Realistically, we may never be able to conclusively determine the person’s identity, however certain we may feel about it. That doesn’t mean we won’t keep trying. Regardless, the situation is a poor reflection on the organization in general – and while we may not be able to “consider the source” in absolute terms, I suppose we can consider the source in a more general sense. We may not be able to point to a particular person, but we can certainly point to the East Mountain Tea Party leadership, and perhaps that is knowledge enough.

1) honor, dignity, and courage, are more often dusted off and paraded in public for special occasions than they are treated as a code of conduct for daily life;

2) those who talk the most about these concepts often display these qualities the least.

A lot of people have probably already decided who they think it is. This is starting to feel like “20 questions.”

Either the articles and comments in question are Ms. Cooper’s, or they are “somebody” else’s. We are pursuing both avenues of investigation; we are being very, very thorough; and we do not intend to drop it.

Seriously, I believe in this case you have made your point and the person has received your message loud and clear.

I don’t see that knowing the name will add anything to the issue at this juncture.

Domain as you must know (no sarcasm meant) do not necessarily track with e-mail addresses used by individuals involved with the registration of the domain or in involvement with the organization. That is the case with this particular email address.

As to the identification: I acknowledge that there is no requirement for people to identify themselves, but there’s no law against trying to figure it out when they don’t. I think it was pretty clear that this was an “investigated guess;” if additional information becomes available that indicates our guess was wrong, we’ll admit it and they’ll have our sincere apology. I am curious as to how you come to the conclusion that the people in question “have nothing to do with the email address you are dogging.” To avoid any confusion arising from your statement, we’re adding the registration information to the original article, for all to see.

But since you have beat me up several times on your blog, I can tell you that you have used resources to mis-identify people who have nothing to do with the email address you are dogging. And you have spread all of their names to anyone who reads your blog. Any harm done? You’ll have to ask them how they feel.

I know everyone of the folks you have pointed toward. You have done so with absolute 0% accuracy. I’m trying to be as kind as possible here, but it does take some gall to first discuss three people, mis-identify a “likely” one as your choice and finally to say if you have chosen the wrong person, would the actual writer identify themselves.

While I may agree with you regarding folks identifying themselves, as you know there is no law that compels one to do so, and certainly, the United States Constitution does not do so.

As you know, although it may not matter to you, or to this controversy (can we call it the Cooper Controversy) I have long considered you a friend, although we disagree on many fronts. Still do consider you a friend and disagree with you on many fronts, if it means anything.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment.