Fake Steve decries “attacks”

SMTP should do it if that’s open.

Another thing to try with Fake Steve’s IP, assuming he’s posting from work. Try ips below and above that in the range.
Offices that have net services need to bind at least 1 ip to another router for office computers to have access to the internet.

So 216.109.112.135 could be the ip bind’ed for the office internet connections from another router.
216.109.112.134 may be a mail server
216.109.112.133 may be an internal server on LAN
216.109.112.136 could be for other services.

If you don’t get anything on nmap from the initial ip, try others in the range. If not he is probably not at work. Then you have to make a legal complaint to get the address via a subpoena. Which the person does not have a valid reason for.(apparently)

I know they tried to get mini-microsoft for years without success. It would be nice to find out who at least 1 of these mystery people are.

He might be discouraging you, But man keep it up and let the fun remain continue.

@21: The problem is, we don’t actually know what he’s complaining about. Obviously, someone who openly puts himself in the pubic eye surrenders a lot of his privacy. But does that mean that someone who writes anonymously is fair game for any tactic?

Apparently the Real Fake Steve is located in Boston. Speculation abounds that he’s Andy Ihnatko, but I think it’s Paul Thurrott.

@2, Ewan that is indeed my point. I’m not suffering from any lack of friends but of not being a good friend to the ones I already have. Like you, to whom I promised I’d do something for you in February and still haven’t done it yet. Thrashing from SNS to SNS does not get those things done for me. My whole point has always been about keeping how I spend my time in line with what matters to me.

And Robert, I’ve never once read Valleywag. I could not possibly give less of a shit about it.

Save “Fake Steve Jobs” from being outted.

FSJ has a real job and real career. He blog’s as FSJ as a creative outlet but he probably wouldn’t if his identity was known.

No you may think that outting him is fair because he attacks in his satire… it’s a complex attack because he’s attacking targets he believes the Real Steve Jobs would attack, so, the intent is complex. Does FSJ really think Scoble is a blockhead? Who can say. But he thinks Steve Jobs might hold tht view.

So… if FSJ is outted by a seeker of truth like Nick Denton then who really looses? FSJ’s or the readers who love his work. FSJ will still be a creative person who may have to re-structure his career but the readers will have less talent in the world of blogs…

Let FSJ stay fake, I say. And cut the writer some slack for not really owning the words. It’s called satire and it must be run through multiple filters to get anything close to truth out of it… but it’s so entertaining. And in a way, it’s closer to some levels of truth than real journalism. It deals in motivations and the deep psychology of power that facts can’t really convey: it’s about behavior and gestures (hat tip to the real original “Bad Sinatra” Steve).

PS> I faked “Dave Winer” once in a blog piece. He didn’t think it was funny. People “fake” targets that are bigger than life (or think they are).

Oops, I inadvertently directed my comment (#29), at #21. I meant to reply to David McElroy, #22.

“He blog’s as FSJ as a creative outlet but he probably wouldn’t if his identity was known.”

I know who FSJ is and I can *guarantee* that once he’s outed, he’ll stop writing the blog.

And, Robert, as to “But now Fake Steve is angry that people are trying to figure out who he is and is angry at Valleywag for attacking him.”? Did you ever stop to consider that maybe, just *maybe*, that’s part of the joke?

“Fake Steve is HARDLY ethical.”

What is unethical about satire?

“I’d fire the guy if I learned he worked for me.”

And people wonder why he wants to stay anonymous…..

@Shawn King
“What is unethical about satire?”

My sentiment exactly.

If FSJ is unethical, I suppose Jonathan Swift must have been one of the most unethical people in the eighteenth century.