I just had a phone call that I'm convinced was a phising scam. I had come inside to hear a message being left on my answering machine. I played the message back and heard a message from Shaquan Brown calling about the domain hosting I have with "them." I know the name of my domain hosting company; so do its employees; and it's not "them."
Caller ID said the call was from "WEB HOSTING SUPPORT" at (602) 716-5339.
I called "Mr. Brown" back and, after navigating through a recorded welcome message saying that I had reached "hosting support," a man answered with, "Hosting support."
"Uh, yeah, I'm returning a call from Mr. Brown," I said identifying myself. The man said that he was Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown said that he was calling about my domain name. I have some internet domain names registered and utilize the services of a web and domain hosting company; on the rare occasion that they call me, their company name shows up on caller ID and they properly identify themselves as being with that company.
Mr. Brown proceeded to ask me for my domain name. "My domain name?" I asked him. "You have a domain or web hosting, don't you?" He asked. "I do?" asked I, "You tell me. You called me about 'it' you moron."
At this point I heard male laughter break out in the background--like Mr. Brown had just been made.
I asked Mr. Brown what company he was with and he acted as if I'd just asked him the capital of Tajikistan. I cussed at him, he informed me he would have to terminate the call and hung up.
I don't doubt that if I had been more cooperative with Mr. Brown, he would have come to the point where he needed to renew my domain name, probably conveniently with a credit card.
Beware... and don't say I didn't warn you.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Saturday, July 12, 2008
News & Record (Greensboro, NC) publishes fabrications
Once again showing a disregard for factual accuracy, the News & Record (Greensboro, NC) published a complete and total fabrication as an assertion of fact in its July 11, 2008 edition. The N&R reserves on its opinion pages space for "Counterpoint" columns, reader contributions selected by editors for prominence and additional space beyond what is given to the standard letter to the editor. In a piece titled "Swifties told truth about John Kerry," writer Jospeh E. Lyons of High Point, NC writes this:
"Moreover, based on evidence or lack of it, Kerry’s naval service was less than stellar and the details (contained in his fitness reports, never released) would undoubtedly show this." [emphasis added]
Lyons goes on to speculate that Kerry's fitness reports would show him to have been a mediocre soldier and reasserts that these reports where never released. Lyons is wrong that those reports were not released--and the N&R gave its stamp of approval to this gross lie.
A simple Google search for "Kerry fitness reports" yields a link to Kerry's fitness reports at FindLaw on the first page of search results. It's caveman easy, but apparently beyond the capabilities of Lyons and the N&R editors.
I do not know what value the letters editors deliver to the News & Record. I'd say none other than secretarial. In a little over two months I have documented five instances of the N&R publishing lies, fabrications and plagiarism (the others are here, here, here, and here.) This latest is especially egregious because the editors selected it as worthy of special attention as a counterpoint column.
In this new media age, the one thing that still can still give traditional news organizations an edge is credibility. The News & Record is squandering theirs.
"Moreover, based on evidence or lack of it, Kerry’s naval service was less than stellar and the details (contained in his fitness reports, never released) would undoubtedly show this." [emphasis added]
Lyons goes on to speculate that Kerry's fitness reports would show him to have been a mediocre soldier and reasserts that these reports where never released. Lyons is wrong that those reports were not released--and the N&R gave its stamp of approval to this gross lie.
A simple Google search for "Kerry fitness reports" yields a link to Kerry's fitness reports at FindLaw on the first page of search results. It's caveman easy, but apparently beyond the capabilities of Lyons and the N&R editors.
I do not know what value the letters editors deliver to the News & Record. I'd say none other than secretarial. In a little over two months I have documented five instances of the N&R publishing lies, fabrications and plagiarism (the others are here, here, here, and here.) This latest is especially egregious because the editors selected it as worthy of special attention as a counterpoint column.
In this new media age, the one thing that still can still give traditional news organizations an edge is credibility. The News & Record is squandering theirs.
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Super Fast Greensboro Police Response -- A Community Watch Success
A few months ago, our neighborhood started experiencing some daytime burglaries -- kick in the door, quickly grab jewelry, guns and computers. Neighbors started talking to neighbors, a neighborhood blog facilitated communications and, after a few meetings, we formed a Community Watch. A Greensboro Police Department Community Watch liaison came to an organizational meeting and gave us some ideas for what to look for and how to respond. Today we put one of the suggestions to use with pleasing results.
For years, we have had shady door-to-door solicitors. Many of us, me included, have stories of "college kids" selling [magazines, books, mugs] to pay for [a trip, tuition, books] to whom we gave money (me, $42) only to never receive what we thought we bought. That's bad enough, but we had started to suspect that some of these "solicitors" might actually just be scoping the neighborhood, seeing what houses are empty during the day, who looks vulnerable, what items of value might be within easy reach. The GPD Community Watch liaison told us when these people come around to ask for a city-issued solicitor's license and, if they didn't have one, tell them to leave the neighborhood then call the cops if they don't.
Today, a very pleasant-mannered young lady showed up on our doorstep. Without introducing herself, she started asking questions of me: Am I a father? Is the education of my children my purview or my wife's? I interrupted and told her, "Before I give you any information, you will tell me who you are and why you are here."
She answered with "I'm a student at the University of Arizona and I've been talking to some of your neighbors..." followed by more questions for me. I interrupted again, "Are you selling something?" She answered yes, but didn't offer any more information. "Do you have a solicitor's license?" I asked. She did not. I politely, but directly told her, that we have had a problem with scammers in our neighborhood, that the City of Greensboro required her to have a license and since she did not, she must leave our neighborhood or I would call the cops.
She shrugged an "OK," got in her car and drove further into the neighborhood. I got in my car and found her knocking on another door and started video taping. When my neighbor answered the door for the solicitor and saw my camera, she came over to talk to me. I introduced myself and mentioned that this was one of the things we were supposed to be on the lookout for as part of the Community Watch. She told me their block captain lives across the street and I should go get her. The block captain turned out to be someone I know, so when she answered the door, she didn't hesitate to spring into action. She called the non-emergency number of the GPD and with cool precision described the situation: described the person, gave the make and model of the car, even rattled off the license plate number, "Arizona plate, Alpha, Alpha, Alpha..."
By now, the solicitor was getting back into her car and driving away. The neighbor she had approached had provided her with requested directions to a nearby gas station. After a few pleasantries with the neighbors, I got in my car and headed back home. Two blocks away, I saw a police car ahead of me make a u-turn and head in the direction of the block captain's house. It couldn't have been more than five minutes since our call to the non-emergency number.
I guess my point of this little tale is two-fold. One, despite my general attitude of live and let live, it is good to know that, when warranted, nosy neighbors can help protect their community; and, two, despite the sometimes negative perceptions of GPD response times, statistics don't always tell the story. A cop on the scene in a few minutes is superb police service. I'll eventually get the details of how it all ended, but for now I know this: Our community watch worked and the GPD worked.
For years, we have had shady door-to-door solicitors. Many of us, me included, have stories of "college kids" selling [magazines, books, mugs] to pay for [a trip, tuition, books] to whom we gave money (me, $42) only to never receive what we thought we bought. That's bad enough, but we had started to suspect that some of these "solicitors" might actually just be scoping the neighborhood, seeing what houses are empty during the day, who looks vulnerable, what items of value might be within easy reach. The GPD Community Watch liaison told us when these people come around to ask for a city-issued solicitor's license and, if they didn't have one, tell them to leave the neighborhood then call the cops if they don't.
Today, a very pleasant-mannered young lady showed up on our doorstep. Without introducing herself, she started asking questions of me: Am I a father? Is the education of my children my purview or my wife's? I interrupted and told her, "Before I give you any information, you will tell me who you are and why you are here."
She answered with "I'm a student at the University of Arizona and I've been talking to some of your neighbors..." followed by more questions for me. I interrupted again, "Are you selling something?" She answered yes, but didn't offer any more information. "Do you have a solicitor's license?" I asked. She did not. I politely, but directly told her, that we have had a problem with scammers in our neighborhood, that the City of Greensboro required her to have a license and since she did not, she must leave our neighborhood or I would call the cops.
She shrugged an "OK," got in her car and drove further into the neighborhood. I got in my car and found her knocking on another door and started video taping. When my neighbor answered the door for the solicitor and saw my camera, she came over to talk to me. I introduced myself and mentioned that this was one of the things we were supposed to be on the lookout for as part of the Community Watch. She told me their block captain lives across the street and I should go get her. The block captain turned out to be someone I know, so when she answered the door, she didn't hesitate to spring into action. She called the non-emergency number of the GPD and with cool precision described the situation: described the person, gave the make and model of the car, even rattled off the license plate number, "Arizona plate, Alpha, Alpha, Alpha..."
By now, the solicitor was getting back into her car and driving away. The neighbor she had approached had provided her with requested directions to a nearby gas station. After a few pleasantries with the neighbors, I got in my car and headed back home. Two blocks away, I saw a police car ahead of me make a u-turn and head in the direction of the block captain's house. It couldn't have been more than five minutes since our call to the non-emergency number.
I guess my point of this little tale is two-fold. One, despite my general attitude of live and let live, it is good to know that, when warranted, nosy neighbors can help protect their community; and, two, despite the sometimes negative perceptions of GPD response times, statistics don't always tell the story. A cop on the scene in a few minutes is superb police service. I'll eventually get the details of how it all ended, but for now I know this: Our community watch worked and the GPD worked.
Saturday, July 05, 2008
Get well soon Sandra Anderson-Groat
The Troublemaker is reporting that Greensboro City Council person Sandra Anderson-Groat is in the hospital, this on the heels of a report in the News & Record yesterday that her home-building company is going out of business.
I first met Sandra when she hired me to build a web site for her city council campaign. She is a warm, thoughtful person who genuinely is interested in putting what's good for Greensboro ahead of her personal interests. She is a great asset to our city and I wish her a full and speedy recovery. We need her.
I first met Sandra when she hired me to build a web site for her city council campaign. She is a warm, thoughtful person who genuinely is interested in putting what's good for Greensboro ahead of her personal interests. She is a great asset to our city and I wish her a full and speedy recovery. We need her.
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Another plagiarized letter to the editor
Today, the News & Record (Greensboro, NC) published this letter from Anthony Belli of Greensboro. Belli plagiarizes from this article by National Rifle Association president, John C. Sigler. Belli's letter is below. The plagiarized portions are in red.
-----------
Barack Obama has claimed that he does not take donations from special-interest groups or lobbyists. True, but he has accepted donations from their spouses, relatives and friends (source: Fox News).
Obama has no respect for the Second Amendment. He has voiced support or voted to ban all handguns, ban the right to carry in every state, and to ban firearms in the home, even for self-protection.
Obama’s attitude toward armed, violent criminals has been one of benign neglect at best. When the Illinois Senate wanted to try gang-bangers as adults when they fired a gun on or near a school ground (1999) or when they committed murder to help their gang, and when the Senate wanted to make them eligible for the death penalty (2001), Obama voted no in both cases. Obama said he believed federal mandatory-sentencing laws used to put armed and violent predators behind bars should be abolished (source: Chicago Tribune).
When Illinois lawmakers introduced a bill that would exonerate citizens for violating local gun bans if they used a gun to defend themselves in their homes, Obama voted no. Obama would disarm the public and allow the criminals to run free.
-----------
Barack Obama has claimed that he does not take donations from special-interest groups or lobbyists. True, but he has accepted donations from their spouses, relatives and friends (source: Fox News).
Obama has no respect for the Second Amendment. He has voiced support or voted to ban all handguns, ban the right to carry in every state, and to ban firearms in the home, even for self-protection.
Obama’s attitude toward armed, violent criminals has been one of benign neglect at best. When the Illinois Senate wanted to try gang-bangers as adults when they fired a gun on or near a school ground (1999) or when they committed murder to help their gang, and when the Senate wanted to make them eligible for the death penalty (2001), Obama voted no in both cases. Obama said he believed federal mandatory-sentencing laws used to put armed and violent predators behind bars should be abolished (source: Chicago Tribune).
When Illinois lawmakers introduced a bill that would exonerate citizens for violating local gun bans if they used a gun to defend themselves in their homes, Obama voted no. Obama would disarm the public and allow the criminals to run free.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Letter to the editor writer plagarizes
If your grandma or grandpa are fond of writing letters to the editor of their local paper, do them a favor and tell them about this thing called the Internet. Tell them that their letter will be posted online and that it is all too easy to determine if gramps wrote his own letter or copied it.
A June 30, 2008 letter to the editor in the News & Record (Greensboro, NC) from Warren Nash is identical in its majority to one from a different author published five days prior in the Times-Union (Jacksonville, FL).
Given the delay in getting a letter to print, it is possible, I suppose, that Mr. Nash wrote his letter first, shared it privately with a friend in Florida who copied it and had hers published first. Clearly though, one copied the other and if you sign your name to someone else's writings, you have plagiarized.
Of course, the letters editor at the N&R could have caught this and saved her paper and Mr. Nash this embarrassment, but, sadly, there appears to be little regard for fact-checking by the N&R on the letters they publish as noted here and here,
A June 30, 2008 letter to the editor in the News & Record (Greensboro, NC) from Warren Nash is identical in its majority to one from a different author published five days prior in the Times-Union (Jacksonville, FL).
Given the delay in getting a letter to print, it is possible, I suppose, that Mr. Nash wrote his letter first, shared it privately with a friend in Florida who copied it and had hers published first. Clearly though, one copied the other and if you sign your name to someone else's writings, you have plagiarized.
Of course, the letters editor at the N&R could have caught this and saved her paper and Mr. Nash this embarrassment, but, sadly, there appears to be little regard for fact-checking by the N&R on the letters they publish as noted here and here,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
