jjs, your lack of logic is the problem here. A maior problem, actually. What are you trying to say in Updegrove's defense, and how relevant is it to what I said? You missed the point completely.
No one claimed that those "PJ" posts, comments and mails were written by a computer like Watson. Obviously, Artificial Intelligence can't handle that (at least not at this stage).
The problem is, however, that if you only have "always electronic" correspondence with an online account, you can't know who's behind it, and you can't know how many people.
Updegrove made reference to my comments on ZDNet. I didn't claim that "PJ" wasn't an account used by one or more human beings. So you just attacked a total strawman.
My points on ZDNet (to which Updegrove referred) and other sites were about a reasonable balance between privacy and public activism. A balance that the person or team behind the "PJ" account never struck. People with sound judgment were able to see all the time that there was something very wrong with that. It's just that a number of people who wanted to believe in "PJ" as their savior were willing, and some of them still are willing, to ignore or to try to rationalize in often very pathetic ways what was going on.
"Is a dream a lie if it [wasn't] true, or is it something worse?" (modified quote from a famous song)