1) I read the 'The company later had its employees comment on my blog with fictitious postings' out of context. It's not referring to `Jonathan's Card` but to t

1) I read the 'The company later had its employees comment on my blog with fictitious postings' out of context. It's not referring to `Jonathan's Card` but to the `Pay it Forward` campaign. Just pointing that out since it seems like others were not clear on that detail either. 2) Calling those `Pay it Forward` posts "fictitious" isn't merited. I would not be surprised to see an employee of any company posting a defense of the company they work for. 3) Anyone on HN who read "but unfortunately failed to anticipate that I can see the originating IP address of incoming comments" and didn't say to themselves "how does OP know they were trying to obfuscate their identity?" should be embarrassed. It's always a good idea to read posts critically, and it's always a good idea to accept the least cynical understanding of a situation until compelling evidence is provided to the contrary. I'll consider this submission as bait until something substantial is posted.