“Credit” Where It Is Due?
by John Weckerle
Editor’s note/update: Gadabout-blogalot.com editor Chuck Ring has challenged us on our forensics in this article, stating that “you have used resources to mis-identify people who have nothing to do with the email address you are dogging.” We beg to differ, and offer the registration information as support:
East Mountain Tea Party Domain Registration Info from GoDaddy whois; phone number redacted for privacy.
A few days ago, we published an article on the proposed Islamic community center in downtown Manhattan that was a response to an article on the East Mountain Tea Party web site, and had an exchange with someone calling themselves “East Mountain Tea Party.” This person’s comment was also posted on the East Mountain Tea Party site under the name “teapartynm.” We challenged the person to identify himself or herself, and thus far, there has been no such identification. Neither is that person identified on the East Mountain Tea Party site; rather, the pseudonym “teapartynm” is used.
We fully support people’s right to state their opinions. However, it’s important to realize that, while the Constitution may guarantee the right to do so, it doesn’t necessarily guarantee the right to do so anonymously, and given the rather controversial views expressed, we decided to do a little digging and see what we could find out. Actually, we found out quite a bit, but we will for now stick to just trying to identify the person who posted the original article on the East Mountain Tea Party site and commented on ours.
We took a two-pronged approach. First, we noted that the “EMTP Calendar” on the site featured a substantial number of events, especially coordinators’ meetings, at 13 Sandia Street in Moriarty. A bit of searching showed this to be the residence of Douglas and Therese Cooper. Second, we checked the “Whois” listings for the site and found that it was registered to Emily Cooper, and that the e-mail address was the same given as that provided by our commenter.
Therese Cooper is mentioned several times on the East Mountain Tea Party site. Emily Cooper is mentioned in one article only. Douglas Cooper is not mentioned on the site, but has a page at Resistnet.com, on which he equates “progressives” with “Marxists.” The name “Therese Cooper” appears three times when entered as a search term on the East Mountain Telegraph site. The name “Emily Cooper” appears four times, three of which involve articles on the Tea Party. The name “Douglas Cooper” does not return any results on the Telegraph site. Both Therese and Emily Cooper are described as Tea Party coordinators in several articles found on the web.
While the results of our investigation did not provide 100% certainty as to the identity of “teapartynm” on the East Mountain Tea Party and “East Mountain Tea Party” on ours, the evidence (especially the site registration and e-mail information) would tend to suggest that Emily Cooper is the most likely candidate. We would like Ms. Cooper to confirm or deny. There is some indication that, if Ms. Emily Cooper is not the author, Ms. Theresa Cooper may be – and again, confirmation or denial is requested. Either way, while we acknowledge the right of either Ms. Cooper to express herself (or the right of whoever else may have published the article and the comments in the unlikely event it was someone else) – even when we disagree with him or her – we feel that political activists should “step up to the plate” when speaking out on the relevant subjects, especially when they choose to stake out provocative positions. If somebody other than the Ms. Coopers wrote the material in question, we call on them to identify themselves.
10 Responses ““Credit” Where It Is Due?”
Wow John. I thought to not get into this fray as I have other fish to fillet.
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.
The ability to remain friends and disagree is one of the best qualities a man can have, in my opinion. And yes, it does mean quite a bit. I am sorry that you see our disagreements as beating you up, which is not the intent.
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.
Okay, I’ll try again. The email address is not used by any of the three whose names you have posted. One of the individuals named has stepped away from activities with the Tea Party because she is extremely busy with other pursuits.
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.
Well, we have no way of verifying that, short of having the name of the person who actually is using that e-mail address. Perhaps the EMTP should update its registration information.
Of course, if you have that name and would care to share it, we’d certainly appreciate it.
I can’t share it because I took a blood oath. ;>)
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.
I want to make something very clear, here. If the “person” has received my message, he or she has apparently not received it very well. The message is that that person should have the honor and dignity – and, if it is not Ms. Cooper, the loyalty to her – of identifying himself or herself instead of using her identity to cover his or her own tracks.
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.
Two observations about the matter that relate to your most recent comments, John:
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.”
I’m not sure how to read this one, Glenn; it’s not clear whether you’re making a point about the anonymous person or suggesting that I lack honor, dignity, or courage. I hope it’s the former. If it’s the latter, well, I have to apologize for whatever shortcomings I may seem to have in that direction.
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.
Sorry to be so unclear, John. It’s the former.