can be sure that they don't collect any data and share it with NSA.
https://www.christiandiscourse.net/discussion/comment/21452#Comment_21452
How could @Jan be so comfortable telling @Truth his trade secrets about his website and his attempts of evading the NSA surveillance? That's troubling...
Then we have @Truth posting "You are wrong on several accounts including who is Truth and who is gaolu. Of course you are sure you are right—you are close, but wrong. I may prove that later (probably not) but I welcome you to keep spouting anything you like for now. It may be useful later. It makes no difference whatsoever to me. There are those here who know why. I have not been intentionally deceitful. You and others here may have been. Things are not always what they appear on the surface. What matters is that you remain engaged here with us, for which I give thanks. That is the only reason at present I remain—for you, dear friend.
I invite your invectives and accusations because in so doing, the expression of a dark painful soul abused by being JW is exposed to you and all present here. Most importantly your heart is exposed to Truth. Good may come of that. Every time you return here, you must once again face Truth.
The good imagine image of YHWH in which you are created, I love. Can you feel that?"
It's like @Truth is not even writing this, but somone else coming to his aid under the account of @Truth stating, "You are wrong on several accounts including who is Truth and who is gaolu." If I was writing to someone I was engaging, I would say something like "you are wrong about me and @GaoLu". So I think @Truth is the alias account of someone that knows a whole lot about the workings of this website.
I think this is probably a pattern set long ago and not something new.
Alias Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › alias
alias: [noun] an assumed or additional name that a person (such as a criminal) sometimes uses.
When a person is being disingenuous with those whom he seeks to associate with, nothing postive will come of it. Remember the account of Ananias and Sapphira. Peter said, "You have lied, not to men, but to God." Read (Acts 5:1-11)
Be HONEST in all things. (Hebrews 13:18) "For there is nothing hidden that will not be exposed; nothing is carefully concealed that will not come out in the open." (Mark 4:22)
-
@BroRando posted:
I think it will be a hard sell to explain that using multi-ID's is "Christian Behavior".
I hesitate to classify multiple online forum personas per se as non-Christian. I can't imagine that I will ever use them, but that doesn't make them non-Christian. What a person DOES with those personas can certainly qualify as such, but not the personas themselves.
But I notice that @Truth seems to know a whole about this forums website. For example:...
How would a person who recently signed up as @Truth in October 2021 and claims not to be a computer person know so much about Cat DDos, Azure space and Wayback since he is relatively new??
@Truth's purported curiosity about and awareness of the previous version of CD (back when it was a Faithlife enterprise) and/or his or her happenstance connection to another poster who knew about the previous edition was a neon flashing sign for me too.
I have a strong inclination that @Jan is not totally being truthful here by reading his response saying:
I disagree strongly. I think Jan's response to @Truth's insinuations regarding malevolent intrusion into this site was laudably forthcoming and credible.
What "trade secrets"? His description was a bare bones summary of this site's protections. I can't imagine anyone could do anything with the few details the description offered.
It's like @Truth is not even writing this, but somone else coming to his aid under the account of @Truth stating, "You are wrong on several accounts including who is Truth and who is gaolu." If I was writing to someone I was engaging, I would say something like "you are wrong about me and @GaoLu". So I think @Truth is the alias account of someone that knows a whole lot about the workings of this website.
I don't think your conclusion flows from its premises, but we can agree to disagree.
Recall that online forum IDs usually cloak something about the people who adopt them. Your ID and avatar, for example, provide little definitive information about you. Does "Bro" refer to "brother," a part of your name, or something else? And "Rando"? I'm NOT complaining about your ID, but rather noting that it cloaks your identity at least some; most CD IDs cloak identities do. Mine is about the most identifying ID in these forums. I give my full name and a current photo. Plus, in multiple posts I've provided links to the website of the church I serve where people can read my writings and listen to my preaching. Does that make me a better poster? Of course not. But it should have suggested to @Truth that I was not a good candidate to be posting under multiple aliases.
-
I have a strong inclination that @Jan is not totally being truthful here by reading his response saying:
I disagree strongly. I think Jan's response to @Truth's insinuations regarding malevolent intrusion into this site was laudably forthcoming and credible.
What "trade secrets"? His description was a bare bones summary of this site's protections. I can't imagine anyone could do anything with the few details the description offered.
To be more specific @Jan was confirming with @Truth the issues of the website that somehow @Truth was questioning about. Like a colleague. Evidently @Jan knows who @Truth is... why would he bother to confirm anything or give any addional info to a stranger? @Jan never questions @Truth about the Cat DDoS but gives additional information that wasn't the problem. For all we know @Truth could be on a fishing expedition to gather information to bring harm to the website?After all, @Truth was successful in getting @Wolfgang23 to quit.
I do see a strong unison realtionship between the 3 (@Jan, @Truth, and @GaoLu) even though @GaoLu inserts himself into a conversation that he was not previously egaged in... Proof.
How did @GaoLu KNOW 10 minutes in advance what @Truth was going write, word for word?? And why is @Jan blindness about this article so prevalent?? Look @GaoLu activity history, he never spoken like this.
When you take the activity of @GaoLu, @Truth, and @Jan, they all crossover with one another between Feb 6th thru the 8th while @Jan was on vacation? It doesn' fit. I hope that @Jan is not the one engaging in multi-ids on his own forum. I would not do it because it would bother my conscience and is dishonest. Espicailly when a person evades questions about the identity.
Since @Truth response to your question was a none answer with OK it does bring @Truth to the forefront in being dishonest and doesn't want to answer.
-
Perhaps you meant "confiding in @Truth"? Regardless, remember that Jan was ALSO confiding in/confirming with ANYONE who read this thread, not just @Truth. Any information one reader harvested from Jan's response, EVERY reader harvested (and that wasn't much information!) Do you think @Jan considers YOU a "like a colleague"?
Jan gave that same information to you (and me). Does that mean Jan knows who YOU are? Or are you also "a stranger" to whom he gave that information? After all, your user ID and avatar cloak your identity as completely as Truth's did his!
Again, however, the information Jan shared was of no help to anyone wishing to do harm to this website.
@Jan never questions @Truth about the Cat DDoS but gives additional information that wasn't the problem. For all we know @Truth could be on a fishing expedition to gather information to bring harm to the website?After all, @Truth was successful in getting @Wolfgang23 to quit.
As Jan wrote HERE, there was NO DDos to ask Truth about.
Your post is moving toward conspiracy theory territory - i.e. baseless speculations and insinuations - which means I have no comment.
It was the user whose ID was "@Wolfgang" who left these forums (which you can tell by the fact that his ID is no longer in the database), not the user whose ID is @Wolfgang23 (whose ID remains in the database).
When you take the activity of @GaoLu, @Truth, and @Jan, they all crossover with one another between Feb 6th thru the 8th while @Jan was on vacation? It doesn' fit. I hope that @Jan is not the one engaging in multi-ids on his own forum. I would not do it because it would bother my conscience and is dishonest. Espicailly when a person evades questions about the identity.
More conspiracy theory.
I agree that @Truth's posting conduct was at issue in this thread (and NOT @Jan's!) I think @Truth didn't answer my questions because he couldn't. There was only one explanation for what transpired in this thread on February 6 that made any sense, the explanation I outlined in THIS POST. There simply was no credible way for him to reconfigure those incidents. He posted originally under the wrong ID, tried to cover his tracks, but his chosen approach identified the problem; it didn't secrete it. It was a simple mistake that had consequences.
We need to move on from this entire subject, but I want to be clear: I don't care a bit that he or anyone else posted under multiple IDs. I don't like the practice myself, but if others want to do so, fine! And if users want to employ usernames and avatars that cloak their identities, so be that too. My only grievance was the irony/hypocrisy of someone's falsely accusing others of posting under aliases while he himself was doing so all along.
