by Dold Agenda 144 Replies latest jw friends
So what? Your original implication was that it is nearly 100% reliable for tracking down JW apologists in Ipswich
You can make your own assumptions from 'anyone know any JW;s in Westerfield' - that's all I said.
I am waiting for your post where you state 'this IP address is not in Ipswich' - thats the only thing you 'originally objected to' - so it should be easy for you to find
I am waiting for your post
I've already indicated the context of the previous statement, and you've already determined that there was actually no basis for asking about JWs in Westerfield.
But by all means, feel free to wait.
lets be 100% crystal clear here. jeffro 3333 said:
And certainly not your initial claim of 'the Westerfield area of Ipswich', which was the only thing I originally objected to, and I was right about it
when asked to provide evidence of that 'only original objection' he dilutes with:
No, I objected to your claim of accuracy inherent in your statement about 'Westerfield in Ipswich'
In other words, jeffro read something into what I actually wrote and then objected in a way he now finds difficult to justify with evidence.
But prior to you even objecting I had already widened the scope of location to Norfolk in general.
Anyways...
In other words, jeffro read something into what I actually said and then objected in a way he now finds difficult to justify with evidence.
Ho hum. Yes, my mistake... When you asked about JWs Westerfield in Ipswich, it was entirely unrelated to a claim that the geolocation was accurate for that location (the location you've quite adamantly told us is not correct). You're amazing. I bow before your superior intellect.
But prior to you even objecting I had already widened the scope of location to Norfolk in general.
No, you didn't. You diluted to Norfolk on page 4, about 17 hours after my objection on page 3. The same post where you only quoted the general part of what I said about geolocation, ignoring what I also said about it sometimes being capable of city level accuracy.
it was entirely unrelated to a claim that the geolocation was accurate for that location
It was a throwaway comment - as soon as you said:
IP address geolocation provides the location of the Internet Service Provider , not individual clients .
...I diluted my claim to the Norfolk area in general.
Anyways...
Other readers indicated concern that their location could be tracked by IP geolocation with more accuracy than is actually the case. That is not the case, and I've made that clear. My work here is done.
But in general, if people post something online, they can probably assume that it can be found.
No, you didn't. You diluted to Norfolk on page 4, about 17 hours after my objection on page 3.
Not sure why 17 hours is relevant. My post was the 1st one I made on the thread after yours.
Your objection on Page 3 was at best poorly written - I would describe it more as a personal position, more than a counter-argument.
I said 'Westerfield' - you said 'ISP, not individual clients'
At no point did I claim 'individual clients' so you can see why I was confused about what exactly you were objecting to. At no point did you claim 'Ipswich' was absolutely incorrect. What you did say on Page 4 was:
We can reasonably conclude that they're in the UK, and they might be somewhere in the Norfolk area.
But now later in thread you claim 'Ipswich' was your only problem?
At no point did I claim 'individual clients' so you can see why I was confused about what exactly you were objecting to. At no point did you claim 'Ipswich' was absolutely incorrect.
Well, you kind of did suggest that. Unless you were suggesting the poster's ISP was a JW in Westerfield?? Or a JW in Westerfield knows the other guy?
But now later in thread you claim 'Ipswich' was your only problem?
I have nothing against Ipswich or its residents. The implied accuracy, which happened to make reference to Ipswich, was the problem.
Your comments overinflating the accuracy of IP geolocation, particularly to 'street level', may have been unnecessarily unsettling for members of this forum who wish to remain anonymous.
This is way too deep for me - I'm outa here for now...
Well, you kind of did suggest that.
Lets agree that you kind of read into what I wrote something that wasn't there and that I certainly didn;t intend.
The implied accuracy , which happened to make reference to Ipswich, was the problem.
As soon as you commented on implied accuracy I diluted to Norfolk.
What we do know is that geo-IP location is 75% city level accurate in the UK.
I stated 'Westerfield' for entertainment purposes, you said geo-IP is not as accurate as that - <without specifically saying I was wrong> -, I diluted to Norfolk in general, you agreed ye maybe, but UK for sure, I said no, its more accurate than that, you said you can't say that, I went off and found the correct answer by other means as a way of verifying the accuracy or otherwise of geo-IP services, and in this case they were accurate to within 40 miles with 1 service and town level accuracy with the 2nd service I checked.
lets leave it there and still be friends - yes?
