A Vindictive blog
E.Mail link above	SOME EXCERPTS FROM A PARTICULARLY VINDICTIVE BLOG

There are lots of good things on the internet, but also, sadly many things which can be put to bad use. One of these is the online blog with chatbox, both of which have examples owned by that web behemoth GOOGLE. They claim to offer "free speech". This is almost entirely under ANONYMOUS logins which appear to be beyond redress. They organise attacks on other web users, usually with no foundation other than an often misguided "opinion", a bias, or simply nothing more than bullying, pure and simple.

ANY electronic ballot where voters do not have unique personal ID PINS is open to manipulation with NO need for any computer knowledge whatsoever. If someone cheats at a ballot to "falsify the outcome", they do NOT report that fact to the ballot organisers!

When the poll was opened I was first to vote (before 10.00 AM) and at the time asked if the poll was secure. That should be in the logs for Jan 28th. I asked because the chatango box is secure - It blocks any computer connected to the same router (so would, for instance block a large network too). I did not get an answer from the blog, so checked on a different computer later that afternoon. A second vote did register. Later that evening I informed Wabbz, one of the bloggers what I had found out and told her of the extra vote. She was surprised by this, so I tested again on the second computer and was, indeed blocked. That showed that the block is actually by computer, not by router IP. The post shown right DOES tell how to bypass the checks. I did NOT tell anybody that. As to the "proof" - that appears to suggest (as far as I can see) that Scuttle is alleging I voted more than twice, which is UNTRUE

Your GUESS is incorrect (as you often, sadly are). You make biased assumptions all too often. The blog posts are ALL under your editorial control.

These prove what, exactly? That a particular machine was connected twice to your blog and another four times? That you have a possibly illegal program to hand to see computer information? They appear to show active page views, nothing else.

To Wabbz Because if polls can be rigged they should not be taken as gospel. To Scuttle. Nobody had answered whether or not the poll was trustworthy. "more than one fake vote" Yes, by the screen caps on the top of the blog entry you suggested EXACTLY that. You also "guessed" I had informed others, (which is where you implied). Not true that I informed others. Nobody else knew a thing until I told Wabbz later that evening. You would have been non the wiser apparently had I not made that broadcast. Your argument is invalid - and as for your court "argument" that is quite laughable as an attempted analogy!

This Page created January 2013