tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post8151699302136011351..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Mr. BlusterEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-85556037526572014132012-02-24T10:54:13.096-05:002012-02-24T10:54:13.096-05:00"My understanding is that Peter impersonated ...<i>"My understanding is that Peter impersonated a HI board member. That person is the one who has been harmed and defrauded. I am not an attorney so I do not know if this section of law can be interpret "person" into HI."</i><br /><br />Your latter attempt to confabulate the Heartland "board member" with the institute itself completely contradicts your prior claim that it is specifically "the ["board member"]... who has been harmed and defrauded". You are attempting to transfer to that particular individual any harm that might have been done to the institute. And it would seem to be a very fraught exercise indeed to claim harm specifically on behalf of that individual.<br /><br />The alleged Heartland "board member" is anonymous. There can be no public reputation harm to an anonymous person.<br /><br />The alleged Heartland "board member" did not have any document, whether hard copy or electronic, stolen that was specifically that person's property. There can be no material property harm to a person who had nothing material taken specifically from them.<br /><br />The alleged Heartland "board member" was not the recipient of Gleick's request for the Heartland documents. Therefore the alleged Heartland "board member" was not him/herself "defrauded".<br /><br />If there is any harm, it is to Heartland itself for having been:<br /><br />1) silly enough to be convinced to part with documents that it wanted kept secret<br /><br />2) silly enough to claim charity/tax-exempt status when it appears not to qualify<br /><br />3) silly enough to think that it can lie and deceive the public about science, and expect not to be caught out.<br /><br />If the alleged Heartland "board member" is subsequently identified I suspect that they will have a difficult case for demonstrating <i>personal</i> harm, even for having allegedly had their identity used. <br /><br />If <i>Heartland</i> is going to claim "harm" based on the documents that were released, then it's going to have to participate in and endure a very detailed and a very public examination of its policies, its publications, and its pronouncements on science, in order to show with credibility that it was not and is not engaging in activities that constitute the harm that it believe is alleged by the documents.<br /><br />Ouch.<br /><br />Heartland's best avenue for action would seem to be (and I am not a lawyer either) to follow up on Gleick's use of a Heartland associate's identity to obtain information. And as has been repeatedly pointed out on the Interweb, this might not be as cut and dried as it seems to appear to many Heartland sympathisers. Further, if the IRS ever manages to demonstrate that Heartland was Very Naughty about abusing its charity status, then Gleick may in fact be in line for a share of a reward, which could quite possibly complicate any action directed at Gleick.<br /><br />Further, if (as the above-mentioned stylistic analysis shows) Heartland has a plausible link to the authorship of the "fake" memo, then the whole exercise is turned on its head and Gleick's involvement in the whole affair becomes almost incidental.<br /><br />Bast's professional propaganda work to whip up hysteria over lies, misrepresentations and exaggerations has been a liability in this case. A wise board would probably have urged discretion here, but Bast's habitual proclivity for FUD techniques has probably caused the institute far more harm than would otherwise have occurred.<br /><br />Oo, and celery is toxic in large quantities.<br /><br /><br />Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq. (the Old World sort, not the New World sort - after all, IANAL...)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-25806358464298794752012-02-24T06:51:40.106-05:002012-02-24T06:51:40.106-05:00Cadbury and others could be very wrong pining the ...Cadbury and others could be very wrong pining the Donkey's tail on Gleick for <a href="http://www.shawnotto.com/neorenaissance/blog20120223.html" rel="nofollow"> textual analysis comes up with a very different answer, Mr Bluster himself </a>.Lionel Ahttp://lionels.orpheusweb.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-47979584874766032022012-02-22T12:41:46.330-05:002012-02-22T12:41:46.330-05:00Pretexting seems to be a somewhat grey subject in ...Pretexting seems to be a somewhat grey subject in law.J Bowersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-74813277213712063812012-02-22T12:05:57.472-05:002012-02-22T12:05:57.472-05:00great sourcegreat sourcehd wallpapershttp://hdwallpapersjunction.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-6339956714123249212012-02-22T12:02:47.653-05:002012-02-22T12:02:47.653-05:00My understanding is that Peter impersonated a HI b...My understanding is that Peter impersonated a HI board member. That person is the one who has been harmed and defrauded. I am not an attorney so I do not know if this section of law can be interpret "person" into HI.<br /><br />There may be other sections that are relevant and define a person as including corporations.<br /><br />http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=528-539<br /><br /><br />Any assurances that PG makes I view with a great deal of skepticism at this point.<br /><br /><br />The short of it is I would be surprised that it is not illegal to contact a company, impersonate an employee of said company and obtain company property.<br /><br /><br />The documents are out and whatever that leads to is fine by me, but the way they were released should not be condoned nor ignored.<br /><br /><br /><br />Celery EaterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-83496828357940912732012-02-22T11:32:20.793-05:002012-02-22T11:32:20.793-05:00In what way is that law applicable, CE?
I'm w...In what way is that law applicable, CE?<br /><br />I'm willing to be convinced, even by you.<br /><br />How is PG "harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person"?<br /><br />For one thing, the Heartland Institute is not a "person".<br /><br />For another, apart from a disputed memo which PG assures he received from a third party from the HI, how do the other docs, which appear to be genuine (I'm led to believe), harm, intimidate, threaten or defraud?<br /><br /><i>Cymraeg llygoden</i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-72030898509030098872012-02-22T10:43:34.368-05:002012-02-22T10:43:34.368-05:00http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/528.5.html
...http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/528.5.html<br /><br /><br /><br />Celery EaterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-4986858105596642652012-02-22T02:07:02.363-05:002012-02-22T02:07:02.363-05:00Celery Eater can specify which law he broke and wh...Celery Eater can specify which law he broke and whether there is any public interest defence, then.J Bowersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-88226156742259880922012-02-21T23:11:59.063-05:002012-02-21T23:11:59.063-05:00The only one who has broken the law here is Peter ...The only one who has broken the law here is Peter Gleick. He now has zero credibility. Hopefully soon we can refer to him as a convicted felon.<br /><br /><br />I think my "Rabett Run, Fonzi and sharks" comment was spot on the other day and seems even more appropriate in light of these recent posts and comments.<br /><br /><br />Celery EaterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-22263468697687611512012-02-21T18:08:24.561-05:002012-02-21T18:08:24.561-05:00""a" is unlikely because having dec...""a" is unlikely because having decided to reveal his identity, and to take the hit on his credibility, any sane advisor would tell him to put it all on the table at once, ride the storm, and be done with it. Serial confessions do not make for a more pleasant life."<br /><br />I completely agree that this would be a scenario to be avoided... and yet, do you remember Weiner-gate and the "hacked facebook page"? It seems not uncommon for individuals caught in bad behavior to attempt to make up a half-way story, making everything worse.<br /><br />But yes, on second thought I agree that producing said memo based on draft documents a month in advance would not be infeasible... maybe I'd go with 40% a, 40% (c+d), and 20% b (I've lowered b mostly because Heartland appeared to know that they could get away with denying the memo early on)<br /><br />-MMMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-16609151966886734292012-02-21T17:02:02.883-05:002012-02-21T17:02:02.883-05:00I would merge your "c" and "d"...I would merge your "c" and "d", but substitute "written" for "forged" (it wasn't on official letterhead, etc).<br /><br />"Also note that for b, c, and d, we have to figure out how the memo was made to be consistent with documents that hadn't necessarily been written yet..."<br /><br />Ever serve on a board? I've served on two. Staff prepares the budget for board approval, and the budget and supporting information will be completed for submittal generally well in advance of the board meeting where it will be voted on (in well-run organizations, board approval is frequently mostly a formality).<br /><br />It wouldn't be hard at all for a staffer to write something up that jives with the budget even if the board documents hadn't been written up yet.<br /><br />Of course, it's also possible the person saw the board documents.<br /><br />"a" is unlikely because having decided to reveal his identity, and to take the hit on his credibility, any sane advisor would tell him to put it all on the table at once, ride the storm, and be done with it. Serial confessions do not make for a more pleasant life.dhogazanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-78866592261869703482012-02-21T16:33:58.150-05:002012-02-21T16:33:58.150-05:00dhogaza: But if the memo is NOT fake, then how did...dhogaza: But if the memo is NOT fake, then how did Heartland know to claim it was fake before they knew how it had gotten out? <br /><br />I guess we have a series of possibilities. In order of what I think is most likely, at this point:<br />a) memo was forged by Gleick<br />b) memo is real, insider sent it to Gleick<br />c) memo was forged by insider who sent it to Gleick<br />d) someone who got a hold of the Heartland docs, forged a memo consistent with those docs, and then sent the memo to Gleick<br /><br />Any other options? Also note that for b, c, and d, we have to figure out how the memo was made to be consistent with documents that hadn't necessarily been written yet...<br /><br />-MMMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-7772847721102967162012-02-21T14:36:42.966-05:002012-02-21T14:36:42.966-05:00"Which, as bizarre as this all becomes, at le..."Which, as bizarre as this all becomes, at least makes every individual action make sense: the memo is fake, so Heartland is denouncing it, but the memo-leaker thought it was real, so it makes sense to include in the memo batch."<br /><br />or that the document really did come from inside Heartland, but wasn't an official Heartland document. In other words, someone got their hands on an internal document and sent it on.<br /><br />The sequence of events is starting to make sense - Gleick got a hard-copy document purporting to show Heartland's strategy. He unethically tricked Heartland into sending supporting information. He then scanned the original document, bundled it with the e-mails, and sent the package on.<br /><br />If the supposedly "fake" document had contained false information, his tricking of heartland would've resulted in his getting board documents uncovering the "fake" as being innaccurate.<br /><br />But that's not what happened.<br /><br />It's an odd "fake" document indeed that contains accurate information suppoedly only known to Heartland insiders ...dhogazanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-74958843326169830562012-02-21T14:22:18.950-05:002012-02-21T14:22:18.950-05:00A fake document with real info is what Dan Rather ...A fake document with real info is what Dan Rather got.badger badger badgerhttp://badgerbadgerbadger.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-68940098908554873952012-02-21T11:15:49.418-05:002012-02-21T11:15:49.418-05:00"and it was faked by teammate Peter Gleick.&q..."and it was faked by teammate Peter Gleick."<br /><br />Not according to Peter Gleick. Maybe he used remote viewing to know what to ask for? How's it going trawling through those stolen emails looking for ripe cherries to pick and quotes to mine, by the way?J Bowersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-23101923746308322332012-02-21T10:32:04.279-05:002012-02-21T10:32:04.279-05:00Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.
@JBowers
Oh ho ho ho ho! P...Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.<br /><br />@JBowers<br /><br />Oh ho ho ho ho! Poor Jbowers, he crossed his fingers and hoped to die that the heartland document was real but alas it was a fake, and it was faked by teammate Peter Gleick. <br /><br />hahahahahahaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-35028579163394531732012-02-21T09:26:58.506-05:002012-02-21T09:26:58.506-05:00Well, to repost my speculation:
"2) It seems...Well, to repost my speculation:<br /><br />"2) It seems stupid to me for whoever got the group of documents to stick in a made-up strategy memo that didn't really add very much, and gave Heartland the gift of being able to complain about the forging rather than just playing defense on the real documents. "<br /><br />So now we have 2 options: 2A) Peter Gleick made up the memo, confessed to document stealing, but for some reason continued to lie about the memo,<br /><br />and 2B) A third party sent Gleick the memo. Which, as bizarre as this all becomes, at least makes every individual action make sense: the memo is fake, so Heartland is denouncing it, but the memo-leaker thought it was real, so it makes sense to include in the memo batch.<br /><br />This leads us to the question of... WHO SENT THE MEMO? It must have been someone with access to the Heartland documents... which suggests this was a honey-trap? In which case, it succeeded beyond the trappers wildest dreams. But... why bait a honey-trap with real info? What if Gleick had just published the memo as is, noting he'd gotten it from Anonymous? <br /><br />Which comes back to my question that there's no obvious rationale for someone to invent a memo which is mostly true but actually fake... so maybe Gleick really was that stupid and did fake the memo, and is now lying about it? I know that it is always difficult to overestimate the power of stupidity...<br /><br />-MMMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-70128122351397618972012-02-21T06:27:44.385-05:002012-02-21T06:27:44.385-05:00Well, color me stoopid!
Sadly, as history tell us...Well, color me stoopid!<br /><br />Sadly, as history tell us, he who must not be named, at the heartland of this sorry wormtale, has told us a string of lies and has been deeply involved the creation of pure unadulterated fiction concerning tobacco, ozone depleting CFC's, DDT, Health Care and so the long list of his bull dustius tales goes on!<br /><br />Thus, until such time as he who must not be named, releases the complete source code, for all to see, one cannot take his claims of innocence at face value.<br /><br />"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." Abraham Lincoln ...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-69732557538417553922012-02-21T02:38:50.021-05:002012-02-21T02:38:50.021-05:00tsk! 'buy' = 'but'.tsk! 'buy' = 'but'.owlbrudderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14659475201048613993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-8439680251539694902012-02-21T02:37:44.233-05:002012-02-21T02:37:44.233-05:00Yes, perhaps naughty, buy I'm glad he did it. ...Yes, perhaps naughty, buy I'm glad he did it. Turning the light on is always a good way of exposing things. Well done, Mr. Glieck.owlbrudderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14659475201048613993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-58775837789338612542012-02-21T01:02:47.916-05:002012-02-21T01:02:47.916-05:00Glieck! (at, d'oh, huffpost) did it.
a gentle...Glieck! (at, d'oh, huffpost) did it.<br /><br />a gentlemen-don't-read-each-others'-mail kind of guy now says the first doc was sent to him and he used pretext -- someone else's name -- to get someone to send him the other docs.<br /><br />Naughty.<br /><br />Arguable: http://www.scambusters.org/pretexting.htmlHank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-3233425263599893592012-02-20T21:02:10.544-05:002012-02-20T21:02:10.544-05:00One Gary Wamsley, by his own admission, "serv...One Gary Wamsley, by his <a href="http://www.naspaa.org/jpaemessenger/Article/VOL18-1/07_wamsley.pdf" rel="nofollow">own admission</a>, "served as a commissioned officer in the Air Force for four and a half years" after graduating from UCLA.<br /><br />One Gary Wamsley, by his <a href="http://www.berthoudrecorder.com/2012/02/19/heartland-institute-threatens-71-year-old-veteran/" rel="nofollow">own admission</a>, "did not spend 30 years in the military to protect the likes of you".<br /><br />Now only one chocolate teapottery advocate has proven hereabouts that he has sufficient mathematical illiteracy to equate 4.5 with 30 and consequently arrive at the hypothesis that two is one.<br /><br />So, it seems to me, not only did this PhuD merchant not receive sufficient mathematical training during his studies, he also did not receive sufficient training in how to gather information, analyse the data and interpret that data and draw conclusions. Perhaps he needs to <a href="http://www.speedydegrees.com/program/PhD-Degrees.htm" rel="nofollow">reapply</a>!<br /><br />All in all, one might say another typical <a href="http://www.thecandyenthusiast.com/index.php/Spring_Summer_Theme/cadbury_fudge/" rel="nofollow">Cadbury fudge</a>!<br /><br /><i>Cadbury Fudge ... is really pretty self explanatory ... It’s very thick and ... is not for the faint of heart ... just be forewarned.</i><br /><br /><i>Cymraeg llygoden</i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-34872061250489711002012-02-20T19:12:08.181-05:002012-02-20T19:12:08.181-05:00"Gary Whamsley is a teacher (big Democrat cou..."Gary Whamsley is a teacher (big Democrat cough cough) at Virginia Tech (probably a friend of Michael Mann)."<br /><br />The Chocolate Bunny wins the <a href="http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7" rel="nofollow">Golden Horseshoe Award</a><br /><br />1. Mann was at UVa, not VaTech, which is way back there in the backwoods Blackburg while UVa is in stylish Charlottesville.<br /><br />2. <a href="http://www.berthoudrecorder.com/2012/02/19/heartland-institute-threatens-71-year-old-veteran/" rel="nofollow">Gary Wamsley</a> is not <a href="http://www.directory.unirel.vt.edu/college.php?colname=School%20of%20Public%20and%20International%20Affairs" rel="nofollow">Gary Wamsley</a>EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-48321898884897108532012-02-20T19:02:48.918-05:002012-02-20T19:02:48.918-05:00Poor Jeff, Willard is cutting into him like the No...Poor Jeff, Willard is cutting into him like the North Atlantic Current into the ice north of Svalbard.Nevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15413215743703093876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-69942504145592325342012-02-20T18:52:43.791-05:002012-02-20T18:52:43.791-05:00Re the legal 'advice'; yeah, my sense of t...Re the legal 'advice'; yeah, my sense of these guys being Machiavellian geniuses has eroded considerably...billnoreply@blogger.com