bluepeter

As a technical minded person, I fail to see why this hasn't been easily resolved.

Firstly, anyone with the correct knowledge could easily prove one way or another who's right or wrong here.

Not only would the original headers of the email contain information that can be tied in with server logs , mail server logs and or original email headers would prove both ways who's right and who's wrong.

I would point out screenshots of text means jack, and for what it's worth you can easily spoof an email address without hacking someone's server, however you cannot spoof the correct server IP within the email header.

 

Simples...

 

Just wasted about an hour of my life i'll never get back reading this thread, and would have closed it had Frankie not just replied before me.

So, i'll leave it with the offer of my services to both Mr Gates, and Club 1872 to get in touch if they would like an independent technical person to overview the emails and/or server logs.

Excellent. I'm glad this will be resolved, especially as it's being done by someone respected from this forum. I've been trying to find a way to do this completely independently, as I'm not comfortable with the verification coming from me or any staff on RM. It would be too easy for people to dismiss it purely based on where it came from. (Apologies for the mention of another forum, but the intentions are honourable.)

naw.........gersnet doesn't deserve this......I apologise to gersnet

 

and I know who you are thank you very much

You're right, you shouldn't have raised this on here, especially as a hit and run where you say something then when challenged decide it's not for discussion.

Back to topic, I hope someone will come along soon to clear up the additional information which leads to the fake email conclusion. If only so I'm not duped in the same way in future.

I spoke to BP and have no reason to question his integrity - he doesn't think that the emails are faked as they look legitimate to him.

 

There are some on RM who are definetly just out to cause trouble but he's not in that category imo

Thanks Greg, appreciated.

that's pish and you know it pal....what's really sinister is the drip drip poison backed by the people who run RM

Could you expand on this please? I'm one of the people who run RM, what drip drip poison do I back?

I have no interest in going over old ground about a different forum on here, needless to say we have different views but I have no wish to sully this thread regurgitating old hurt feelings.

To return to the topic then, I wonder what further information came to light to lead c1872 to believe the emails were photoshopped? Also, the distraction about the content of the questions is surely just that - a distraction. If the email was dismissed because they believe the questions to be agenda-driven, that would be that. They didn't, there were two emails from c1872 which were contradictory, then the emails were apparently deleted from the server. The person who sent the email was blocked from Twitter 'in error,' then apologised to by c1872 for the emails being sent, then accused of faking the emails.

The simple question is what leads c1872 to believe they are fake?

Someone else is asking us to take your word.

Removed for moderation.

 

I'll ignore the scurrilous accusations about criminal offences, it's up to the Admin on here if they want to let them stand. I think you're revealing more about your own character than mine, but there we go.

 

For clarity for everyone else reading, I'm not a member of Vanguard Bears and have absolutely no ties to them. I've probably banned more members of VB from RM than members of any other website, at least by proportion. If anyone is a member, they should go on there and ask what they think of me - I don't think the responses would be nice!

 

As far as I know, I have only discussed this directly with one member of VB, and that was long after the event. I have no information from them, and don't believe any of this originated from VB. I can't verify that, I don't know if BlueGates is a member. I don't think he is, but I've never thought to ask him.

 

Also, again, nobody is asking anyone to take my word for anything. I offered a wager that the emails were genuine, that can be easily and independently verified. Nobody has taken me up on it, strangely. At no stage would my reliability or otherwise be required.

I just speak from experience and it's clearly relevant.

It's not relevant. This is fun, we could either carry on or you could explain why you think it's relevant. To be clear, I'm not asking anyone to take my word for anything or believe anything I say. Why would my reliability or otherwise be relevant?

Bluepeter is a far less than reliable witness.

While your opinion of me isn't something which keeps me awake at night, I don't believe that's justified.

Regardless, my reliability is entirely irrelevant to the post you quoted. There is no subjectivity in it at all, nor is there a need to take my word for anything.

He was e-mailed, yes, but at no time was he told that the person was known. His screenshots were taken at face value but further information received leads us the believe they were not authentic.

I suppose the obvious question is what further information you received to lead to this conclusion?

1- Hopefully not, I would rather not write anything than have it on RM.

 

2- Plainly I don't speak for Gersnet, even before Frankie's reply. But the quickest, most surefire way to get rid of the posters on this board is to turn it into a sub forum of Rangersmedia.

1 - Fair enough. I'll do what I can to ensure your articles are removed if posted, if that is what you want. Do you read RM?

2 - Inter-forum nonsense aside, I am of the opinion that articles written about Rangers by Rangers supporters should be read by as wide an audience as possible. Sorry you don't share that view.

Busy today with work so quick post to say there's no issue about the article being posted. Discuss the content rather than the source please...

Thanks Frankie, appreciate the response.

<testily>

 

There's a good reason people use Gersnet and not RM. If anyone wants to read RM posts, could they please log onto RangersMedia?

I note you're a site writer. I don't know if you have had any articles from here posted on RM, but we certainly welcome GersNet articles on the site. We like to have all sides debated.

I hope you speak for yourself and not GersNet when you posted this.

First post - this thread seems as good a place as any. Really appreciate you sharing your info Frankie.