When we last reported on "Ron Burgundy," our favorite contrarian reader, "Ron" said he found it "far fetched" that certain vulgar comments have arrived here from someone at the Business Council of Alabama (BCA).
I responded by giving Ron the IP address that was attached to the comment. That prompted the following reply from Ron. It turns out he's not a fan of the vulgar dude, either:
According to my searches I received "invalid address." I don't know if it worked for you or not, but it sure didn't for me. I would first like to distinguish myself from the moron who commented as "Legal Rottweiler." While my comments may be offensive to you (rightfully so) I will never stoop to calling you "autistic." Pretty childish if you ask me. More so than being named Ron Burgundy at least.
Also, you have yet to name your sources. If it is such a big deal to you that I remain anonymous then why are you insistent on leaving your sources anonymous. If they are legitimate and have this scandalous information than let them be made public! Let us all glorify them for their good work.
Lastly, while I resent your work and your personal opinions I do respect the fact that you are pursuing a difficult task that is digging up dirt on our corrupt government. I think you have an uncanny ability to get under people's skin and I wish you would set your aim on some more noteworthy recipients. (maybe the Obama administration or GOP candidates)
Hopefully that was more coherent. Stay classy, San Diego.
Since Ron was having trouble running the IP address, I thought I would help him out--and respond to a couple of his points:
I didn't say your anonymous status is a big deal to me. But I think you stated that parts of my reporting were inaccurate, and I replied that I would be glad to interview your and/or the Canarys to help correct any inaccuracies. (I apologize if I have mixed up you and Mr. Rottweiler; I'm going from memory here.) I can't do that, of course, if I don't know who you are. You have every right to remain anonymous, just as I have the right to engage in the common journalism practice of using anonymous sources.
There has been some jocularity in our communications, but you probably can appreciate the seriousness of this issue. One of my sources has specifically stated that he/she would fear for his/her safety if his/her identity were to become known. Given a number of curious deaths in Montgomery over the past 12 months or so (Ralph Stacy, Bob Caviness)--and the fact I've received death threats myself--I can understand those feelings.
Anyway, on the subject of the IP address, here is what I found when I keyed the address into one of many lookup sites on the Web:
General IP Information
Organization: Business Councile Of AL - MGM
Services: None detected
Assignment: Static IP
Country: United States
Area Code: 334
Postal Code: 36104
As you can see, there is no doubt about the origination point of certain ugly comments.
So we have established the geolocation of the IP address 220.127.116.11. As for other issues, Ron and I probably will agree to disagree. But I appreciate his reference to San Diego, which is a signature Ron Burgundy line. I've been to SD a couple of times, and it's one of my favorite places. It's also interesting that Ron seems to share my disdain for GOP candidates (some in his case, pretty much all in my case), and neither of us is particularly high on the Obama administration. Give peace a chance.