[ga] Jeff Williams Faq update

[Gary Osbourne <gro@direct.ca>]

At 12:39 PM 06/08/02 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:

>Gary and all assembly members,
>
>   I have yet to receive a phone call from you.  The phone Numbers
>listed in my sig file all work and are valid Phone Numbers.

See below.

>   So Gary, you are just lying plain and simple.

I made it clear in the FAQ that it was another
author's statement. Just more Jeff Williams BS.
If you had a dime to your name I would consider
suing you for calling me a liar. Of course I'd
have to figure out how to serve you. When you
pass yourself off as outstanding in your field(s)
I hadn't realized until recently that you actually
meant: out standing in your (dirt farm) fields.

Jeff Williams .sig as of today:

>--
>Jeffrey A. Williams
>Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
>CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
>Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
>E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
>Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
>Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

OK, we know the address is bogus unless Jeff Williams
is a sufficiently lanky Texan to reside in a roadsign,
or sufficiently secretive to live underground, which
I grant you is just possible.

In the interests of an accurate FAQ, I just tried the
first telephone number: 972-244-3801. Out of order.
Readers are welcome to try it for themselves. Hint:
With my telco at least, using *67 first masks your
number from call display, callback, etc. YMMV so RTFM.

And the second: 214-244-4827. Voicemail. A male voice
asks one to leave a message, possibly Jeff Williams,
although he sounds a little young to be a VietNam vet
and former Judge. I say possibly because the message
gives no clue as to whom one has reached, no personal
name, no company (such as INEGroup) name, no nothing.
Not very professional. It could be anybody, and
apparently sometimes is.

Of what relevance is this to the GA? Well, we will
shortly have no elected at-large BoD Directors, partly
due to allegations that online voting is subject to
fraud. It has been alleged today (not originally by
me) that in the just-completed icannatlarge.com panel
elections, one candidate, Bob Crawford, was really Jeff
Williams, who nominated and spoke up for Bob Crawford.
He later denied doing so but the record is clear:
http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0207/msg00317.html

I just tried Bob Crawford's self-given telephone number of
866-866-6686. Coincidentally, it also is not in service.

I have sent the following email to the at large discuss
list regarding some of this. Cordley Coit, also
nominated by Jeff Williams, withrew his candidacy too
late to be removed from the ballot. Cordley Coit and
some others in this cluster also have a Jeff Williams
like habit of posting numerous content-free posts.

While on the one hand this means the system is open
to abuse by even a lamer like Jeff Williams, and
could be used as evidence for why there should not
be online elections, OTOH, the wisdom of the
electorate shines through and demonstrably real
(and mostly very good) candidates are elected,
whilst Bob Crawford and Cordley Coit, real or not,
finish at the bottom. So this could also be taken
as evidence that a sufficiently large pool of
electors isn't easily open to capture.

Note that I have also subsequently sent a correction
to the following. (Votes 2 and 3 were single votes)
should read: (Votes 3 and 4 were single votes). -g

-----------
To: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
From: Gary Osbourne <gro@direct.ca>
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] 12 Zombi'es on this discussion group

At 10:54 AM 06/08/02 -0700, Bret Fausett wrote:

>FYI: One of the members of the watchdog and election
>committee reviewed the headers and the arrival records
>for the ballots in question. There is no correlation of
>time, place, IP number, or any other aspect of the electronic
>record to suggest that these came from the same sender.

In fact, if there was a correlation of ballots received
from different IP numbers at the same time, *that* would
be more (but still not completely) conclusive that they
were different senders. One would expect that the same
sender using different IP numbers might also be sending
at different times.

>Not conclusive, but it certainly suggests to me that
>this is a coincidence, not evidence of fraud.

I think it rises to beyond the level of coincidence.

I have replaced unique voter strings with unique
integers beginning at 1, thus voter 1 in the first
list is voter 1 in the second, et cetera:

Bob Crawford         (North America) 1
Bob Crawford         (North America) 2
Bob Crawford         (North America) 5
Bob Crawford         (North America) 6
Bob Crawford         (North America) 7
Bob Crawford         (North America) 8
Bob Crawford         (North America) 9
Bob Crawford         (North America) 10
Bob Crawford         (North America) 11
Bob Crawford         (North America) 12

(Votes 2 and 3 were single votes)

Bruce Young          (North America) 1
Bruce Young          (North America) 6
Bruce Young          (North America) 7
Bruce Young          (North America) 8
Bruce Young          (North America) 9
Bruce Young          (North America) 10
Bruce Young          (North America) 11
Bruce Young          (North America) 12

Cordley Coit         (North America) 2
Cordley Coit         (North America) 6
Cordley Coit         (North America) 7
Cordley Coit         (North America) 8

Of those eight who voted for Cordley Coit and
not for Bob Crawford, six of them also voted
for Bruce Young. There are also other notable
and related clusters I haven't published, but
I may do so in future.

There is, at the very least, a pattern of block
voting here. For those suggesting parties, it
seems that at least one party is becoming a
reality. Call it the e-cholalia party. -g

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html