Mike Greathouse [you decide]

[Chameleon Company]

I guess its all in what we see as "bad". While no one in this forum has ever doubted Mike's credibility with his animals, I now would have to take pause with him on everything but. Not because of the alias', which I would rate as minor (the crime), but because of the response which was not truthful regarding the other entities (the cover-up), lest everyone else be lying. Christ but was it lame.

Beyond that, Rich raised concerns about the ddos. The only question in my mind when he raised them was whether or not he should have mentioned them. Given half of what I think he knew, I would have had similar suspicions, even if just a 20% likelihood, 50% likelihood, etc. Whoever did that caused real monetary damage, as in vandalism. Whatever I thought the odds were that Mike was behind it at the beginning of the thread, even if miniscule, those odds increased for me with the evidence presented, and mostly because of Mike's response to it. None of this is easy to say.

So, should I think that Mike is a not so bad guy except when he's lying ? If my own kid lies to me about stealing a cookie, should I extend trust otherwise? Nope. Not until we straighten thngs out about the cookie.

 

[FunkyRes]

Unless there is some evidence linking Mike to the DDoS there is absolutely no reason to suspect him.

Personally I would suspect a scam artist who was outed in the BOI.
Mike has never scammed anyone to my knowledge, even if these allegations are 100% true.

Fake forum IDs and a DDoS attack are a mile apart.
If your kid lied about stealing a cookie, would you suspect of him of being the vandal who spray painted the local school?

There is evidence for the fake forum handles, there is nothing that ties him to the DDoS so it is not fair to speculate that was him.

 

[crotalusadamanteus]

I think there are REAL bad-guys that we should be pursuing here on the BOI. Kinda like when cops sit and wait for speeders when there are robberies going on downtown.

Can't blame some for feeling betrayed, or angry about it, but still can't see him as a "bad guy" just yet. He did something stupid no doubt, but there are definitely people out there more worthy of this much attention.

Now come up with some proof he was behind the ddos attack, and I just might change my mind. Until then, bringing it up all the time seems far reaching. Desperate even.

My 2¢

 

[Chameleon Company]

Mike,
Well, I guess we all have opinions. I was born at night by the way, just not last night. So when Rich's site is attacked, its not fair for him to look at what he has as evidence, and then speculate as to who might be behind it, then take action in descending order of perceived risk. Maybe he should have sat on his hands? Want to buy a bridge ?

 

[varnyard]

Well you can down play it into a gray area, however when looking at it in black and white, that gray it awful dark.

Yea, I know, it was a great thing he did, maybe more people should pose as something other than their true self. However, I do not agree, that is usually reserved as an act of a scammer, they are the ones that use that tool.

 

[FunkyRes]

It's also the tool of a troll, and what he was doing with those accounts was trolling - NOT scamming.

 

[WebSlave]

Yes – the Shrillomn persona was created by me.
This began as a good-natured parody of one of your very outspoken members. I do admit that it took on a life of it’s own and got out of hand. It has been some time since I read any of those old posts, but if anyone’s feelings were hurt by the comments made – I apologize.
Mike Greathouse

Got out of hand? Boy, I'll say! Seems to have gotten REAL out of hand after I banned Shrillomn, didn't it Mike?

Just for the record, yes, that IP is really to crotalusadamanteus as Mike had claimed....

Since Mike has fully admitted that he was acting as Shrillomn, then it logically follows that he was also generating those new false IDs as well. And for what purpose? A "good natured parody"? Looks to me that he was doing this to cause some real turmoil by taunting my moderators and myself. So tell me, if you had even the slightest suspicion about who it was, how would YOU feel about this person's frame of mind to potentially cause REAL damage to you or your site? Would such a person, if capable of doing so, really find it abhorant to completely bring this site down? How much further would it have to go to get that far "out of hand"?

In my opinion, I really had no other choice but to consider the potential threat from Mike as being REAL. Whether it was actual or not is irrelevant. I had to make the assumption that it was necessary to take steps to protect my sites from someone obviously acting pretty peculiar who had the technical expertise, the motivation, and the opportunity to damage my business interests.

As for the DDoS attack, no, Mike is not the only suspect. But I doubt anyone can bring a serious argument to the table that, all things thus far considered, that he would have to be ruled out as a suspect. Mike said he did not do the DDoS? He also said to one of my moderators that he was NOT Shrillomn.........

 

[Jim O]

There is evidence for the fake forum handles, there is nothing that ties him to the DDoS so it is not fair to speculate that was him.

Who ever told you that life is fair? And speculation is just that, speculation.

As I said, Mike would be on my short list. He became (and likely still is) obsessed with disrupting this site. When he was caught he lied about it. He continues to lie about it. He came back and got caught using "Walk of Life" ID and lied about that. He did all of that to disrupt this site. What does a ddos attack do? It disrupts a site. Is it really that far a stretch for you (if you really able to be objective about this) to think that someone who put that much effort into disrupting this site (read those threads and watch Mike talk between and pass PM's with and give karma regarding all of his different ID's) and see that this rose to a level beyond "simple trolling". He had a goal, a purpose. Whether he was involved in the ddos or not, it's only logical to suspect that he might have been. Do the concepts of means, motive, and opportunity not apply to him because you like him and "respect" him?

Most scammers I would suspect could not be bothered with a ddos. They are busy plotting their next scam. This was the work of someone who really wanted to hurt this site. Someone who was obsessed because it took a lot of effort and a fair bit of risk. Someone with computer skills. If Mike does not come to mind at least as a possibility, then I suggest that you are simply not being objective.

 

[FunkyRes]

Who ever told you that life is fair?

I'm not talking about life.
I'm talking about the BOI - and if we do not strive to be fair in the BOI then the BOI has no longer has a useful purpose.

 

[Jim O]

If no one ever speculated on the BOI, the BOI would have gone away long ago.

And sorry, but neither life nor the BOI are fair. This is not a place for the faint of heart or for those easily offended by what you perceive as "not fair".

Now, how about actually thinking about what I wrote and finding a flaw in my logic? I don't think that you will because the logic is there. Then we can talk about "fair". Until then, it is completely "fair" for me to "speculate" that Mike may have been involved. While you are at it, was it "fair" of Mike to disrupt this site with all of those ID's? Was it "fair" of some entity or entities to commence a ddos attack? Sorry, but even my children learned at an early age that "fair" is mostly in the vocabulary of the losers in life. That doesn't mean that one does not have to play by the rules. Mike did not, at least not by the rules of honesty and decency (was that "fair"?). If Mike did not want to expose himself to this type of scrutiny and suspicion then he should have sought help for his obsessive behavior before he let it disrupt this site. That was his choice, and a poor one at that. And also one that was "unfair" to people trying to transact business here and to learn and share information about their hobby.

 

[critical bill]

So let me just see if I got this straight. I can create a dozen fake user Id's for the primary purpose of busting another members balls, admit to just one of those fake Id's even in the face of overwhelming evidence, and in a very insincere way apologize for the troubles, and still be a member in good standing here?

WOW! Poor Wes. If anybody happens across him on any other forums please tell him that honesty sucks!

 

[FunkyRes]

I don't think he should be a member in good standing here.
If I ran this place - I wouldn't want him here.

I just don't think it makes him a "bad guy" on the business side of things, where his record is extremely good.

 

[kmurphy]

I don't believe Mike's purpose was to disrupt this site. I think he was trying to point out flaws in the rules as he saw them. It could be argued that he was actually trying to help the site by showing the "error of it's ways". I agree with funkyres it's quite a stretch to go from that to an actual attack, which would have no purpose other than to bring down the site.

 

[crotalusadamanteus]

I don't believe Mike's purpose was to disrupt this site. I think he was trying to point out flaws in the rules as he saw them. It could be argued that he was actually trying to help the site by showing the "error of it's ways". I agree with funkyres it's quite a stretch to go from that to an actual attack, which would have no purpose other than to bring down the site.

That's how I see it too. Or at least I'm capable of viewing it that way. He argued and argued about the rules and such. He talked with Rich repeatedly about some changes. I keep hearing mention of being objective. Well, I see some as being just that way, and others who are not, because their mind is made up already. Objectivity works on more than one scale, in more than one direction.

As for the good standing, just for the record.....that never came from my mouth, or fingers if you will. I merely said, I'm not viewing him as a bad guy just yet. Many other people have done stupid-ER things, and got their "FAIR" chance at a turn around. Mike at least has done good things for the community as a whole. That in itself earns him a chance to prove himself one way or the other in my book.

Ya know, I forgot all about that IP thing with Shrill. Even when I went back and browsed the thread again, I missed it. That one did sort of piss me off a little at the time. And does indeed have an impact on the trust factor. But I still gotta stand by my "objective" view, as he never acted upon it.

 

[critical bill]

I think he was trying to point out flaws in the rules as he saw them. It could be argued that he was actually trying to help the site by showing the "error of it's ways".

Thanks so much for that spin on things Kev! I'll bet Rich feels like a real dummy now. All this is over nothing. Mike was just trying to help out and no one else was able to see that except for you. Wow, he was only trying to help out. I guess I never really looked at it that way, ya know, with his WebSlaves Thorn account and his Wuss Pulldick account. But now that you say it was to help the site and point out its flaws its got me thinking. Its got me thinking that you are a horses ass. And to think that just yesterday you were a lowly jackass. Such a show of improvement!

 

[Chameleon Company]

Crotalus

Nothing personal, but since you volunteered the point-of-view:

Mike at least has done good things for the community as a whole. That in itself earns him a chance to prove himself one way or the other in my book.

Just IMMHO, but that "chance to prove himself" was and is his opportunity to respond here. In the view of many credible members here, to include all senior moderation that has chosen to post, Mike was not truthful in that chance. In fact, he was significantly not truthful.

This may just be my dilemma, but when looking at the allegations made here, and the entity denies all those beyond being Shrill, so as to now be shown to be untruthful, how is one to then ascertain, or even give the benefit of the doubt, as to where the lies end ? Why lie ? None of the possible answers are good. All lend themselves to supporting worse things.

The motives here were not so noble, again JIMMHO.

 

[kmurphy]

Its got me thinking that you are a horses ass. And to think that just yesterday you were a lowly jackass. Such a show of improvement!

You know, Chuck, when I posted that I knew you would respond since you've been dogging my posts lately. Funny how you skipped right over another poster that agreed with me. Go figure. What's the matter did I hurt your feelings awhile ago? If I had known you were so sensitive I would have been a little more careful.

 

[crotalusadamanteus]

I agree with the point Mike should at least be representing his own case here. But he also said he was taking this opportunity to separate from Fauna. I don't totally agree with that choice, but it's his choice to make.

I wouldn't be expecting a rebuttal from him any time soon.

 

[kmurphy]

This may just be my dilemma, but when looking at the allegations made here, and the entity denies all those beyond being Shrill, so as to now be shown to be untruthful, how is one to then ascertain, or even give the benefit of the doubt, as to where the lies end ? Why lie ? None of the possible answers are good. All lend themselves to supporting worse things.

I agree Jim, lying about the other screen names is a big problem. There doesn't seem to be a good explanation for it since he already admitted to Shrill. Maybe it was because the multiple screen names showed an immature side that he didn't want to admit to. If that were the case though, he would have been better off not mentioning the others at all.

 

[critical bill]

You know, Chuck, when I posted that I knew you would respond since you've been dogging my posts lately. Funny how you skipped right over another poster that agreed with me. Go figure. What's the matter did I hurt your feelings awhile ago? If I had known you were so sensitive I would have been a little more careful.

Maybe I should have created a bogus account to tell you that your post sucked. By your understanding of things of this nature it would be ok because I was only trying to help out.

Go figure.