Peter also did little to interview anyone with substantial standing in the internet community about what C&S were doing -- a quote or two from an old net hand like a Gene Spafford or someone of that ilk might have been valuable. As it was, he didn't produce much to counter the viewpoint that they were the victims rather than the victimizers.
Geez, thanks. He quoted me in an article on the C&S problem long ago. I had a legitimate beef because my service provider dutifully kept many empty newsgroups around just in case someone discovered them. C&S did and I literally spent 2 hours unsubscribing from all of them. I seem to remember that he quoted me as being really inconvenienced, which is pretty much what happened to everyone else.
I think it is only because the "paper of record" published articles that made them look like their point of view had any merit at all that they managed to survive this long. As it is, the Tennessee Bar is looking in to whether they have committed any new ethical violations. I'd say, of course, that they had...
You are correct, though, about this. They seem to draw much more unsuspicious attention then a pair of disbarred attornies should get. Of course, all attornies deserve caution and suspicion.
Perry