Snit Digest, email.pdf edition
Welcome to yet another Digest from comp.sys.mac.advocacy. This time the subject is Michael (Snit) who has bombarded the group with incorrect information, which this digest aims to clear up.
The backgroundMichael is questioning the PDF of the screenshot of the mail that Steve Mackay received from him which later was one of the evidence that tied Michael to having created sigmond as a sock puppet. Basically, Michael claims that the PDF has been altered, lets examine that. The original of the PDF, as posted by Steve Mackay is on home.wi.rr.com...
The intentWhen reading this digest, and following the references, you might notice how Michael seems to be focused on the "unverified" part of the mail, not the PDF itself. Then, suddenly - he discovers (!) that the PDF ha been edited! Unfortunately, it's the copy Michael submits that has been edited, not the original. It seems clear that Michael intended to lead it to this all along.
The filesSteve Mackay has removed the files from his web space, since this digest was written. I have uploaded each file to this article, but if you don't trust my objectivity, the original files can also be found on web.archive.com:
In any case, I did some hunting through my backup drive, and I found the PDF
printout Steve Mackay provided of the e-mail in question. Please note the
word "unverified" appears directly before my IP. What do *you* think the
word "unverified" means in this context? Here is the PDF:
This is the first message where Michael claims to have dug up the old PDF from his "backup drive". Note that the PDF, which is supposed to be coming from Steve Mackay is on Michaels web space. He mentiones the "unverified" part (see the sigmond FAQ for this part).
*MY* PDF is completely unmodified. Just went to the email, and
clicked print from my Win2K box. Your PDF however, while the content looks
identical, is larger, and is created on a mac.Steve Mackay
Steve replies to that, and notes that Michaels version of "his" PDF is larger then the original and is created on a Mac (Steve used a Windows box to create the original).
Why the change of PDF's Steve? What I have is the one you used before. They look the same... why the change? On cursory glance I see no difference.Snit
Michael asks Steve why *HE* changed the PDF, which of course he didn't, the original is still on Steves server, the altered version is on Michaels server.
I didn't. You did however.
home.wi.rr.com... is a screenshot of *MY ORIGINAL*
home.wi.rr.com... is from YOUR PDF.
#1, I printed that at work. No Mac there. Just linux and windows boxen here.
#2, The created date is August 10, 2004 on yours. Mine is June 13th.
#3, Yours is created with OmniGraffle. Which I didn't, and WOULDN'T use to
create the PDF. I'd do it straight from Safari.
So, again, you're lying. No surprise.Steve Mackay
Steve replies and says he did no such thing and links to two screenshots about the information of the two PDFs clearly displaying that one is made by Internet Explorer for PC while the other is made by OmniGraffle on a Mac. Steve also links to the web directory that holds his files and point to the modification date which is June 13, not August 10 like the one Michael has.
Michael responds to say that he is concerned only with the "unverified" part of the PDF, and whatever differences in the PDF Steve might find is irrelevant. He claims it doesn't matter which one Steve uses.
Michael then posts to say that he has added both of Steves PDF's to his site, but Steve hasn't had two PDFs, he has only had one, the original. Michael still claims that Steve has altered the PDFs which is what accounts for the change of size. Remember that the PDF with the different size originally came from Michaels web space, not Steves.
Steve replies by telling Michael that there isn't two versions of the PDF coming from him. The one called "email.pdf" on Michaels web space is the altered one and the one called "email-new.pdf" is in fact the original one, from Steves site, now also on Michaels site.
Michael claims that both PDFs came from Steve, when this just isn't true. One of the PDFs is different from the one on Steves site. Steve hasn't posted this modified version, Michael has. Michael still claims he is focused on the word "unverified".
Steve now posts a small summary of the PDFs where he has saved the two, by Michael, modified version of his original PDF on his site, clearly stating them to be Michales PDFs.
Before he can change it, click on the following link:
Now Michael posts a new thread, called "Caught Steve Mackay in *another* big lie" where he claims that one of the PDFs on Steves site is a forgery! The only problem is that it's -Michaels- version of the PDF that is the forgery, the one Michael has been posting on his site! He claims that the font for the IP number is different - in his own PDF! The one Steve uploaded to his site to keep a copy of Michaels alterations to the PDF. Note that this different font isn't visible in the original version on Steves site.
Comparison of the PDFsSo the summary of the altered PDFs are as follows, as shown live in Safari with the PDF plugin and zoomed in to the IP in question. Note on which PDF the font is different from the original. Click on the images to see them in full size to see the URL to the document.
- 2004-06-13 13:12 The original email.pdf file on Steve Ms site is created (see document properties)
- 2004-06-13 18:17:41 The original email.pdf file on Steve Ms site is uploaded [a]
- 2004-08-10 21:47 (10 Aug 14:47 -0700) A PDF that was posted to Snits site as myweb.cableone.net... is created. File size is 211,938 bytes (details from documents properties).
- 2004-08-10 22:23 (10 Aug 15:23 -0700)
Snit posts that he's dug up a PDF from his "backup drive" (the file that was created just 36 minutes before) ( 2(|5<
g)!-(!a< b<>f>!c>!n>)z> @!)p|>n< (r!<.)!g))!", "")">Google)
- 2004-08-11 12:04 Steve uploaded 'snit.jpg' and 'mine.jpg' to home.wi.rr.com... (file listings here are in GMT as previously shown)
- 2004-08-11 14:53 (11 Aug 2004 07:53:20 -0700) Snit claims that Steve has changed the PDFs (Google)
- 2004-08-11 15:54 (11 Aug 2004 15:54:03 GMT) Steve M replies that he didn't change the PDF's and provides links to screenshots of the PDF's properties windows which he uploaded to his site 3 hours previously. (Google)
- 2004-08-11 16:16 Snit uploads 'email-new.pdf' to his own site - this is Steve M's file from 13 Jun.
- 2004-08-11 16:26 (11 Aug 2004 09:26:11 -0700) Snit posts that he's added "both of" Steve's PDF's to to Snits own site. For some reason, he decides to call the original PDF from 13 Jun 'email-new.pdf' even though it's clearly the original one. (Google)
- 2004-08-11 16:37 Snit uploads a different copy of 'email.pdf' to his own site - the files size has now changed to 224,007 bytes
- 2004-08-11 19:32 Steve uploads the original email.pdf downloaded from Snit's pages to his own site as email_snit_lie1.pdf and the "new" email.pdf from Snits pages as "email_snit_lie2.pdf"
- 2004-08-11 19:53 (11 Aug 2004 14:53:19 -0500) Steve replies stating that only the file that Snit is calling 'email-new.pdf' is from him. The other file first appeared on Snits site (Google)
- 2004-08-12 00:01 Steve posts detailing the PDFs he uploaded to his web space 4.5 hours earlier. (Google)
The sigmond FAQ
Note that this is related to the fact that Michael has been proven to have created a sock puppet called 'sigmond' which is detailed in the sigmond FAQ
Thanks to "Blam" for the Timeline
Read more about MIchaels entanglement with dishonesty in the new Screenshot digest.