A few weeks back I posted about a strange set of emails this blog had received from someone promoting Dan Proft’s work. Turned out those emails were coming from the same IP address as Mr. Proft’s office. That and a few other connections found in a quick Google search led me to wonder if this was a case of sockpuppetry or something else.
Even though others wondered if I was a weenie for removing it, at the time I thought it was the right thing to do because there was a possibility — however slight — that this person’s identity had been stolen (unwittingly or otherwise) and my post describing the strangeness was so much piling on.
Turns out it’s still happening.
My original post was published on Oct. 12th and my follow-up explaining why I removed it came on Oct. 15th.
As of Oct. 20th, Oct. 23rd and Oct. 30th … that same “person” is still found to be shilling for Mr. Proft at ilgopnet.com.
Imagine that.
You’d think if the person in question thought she was being “sandbagged” or had some question about what was going on in relation to her identity (or if Mr. Proft himself wanted to put a stop to what was being done, since they work in the same officespace) that it would’ve been ended by now.
Apparently the person in question was only concerned about being caught.
Sounds like a lot of the folks on the conservative side of the aisle these days.
9 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 1, 2007 at 10:25 am
dan l
Oh it’s horrible:
http://www.ilgopnet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28
Old 09-26-2007, 03:49 PM
JulianaJohnson JulianaJohnson is offline
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8
Default Dan Proft
Please post all comments on commentaries/Dan Proft here…
Reply With Quote
November 1, 2007 at 10:36 am
dan l
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/user-posts?id=287326
OHHHH GOD IT’S SO FUNNY!!!!!
November 1, 2007 at 10:50 am
robnesvacil
The question remains:
The only question, and one that may never be answered, is whether this person was promoting Mr. Proft’s commentary without his knowledge; Mr. Proft was using this person’s email address for these purposes without their knowledge; or the two actually were in cahoots with each other in an asinine attempt to promote Mr. Proft’s commentary through classic sockpuppetry.
November 1, 2007 at 10:55 am
dan l
You’re right.
But still though, this reminds me of Randy Stufflebeam’s blog sockpuppetry.
November 1, 2007 at 12:52 pm
dwlawson
No matter, I still applaud you for giving him/her/it the benefit of the doubt. Posting personal information about someone on the Internet can have serious repercussions.
Sometimes people do stupid things and one does well to try to protect them. If they persist, well, it’s on their head then.
Some people, as you found out Rob, like to appear to be clever and damn the consequences. I think the potential downside of outing someone who made a mistake and causing them to lose their job outweighs the chance to make a snarky post and impress their net-cronies.
November 1, 2007 at 1:01 pm
robnesvacil
Dave,
The person in question, by their own admission, does not work for Mr. Proft nor (again, by their admission) had they ever worked for him or Urquhart Media in the past. If that is untrue, then I cannot help that they lied about it (I have no reason to think they did lie about it).
And, nothing I posted was private information — it was all publicly found on the internet, including the email address provided by the person in question. Plus, the promotional emails were sent to this blog’s “letter to the editor”-type contact email address with no stipulation that they be kept private or anonymous. Quite the opposite in fact: this blog was asked to publicize and promote Mr. Proft’s commentaries.
November 1, 2007 at 1:05 pm
dwlawson
I’m just saying, at the time, there was reason to doubt and holding off made sense. There is a place for compassion on the ‘nets.
I’m not saying you need to hold off now, just attempting to pat you on the back for doing, what I feel, was the right thing at the time.
So you are saying that anything I can dig up on the net about anyone is fair game?
November 1, 2007 at 1:23 pm
robnesvacil
Dave,
I understand. But, I didn’t make the rules of this current divisive, partisan atmosphere.
I agree that just running around digging up anything you can on the net is uncalled for. In this case, there was clearly an emerging pattern when I first posted the info and that pattern has obviously continued since.
There’s a fine line between reasonable debate and ignoring common decency in going too far. After posting the info as I did your comments made me realize that the person in question may have been unwittingly used which, no matter how remote given the continuation of the bizarre dual online personality, is indeed a possibility.
That may still be the case, and if so it ought to be the people using her who pay any consequences whether in the court of public opinion or elsewhere.
As it is, one can only hope the “free market” of ideas would be leaning back toward the direction that simply going around digging up as much “dirt” as you can is not reasonable debate, but we’re still a long way off from being rid of the ends-justify-the-means mentality of Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, Don Segretti, etc.
In the meantime, as citizens we can’t be afraid to discuss the truth and the facts as we come to know them.
May 8, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Dan Proft caught fibbing ’bout fact-checking… « Illinois Reason
[...] He was trying to say that the media got it right because Clinton was indeed somehow “close”… But perhaps Mr. Proft needs his own fact checker. [...]