Ron Livingston Lawsuit Discussion, the beginning of the end? Options

[the fieryangel]

Thank you very much. Though I very much suspect that Fushion-UK uses Britishmonomarks, I can't prove it...

The lady on the phone confirmed all of that. She said, that for Britishmonomarks, Fushion Pukka Bosh and Lee Dennison Associates are the same entity---and that is interesting in and of itself...

[the fieryangel]

Some context : This blogpost and this blogpost.

Put the two together, and you get a very sad picture indeed...

[anthony]

Because "flagged revisions" isn't a switch. There are as many definitions of "flagged revisions" as there are people to define it. And 99.999% of them suck.

The problem with that is that lack of Flagged Revisions sucks pretty bad right now, so let's at least have something

How's that saying go? "We need something. This is something. We need this." Is that it?

This post has been edited by anthony: Thu 10th December 2009, 9:49pm

[Milton Roe]

[The lady on the phone confirmed all of that. She said, that for Britishmonomarks, Fushion Pukka Bosh and Lee Dennison Associates are the same entity---and that is interesting in and of itself...

Aha! So they did answer about specific companies they service, and these are theirs. That settles it, then, it's just a maildrop virtual office.

I had guessed that Lee Dennison and Fushion were the same company. Actually, Fushion admits as much, when it says Lee Dennison Associates isn't really a separate company, but that "Lee" is a senior advisor for Fushion. While all the while "Lee" is casting in NYC, Paris, and London.

As I said, casting inside a maildrop box must be very uncomfortable. You could get real muscle cramps, and think of the horrid lighting and acoustics.

[Daniel Brandt]

Some context : This blogpost and this blogpost.

Put the two together, and you get a very sad picture indeed...

I see that he took down his blog photo within the last 48 hours or so, just like he took down his Facebook photo earlier this week. We can assume that he's reading this thread by now. If he's smart, he may also be transferring all of his major assets into his partner's name, assuming that he has any major assets and assuming that he has a trustworthy partner.

[Random832]

Has anyone been saving this stuff? I didn't have the presence of mind to.

[EricBarbour]

I emailed a polite question about Mr. Binmore to a slew of Foundation 66 email addresses,
the ones that I could find anyway.

Included a link to this discussion and Daniel's page asking about Binmore.

(Aside: it amazes me how many drug/alcohol treatment facilities there are in London, and
the UK in general. Lots more than most American cities. Foundation 66 runs several
halfway houses just by itself.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Thu 10th December 2009, 10:47pm

[Kelly Martin]

Here's the relevant lookup:

; <<>> DiG 9.4.3-P1 <<>> -x 212.22.3.8 any +multiline +nocomments +nocmd +noquestion +nostats +search
;; global options: printcmd
8.3.22.212.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN PTR mailserver.foundation66.org.uk.
8.3.22.212.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN PTR dickens.arp-uk.org.
8.3.22.212.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN PTR mailserver.rharp.org.uk.
3.22.212.in-addr.arpa. 137844 IN NS ns1.sysonline.net.
3.22.212.in-addr.arpa. 137844 IN NS ns0.sysonline.net.
ns0.sysonline.net. 142182 IN A 212.22.0.10
ns1.sysonline.net. 142182 IN A 212.22.0.11

You should always take reverse-DNS records with a grain of salt. In fact, in this case, this IP is not owned by foundation66 at all, but is instead the IP of their hosted mail service provider (System Online). The fact that 212.22.3.5, 212.22.3.9, and 212.22.3.10 are mail exchangers for apparently entirely unrelated entities supports this theory.

This raises very real possibility that whoever is behind this works at System Online and has been "borrowing" identities and the like from their clients. Not terribly ethical, but we've seen that sort of thing before, now, haven't we?

[Milton Roe]

This raises very real possibility that whoever is behind this works at System Online and has been "borrowing" identities and the like from their clients. Not terribly ethical, but we've seen that sort of thing before, now, haven't we?

We have. But in this case, the confirmation that Binmore works at Foundation66 (if we accept that) pretty much puts that idea to rest. It would be too much to believe that somebody else doing Binmore-type Dennison vandalism actually does it from another company that fakes exit ports as an institution that Binmore just happens to work for!

As has been noted, Foundation66 is a homeless shelter and drug rehab charity. A worthy cause. They probably provide computer access to their "clients." But if Binmore draws a paycheck, that would suggest he's not (currently) a client.

http://www.foundation66.org.uk/pages/about-us.html

Lee Dennison

Those briefs are actually pink. I think that is just the perfect touch.

[Somey]

OK, I've just finished cleaning up the thread a bit. Section 230-related material (not specific to the Livingston case) was moved to this thread, and discussion regarding a WR press contacts for this issue was moved to this contributors-only thread. About 7 posts were deleted for simply being pointless (sorry, but they really were)...

Even after all that, there are still 13 pages of this stuff, and a lot of it is too technical for the average person, much less the average reporter or blogger. I'm going to write this up as a blog entry and hopefully put the whole thing in some sort of logical order, like Mr. Random suggested. With any luck I won't make a complete joke out of it (beyond what already looks joke-like, that is).

[Milton Roe]

OK, I've just finished cleaning up the thread a bit. Section 230-related material (not specific to the Livingston case) was moved to this thread, and discussion regarding a WR press contacts for this issue was moved to this contributors-only thread. About 7 posts were deleted for simply being pointless (sorry, but they really were)...

Even after all that, there are still 13 pages of this stuff, and a lot of it is too technical for the average person, much less the average reporter or blogger. I'm going to write this up as a blog entry and hopefully put the whole thing in some sort of logical order, like Mr. Random suggested. With any luck I won't make a complete joke out of it (beyond what already looks joke-like, that is).

Oh, dear me. Somebody has been reading and has an executive summary.

http://www.digitalspy.com/forums/showpost....32&postcount=67

[carbuncle]

I've been thinking about this, and IMO the best way for Livingston to really put the spikes into this guy would be a "Google Images Bomb," in which he'd have as many blogs and community websites as possible place images like the one below, all captioned simply "Lee Dennison," like so:

Lee Dennison

Ummm, why make that guy's life any more miserable? For all we know, there is a "real" Lee Dennison who is a friend or enemy of whoever is doing this...

[Somey]

Oh, dear me. Somebody has been reading and has an executive summary.

http://www.digitalspy.com/forums/showpost....32&postcount=67

Not bad for a start... But he says "There is no Ron Dennison," not "There is no Lee Dennison," which is obviously a typo, but someone will probably quote it out of context anyway. I guess they wouldn't allow links, either?

One other thing I remembered, but didn't post, not that there's much more that needs adding at this point. All of the references for "Lee Dennison" in various lists of casting directors (most of whom appear to be legitimate) say "Lee Dennison CDA." However, there is no such thing as the "CDA," unless you're talking about the Communications Decency Act or the California Dental Association. Bona fide British casting directors are members of the CDG, the Casting Directors Guild of Great Britain. If you look at this list, for example, "Lee Dennison" is one of only two with the letters "CDA" after his name - all the others are "CDG." This is, presumably, how Binmore managed to fool people into thinking he had credentials despite his name not appearing in any official CDG listings.

The other "CDA" on that page, btw, is "Dan Hubbard." However, I believe this is a typo - on Habbard's IMDb page, he's listed as "CDG." There seems to be a company called "CDA Arts," though, and I believe Binmore cleverly took advantage of this to sow confusion, in case anyone checked.

[Newyorkbrad]

For the benefit of those of us who want to follow and understand this situation without spending hours piecing things together or becoming detectives ourselves, could someone please post a reasonable summary of the situation as known to date. This should definitely include how Wikipedia was misused by this individual and whether there are any remnants of the hoax(es) still evident on the site.

Thanks.

[Milton Roe]

For the benefit of those of us who want to follow and understand this situation without spending hours piecing things together or becoming detectives ourselves, could someone please post a reasonable summary of the situation as known to date. This should definitely include how Wikipedia was misused by this individual and whether there are any remnants of the hoax(es) still evident on the site.

Thanks.

See the link immediately above to Digital Spy.

[TungstenCarbide]

For the benefit of those of us who want to follow and understand this situation without spending hours piecing things together or becoming detectives ourselves, could someone please post a reasonable summary of the situation as known to date. This should definitely include how Wikipedia was misused by this individual and whether there are any remnants of the hoax(es) still evident on the site.

Thanks.

Damn, The Joy is on hiatus. S/he's really good at this.

[Milton Roe]

One other thing I remembered, but didn't post, not that there's much more that needs adding at this point. All of the references for "Lee Dennison" in various lists of casting directors (most of whom appear to be legitimate) say "Lee Dennison CDA." However, there is no such thing as the "CDA," unless you're talking about the Communications Decency Act or the California Dental Association. Bona fide British casting directors are members of the CDG, the Casting Directors Guild of Great Britain. If you look at this list, for example, "Lee Dennison" is one of only two with the letters "CDA" after his name - all the others are "CDG." This is, presumably, how Binmore managed to fool people into thinking he had credentials despite his name not appearing in any official CDG listings.

The other "CDA" on that page, btw, is "Dan Hubbard." However, I believe this is a typo - on Habbard's IMDb page, he's listed as "CDG." There seems to be a company called "CDA Arts," though, and I believe Binmore cleverly took advantage of this to sow confusion, in case anyone checked.

Yes, I note that even if he were American (possible) it would be CSA (Casting Society of America, although when I see the acronym I think of the Confederate States of America). I don't know what it would be in France. In a lot of countries, casting societies have to do with fly fishing.

[Push the button]

For the benefit of those of us who want to follow and understand this situation without spending hours piecing things together or becoming detectives ourselves, could someone please post a reasonable summary of the situation as known to date. This should definitely include how Wikipedia was misused by this individual and whether there are any remnants of the hoax(es) still evident on the site.

Thanks.

Are you mistaking us for your interns?

[Kelly Martin]

For the benefit of those of us who want to follow and understand this situation without spending hours piecing things together or becoming detectives ourselves, could someone please post a reasonable summary of the situation as known to date. This should definitely include how Wikipedia was misused by this individual and whether there are any remnants of the hoax(es) still evident on the site.

Thanks.

Not that you could trust anything you got from here; everyone knows that the people who inhabit Wikipedia Review are completely unreliable and are well-known to have a penchant for lying. You really should review all the evidence yourself; any other course of action would be irresponsible. Isn't that the basic lesson that Wikipedia is supposed to teach us, anyway?

[Somey]

...the people who inhabit Wikipedia Review are completely unreliable and are well-known to have a penchant for lying. You really should review all the evidence yourself; any other course of action would be irresponsible.

Actually, I was going to ask one of the WP admins for some dates on a few deleted articles, chiefly Montgomery Sands (T-H-L-K-D), Harry Dennison (T-H-L-K-D), Lee Dennison (T-H-L-K-D), Lee Kaay (T-H-L-K-D), Bite Records (T-H-L-K-D), and Erotikuss (T-H-L-K-D). AfD's still exist for all of them, but I'm trying to establish a timeline of when they were first created (in some cases, they were reposted once or twice after an initial deletion).

I also found this book, which appears to have been Binmore's first attempt at a phony offsite (i.e., non-Wikipedia) support reference.

The other thing I need to know is when the (now-deleted) photo of Livingston, taken by Binmore, was first uploaded - I forgot to get that before it went down the memory hole... sorry about that. I'm guessing it had to be before July 15, 2005...?

What I'm learning about Binmore is that he was, and presumably still is, fairly clever, cunning, and methodical, but just not very intelligent, and like most narcissists he's both self-indulgent and dismissive of others' ability to thwart him - until they do, in fact, thwart him, at which point he skulks off, sets up more bogus offsite support pages, waits until people have forgotten his previous attempt(s), and tries again. For example, he seems to have taken a lengthy hiatus from WP between November 2005 and April 2006, during which time he created his cast of characters and supporting web presences - but once he was done, he stupidly (and I can only say greedily) posted everything all at once, and it all got deleted.

It was only after that happened that he started in with the gay-rumor edits, and he didn't make another attempt to post articles on his fictional characters. Moreover, as I mentioned before, the entire time he made almost no attempt to engage the WP community directly, didn't create user pages, didn't participate in discussions that didn't involve defending his self-promotional activities... I'm fairly certain he has always had nothing but contempt for the WP community, and has always seen them as little more than an obstruction.

I haven't quite gotten through 2007 yet, but he seems to have been out of the picture during most of that year - it's possible that he was in France then, trying to set up the dubious B&B. (Besides, Cheekychops (T-C-L-K-R-D) was banned late in 2006, which may have been an effective thwart-attempt, at least for a few months.) Anyway, his activity in 2008 was almost all half-hearted edit-warring over "Lee Dennison" references, and he seems to have given up most of it by the end of 2008, except of course for the Livingston article, which he couldn't quite let go of until the lawsuit was announced and they finally protected it.