21-05-2012, 07:41 PM
I'm finding bits of pieces of my original outing of "Len Colby" as a hydra-headed false identity used by numerous posters with widely varying literary skills. The following is from an exchange with the honorable Mark Stapleton ( post 33 at http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....3278&st=30 ):
Mark,
I'm happy to be able to number you among those who doubt that the two posts I referenced were written by the same person.
As I'm sure you appreciate, the issue here is not spelling or vocabulary or grammar or punctuation or subtext, but rather all of these elements and others, combined. Some may try to pass off the significant, telling differences between posts as inconsequential lapses of literary ability due to any number of external factors (weariness, distractions, etc.). In doing so, they are sidestepping -- intentionally or otherwise -- the deeper analysis.
The alleged "poster" of the materials I reference presents numerous similar examples of external and internal literary inconsistencies.
Permit me to make my point in a more demonstrative fasion:
Readers of this Forum have been exposed to my writing style and whatever perspectives, values, and intellectual underpinnings it reveals. Suppose a post appeared over my signature that was constructed and read as follows:
Mark you get my point and I'm glad that your with us. At least two people are responsible for the postings I gave to your atention. Im not talking about mispelling or no comas but really everything shared together and it happens ofen.
Would you sense a ... problem relating to the putative "poster's" identity?
Charles
Very good point, Charles.
The style of post, which can range from a single word or sentence to a long essay, is usually consistent, being a function of the writer's past experiences, etc. It would be very unusual for the writer to change his/her style so abruptly in under two days.
Len's 'answer' was a dismissal not a real explanation. John should take a look at this, imo.
It's the most telling point so far in the case against Len Colby.
The "Colby" entity replied with an argument from authority (post 36):
Dr. Gerald R. McMenamin, Forensic Linguistics: Advances in Forensic Stylistics, pg 163
MA - Linguistics California State University -Fresno 1972
PhD - Spanish linguistics El Colegio de Mexico 1978
Since 1980 professor of linguistics at CSU-Fresno,
"Dr. McMenamin has taught various courses and special training seminars in linguistic stylistics and has worked on more than 250 civil and criminal cases of questioned authorship. He is the author of several publications in forensic linguistics, including the 1993 book Forensic Stylistics.
Pg vii
So what exactly would two or more people gain from pretending to be one? People often do the opposite, pretend to be more than one person so as to make it appear their position has wider support (Google - sock puppet) . The three of you are looking like paranoid fools.
I responded thusly:
[B][B]If our enemies are smart, they'll seriously retool the "Colby" entity so as to take into account the fact that we are on to "him" and their games.
According to Gerald R. McMenamin, author of Forensic Linguistics: Advances in Forensic Stylistics, "Reference writings," against which suspect writing samples can be compared, must be identified and collected before meaningful analyses can be conducted.
Alas, in the cases of "Colby" posters, "reference writings" neither can be identified nor collected. There are simply too many significantly divergent examples from which to select a consistant reference style.
So further applications of McMenamin's analyses are stymied -- other than within so-called "negative template" applications.
McMenamin does note the following: "Individual differences in writing styles are, therefore, due to the writer's choice of available alternatives."
He adds, "Identification and analysis of a writer's choices, i.e., of his or her style markers, constitute stylistic analysis which is well established as a method of author identification in literary and forensic contexts."
So "Colby" and "his" masters are either choosing to present as clearly recognizable divergent authors/entities, sufficiently incompetent and/or arrogant to the degree that they do not fear exposure, or profoundly disturbed. Perhaps even possessed.
Where's father Karas when we need him?
When "Colby" asks, "So what exactly would two or more people gain from pretending to be one," "he" is conducting a circular argument akin to Vincent Bugliosi's (I paraphrase), "Why would conspirators choose a shmuck like LHO to do their work?"
No one, least of all I, would suggest that "Colby's" masters intend to present such easily identifiable multiple authors for "his" posts. This is a straw man argument.
"Colby" and "his" masters hold you and me in contempt. They think we're stupid and gullible.
Such is their fatal flaw.
They are losing. We have them on the run.
"Colby" and "his" masters are not used to being called on their pseudo-intellectual posturings. If "Colby" is in search of qualifications for posts, "he" might start with "his" own for any number of pontifications offered by "his" collective entity on subjects clearly beyond "his" meager intellect -- as displayed, of course, on these cyber pages.
This is a joke, ladies and gentlemen. "Colby" are exposed.
Keep sticking your extremities in my meat grinder. It smells like victory. [/B][/B]
Again and alas, my original exposure thread is long gone.
Mark,
I'm happy to be able to number you among those who doubt that the two posts I referenced were written by the same person.
As I'm sure you appreciate, the issue here is not spelling or vocabulary or grammar or punctuation or subtext, but rather all of these elements and others, combined. Some may try to pass off the significant, telling differences between posts as inconsequential lapses of literary ability due to any number of external factors (weariness, distractions, etc.). In doing so, they are sidestepping -- intentionally or otherwise -- the deeper analysis.
The alleged "poster" of the materials I reference presents numerous similar examples of external and internal literary inconsistencies.
Permit me to make my point in a more demonstrative fasion:
Readers of this Forum have been exposed to my writing style and whatever perspectives, values, and intellectual underpinnings it reveals. Suppose a post appeared over my signature that was constructed and read as follows:
Mark you get my point and I'm glad that your with us. At least two people are responsible for the postings I gave to your atention. Im not talking about mispelling or no comas but really everything shared together and it happens ofen.
Would you sense a ... problem relating to the putative "poster's" identity?
Charles
Very good point, Charles.
The style of post, which can range from a single word or sentence to a long essay, is usually consistent, being a function of the writer's past experiences, etc. It would be very unusual for the writer to change his/her style so abruptly in under two days.
Len's 'answer' was a dismissal not a real explanation. John should take a look at this, imo.
It's the most telling point so far in the case against Len Colby.
The "Colby" entity replied with an argument from authority (post 36):
Dr. Gerald R. McMenamin, Forensic Linguistics: Advances in Forensic Stylistics, pg 163
MA - Linguistics California State University -Fresno 1972
PhD - Spanish linguistics El Colegio de Mexico 1978
Since 1980 professor of linguistics at CSU-Fresno,
"Dr. McMenamin has taught various courses and special training seminars in linguistic stylistics and has worked on more than 250 civil and criminal cases of questioned authorship. He is the author of several publications in forensic linguistics, including the 1993 book Forensic Stylistics.
Pg vii
So what exactly would two or more people gain from pretending to be one? People often do the opposite, pretend to be more than one person so as to make it appear their position has wider support (Google - sock puppet) . The three of you are looking like paranoid fools.
I responded thusly:
[B][B]If our enemies are smart, they'll seriously retool the "Colby" entity so as to take into account the fact that we are on to "him" and their games.
According to Gerald R. McMenamin, author of Forensic Linguistics: Advances in Forensic Stylistics, "Reference writings," against which suspect writing samples can be compared, must be identified and collected before meaningful analyses can be conducted.
Alas, in the cases of "Colby" posters, "reference writings" neither can be identified nor collected. There are simply too many significantly divergent examples from which to select a consistant reference style.
So further applications of McMenamin's analyses are stymied -- other than within so-called "negative template" applications.
McMenamin does note the following: "Individual differences in writing styles are, therefore, due to the writer's choice of available alternatives."
He adds, "Identification and analysis of a writer's choices, i.e., of his or her style markers, constitute stylistic analysis which is well established as a method of author identification in literary and forensic contexts."
So "Colby" and "his" masters are either choosing to present as clearly recognizable divergent authors/entities, sufficiently incompetent and/or arrogant to the degree that they do not fear exposure, or profoundly disturbed. Perhaps even possessed.
Where's father Karas when we need him?
When "Colby" asks, "So what exactly would two or more people gain from pretending to be one," "he" is conducting a circular argument akin to Vincent Bugliosi's (I paraphrase), "Why would conspirators choose a shmuck like LHO to do their work?"
No one, least of all I, would suggest that "Colby's" masters intend to present such easily identifiable multiple authors for "his" posts. This is a straw man argument.
"Colby" and "his" masters hold you and me in contempt. They think we're stupid and gullible.
Such is their fatal flaw.
They are losing. We have them on the run.
"Colby" and "his" masters are not used to being called on their pseudo-intellectual posturings. If "Colby" is in search of qualifications for posts, "he" might start with "his" own for any number of pontifications offered by "his" collective entity on subjects clearly beyond "his" meager intellect -- as displayed, of course, on these cyber pages.
This is a joke, ladies and gentlemen. "Colby" are exposed.
Keep sticking your extremities in my meat grinder. It smells like victory. [/B][/B]
Again and alas, my original exposure thread is long gone.