How lenient should we be to JohnL?

[Anthony]

This fiction about IP addresses illustrates my concern about letting an account like this continue posting. Some of us have experience with network technology and see it for what it is and maybe even find it entertaining. Others might read it and think it sounds plausible. Those who know the truth should expose it, and I think that has been done, but how many times does this need to happen?

And each lie gets covered up by another lie, and on and on. There's always a new lie. And there are always people who are convinced by the old one and irritated at the people who expose the lies. Or who think we simply shouldn't be so rude as to tell the truth.

It's like the alcoholic aunt in a family where you aren't supposed to question what she is drinking out of her teacup, most people probably know, others would be shocked to find out, and the whole family revolves around that lie in strange ways.

I need to write a longer post with my thoughts on this, but it is somewhat chilling to me how much these resembles when a known abuser gets away with it for years and just never quite get "caught". Too many people protect them. Too many well-meaning people just can't believe that such an upstanding community member could commit such atrocities. Those who insist that, yes, he did, get castigated as wanting to "attack" someone or "destroy their reputation".

No amount of proof is ever enough. (I once had a copy of a recorded confession of an abuser; that wasn't enough, and some people told me that the only way that would have happened is someone must have blackmailed him.) The victims, though... well, they're always in the wrong. They make accusations, some of them false. (False accusations happen, but it seems unlikely when they are hundreds of them from otherwise credible people.) They aren't living enough of a Christian life. She's mentally ill. She went to the world and got tattoos and got pregnant.

Unfortunately, I see a lot of parallels with this in l'affaire Max le rebaptisé; it points to something concerning that simply dwells in the mindsets and attitudes of conservative-leaning people.

Literally the entire thread wants to ban JohnL and everyone knows hes lying. how does this compare to your abuser story.

I believe im his only “defender”, and i think hes lying its just that I dont think habitual lying should be bannable but im outnumbered 10:1 in the comments. The poll is somewhat close though so I wonder who also wants him not banned.

[JohnH]

Literally the entire thread wants to ban JohnL and everyone knows hes lying. how does this compare to your abuser story.

This situation has been going on for north of a decade, and it is only recently that the entire thread has decided JohnL/MaxPC are not who they have claimed to be. (The abuser situation I described above is largely resolved as well, but it also took decades.)

I believe im his only “defender”, and i think hes lying its just that I dont think habitual lying should be bannable but im outnumbered 10:1 in the comments. The poll is somewhat close though so I wonder who also wants him not banned.

I have not voted for him to be banned. I would prefer actually that they can stay - just with a bit more honesty. I would be fine if they asked for significant privacy and didn't "explain" a bunch of stuff to us, but simply stopped the fiction.

[temporal1]

JH:
I have not voted for him to be banned.

nor i.
i chose 1 option, the third, i prefer mods decide. of course based on balanced information.

i haven’t wanted any member banned. i respect admin-mods decisions.
there are those i miss quite a lot.

as JohnH has shared, the most important goal is for submission and obedience to God. whatever path that takes.

[ohio jones]

The community has spoken, and it’s time to put this to rest. Thank you all for the input and discussion.

Nobody believes JohnL is telling the truth. Those who have formed an opinion believe overwhelmingly that JohnL and MaxPC are the same person.

The question of continued posting is less clear-cut, but some of those voting “yes” apparently did so because they enjoy the entertainment and appreciate the performance. Those expressing an opinion of “no” regard it as a more serious matter, and that deserves to be given greater weight. I enjoy entertainment as much as anyone, but I keep coming back to this:

If I’m spending time here I want it to be with people who are who they claim to be.

JohnL, we are asking you to refrain from posting, of your own Free Will, and that you do not post under a different name now or in the future. Failure to comply voluntarily will result in a ban.

Unless or until there is a ban, you are welcome to contact any or all of the moderators by PM in the event you wish to tell the truth about what is really going on and provide the information we requested previously. We ask anyone else receiving a PM from JohnL to forward it to one or all of the moderators.

JohnL may now enjoy his place along with MaxPC in the annals of MennoNet lore.

----------

While we are on the subject, there is one other sockpuppet account that might want to spend the next 40 years or so in the wilderness. Let’s keep it to a limit of one per customer from now on, please.

[ohio jones]

I will give JohnL the benefit of the doubt that he read my PM directing him to the above post after this rather than before. Now that he has seen the PM, any further posts will mean a ban.

[Thomas_muntzer]

For quite some time, and more vociferously in several recent threads, accusations have been made about JohnL and his relationship to truth (and to MaxPC, whose relationship to truth also appeared tenuous). If you’ve been reading those threads you are familiar with the situation, so I won’t repeat all of that here. Nor will I post scriptures about the importance of telling truth; we all are familiar with them. But the truth is a serious matter, and untruth is a distraction from the forum community.

The moderators have given him opportunity to respond to several specific questions, and he has left most of them unanswered, or answered only partially in ways that cannot be verified (as did Max in response to a similar request years ago).

Neto has suggested that we might require posters to use their real names or identify themselves before they can post. We are not necessarily inclined to take that step, but if we do have reason to ask for identification, we expect you to provide it. This forum is a place for caution in what is posted publicly, but it is not a place for secrets among each other.

Here is a sample of the information available to the moderators that links the accounts of JohnL and MaxPC. There’s plenty more where this comes from. Note that the post is by MaxPC, and that JohnL has also posted multiple times from the same IP address.



Those of us who are Anabaptists are no doubt familiar with the Matthew 18 process of dealing with a brother overtaken in a fault. We have reached the point where the next step is to “take it to the assembly” (the word “church” used in most translations is anachronistic in this passage, and the forum is not a church anyway; but we are a community of believers).

It’s rare for a person to be banned from the forum (bots are another matter), but it has happened a few times, usually by executive order. This time we are asking for your input and would like to reach a community consensus on whether to do so, or not. Please vote accordingly.

This thread will probably be archived at some point after a decision is made.

I don't know what controversy the post is referring to, but if it's the same IP address, it's very likely the same person, and the fact that they've refused to answer specific questions about them only confirms that yes, it's the same person.

I'll say it again: I don't know what the controversy is about, but both users are the same person

[Thomas_muntzer]

In all this confusion I called a buddy of mine who calls himself The Geek Interpreter. His expertise is in computers, routers and satellite uplinks. I sent him the link to this thread because the whole thing just confuses me about IPs and the whatsits. He sent me an email with the info explaining about how they work written in lingo I can understand. Maybe this clears things up. I’ll paste what he said here.

John, I took a look at that forum and I can tell you that someone doesn’t understand IPs and their limitations. The claims there don’t really line up with how IP addresses work. Here’s an excerpt from an introduction to IPs, etc. in an article my team and I wrote. Hopefully it clears up how IPs, ISPs, and any other internet aspects function. This isn’t copyrighted so you can share it publicly.
____________
An IP address uniquely identifies a network interface on a network, serving as a digital locator for routing data packets. However, it does not directly identify the specific individual user or their precise physical location on its own. 

* Device Identification: An IP address acts like a return address for data, ensuring information is sent to the router. 
* User ID: Because many devices share a single public IP address via a router, the address identifies the connection point, not the person behind the screen. 
* Geographic location: The IP identifies the general area, like the city or country where the IP address is based.
* Device type: Sometimes, advanced tracking can reveal whether the device using the IP is a mobile phone, laptop, or desktop computer, but it won’t provide the phone number associated with that mobile device.
* Limitations: While an IP address can reveal generalized geographic location (such as a city or ISP region), it does not provide a street address, phone number or personal identity without a subpoena served to the ISP provider.
* IP addresses alone do not give you access to phone numbers, specific computers or any other highly personal details about the user behind that IP. 
* It’s important to note that this is as far as public data goes. Even though there are websites that offer to trace IP addresses, they won’t provide specific details like the phone number, name, or address of the person using the IP. The more personal information, such as phone numbers, is only known by the ISP (Internet Service Provider), and they are legally bound by strict privacy laws to protect that information.

It appears that the computer you bought at that yard sale was used by the previous owner in your general IP location. That’s where someone is getting the wrong signal, pun intended.

John 14:27 Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

Friends of MN, believe it or not, I've been reading this thread completely because I'm interested in the lore of this story.

Regarding what you wrote, JhonL, it seems like you gave chatgpt some input to write this for you. What are the odds that someone would buy a computer from a deceased person who, coincidentally, used the same forum in a super-specific niche on the internet where there are no more than 40 active members out of more than 280 million regular internet users in America? Not to mention that the coincidence is even more odd that you would create an account on this forum right after buying it.

As many have mentioned, I don't know what's leading you to lie. Often, lies have a clear benefit. We arrive late to work and blame it on traffic, or we accept a contract for a project knowing we won't be able to meet the delivery deadlines in the future, but we blame the raw material supplier for the delay in shipping. But in this case, I can't find any rational justification for it; I don't know if that justifies it or even makes it worse.