Saturday, June 23, 2012

Emails - persona non grata

Regarding the article on McHenry County Blog in which Cal Skinner reports on an email signed with the signature of Jack Franks, the following two comments were made by "No Dog in the Fight":

"No Dog in the Fight says:
It’s amazing – but somehow not surprising – that both Gus (well, not so much Gus on this one since even he concedes (sorta, kinda, maybe) that somebody may be jerking Cal’s chain).
The rest of you idiots, and Cal, take this crap at face value and actually believe it. Are you nuts?
Jack Franks is many things – not all of them pleasant – but I doubt that he’s a complete moron.
No, he leaves that for the likes of those who believe this crap.
He’s a politician, he’s a public figure (as is “he who would be sheriff” Zinke)
They know they can’t stop commentary such as this any more than I could ever prevent you from making fools of yourselves for not considering that this is somebody – maybe even Cal or Gus themselves – playing games.
15
No Dog in the Fight says:
Hmmm
Why don’t Cal and Gus provide the e-mails themselves, complete with the message headers to some competent investigative type.
While they may not be able to identify the source, it would be easy enough to determine if the originating addresses were falsified.
No, that won’t work.
It would be too much like real investigative, fact finding and not enough like muck raking!"

The "crap" mentioned by "No Dog" is the email purportedly from Jack to Cal Skinner, telling Cal not to print Jack's photo or show up at any of his events. "No Dog" is right - no one should believe it. Or, even if someone does believe it, it has no value or meaning. If Cal wants to print a photo of Jack, he'll do it. As will I.

Of course, we can't climb a tree and lean over a fence at Jack's Place to shoot a photo through an open window. Neither of us would do that. That boot on Cal's right foot would surely keep him from climbing a tree, and I'm afraid of heights. So ..

"No Dog" wonders if Cal and I created those emails. No way. "No Dog" asks if the originating addresses of the emails were falsified. You tell me.

The email I received that appeared to be from Andy Zinke came from "Zinke for Sheriff 2014 <zinkeforsheriff@gmail.com>". If Zinke didn't send me that email, all he has to do is write and tell me that he didn't send me that email and/or that email address is not his. This email address is, in fact, the email address that is shown on Zinke's political website.

"No Dog" suggests that I ought to provide Zinke's email to "some competent investigative type." For what? No crime has been committed. Zinke, if that email is really from him, just blew a little hot air at me. So what? It was a hot day that day, anyway. I'll write anything I want about him or about Jack. As long as I don't libel either, I will not lose a minute's sleep.

3 comments:

Ray said...

Gus wrote: "I'll write anything I want about him or about Jack."

Slow clap. Well good for you Gus. Although that's not the point made by "No Dog." So I will make it for him/her.

The fact that you and Cal are having this indignent "I'll write what I want to, this is America!" moment is because Cal claims he got these emails.

You know as well as I do that I could have a ZinkeforSheriff@gmail.com in about five minutes it takes to make them. So there's that ...

I was shocked (no everyone--I wasn't) that Gus said that the emails were similar so Gus inferred that the Jackster had copied Zink's letter.

The reason that I am shocked is that upon finding that the two emails are similar --- literally everyone on the planet would ASSUME they-were-both-written-by-the-same-person.

But Gus immediately suggests that the Jackster copied. #bestjournalisticimpulse_eva

Then to take the theorem one step further (dare I?) One would logically assume that neither email was written by J or Z.

(I forgot what do you put at the end of a mathematic proof?)

Gus said...

While anyone can set up an email address with any name he wants, if that email address is already in use, it won't be assigned to a second user.

And, if someone sets up an email address as if it represents a different person (public figure? well-known local person?), could that be actionable?

Ray said...

Gus said, "While anyone can set up an email address with any name he wants, if that email address is already in use, it won't be assigned to a second user."

You really don't know how the internet works, do you?