Back when we started and didn't know better, we took some stuff from the internet, but have no contributor. We didn't make one up. It's a ridiculous notion. Why would we. Just leave contributor blank. Honestly the vast majority of those early images were awful and have been replaced long ago with contributed images and we then put in the name of the new contributor when the old contributor was anonymous.

Because anonymous contributors have always been thing since there were contributors other than Greg, it never made any sense the accusation that Charles stole chips and posted under a phony name. I've seen him post images for people who prefer to remain nameless many times, so why would he bother? It's really more what someone would do who had a guilty mind and didn't think of just leaving the contributor field blank. In other words, probably not an admin.

I know. It's easier to make up a story and try to make people look bad, though.

Michael Siskin