If you need any confirmation of how contentious this year’s sheriff’s race is, you might start by asking bmanchester, ginny, mike12 or tinkerbell.

If they can’t help, you could try Jaydog, garrettw, Yolanda, martha or strhan.

Even jsmitherdale or sheriff1 might be able to shed a little light on the subject.

Apparently all 11 of these computer users barely let their bed sheets cool before they leapt to their computers to voice their support for their favorite candidate for sheriff.

On Thursday, The Democrat published a story about the Nov. 3 race.

At 6:04 a.m. bmanchester started the string of comments. Two minutes later ginny chimed in with her support.

At a rate of about one comment every five minutes, other users soon followed until 7:17 a.m.

Curiously, each one of these commenters supported the same candidate.

The Democrat blogs have become yet another battleground in this year’s election — one in which appearances may not actually be the truth.

To the average reader, the comments make it appear that this candidate has energized his base of supporters.

The back end of natchezdemocrat.com, however, exposes a more cynical view of this election.

Turns out that comments from bmanchester and the gang were sent from the same Internet protocol address — possibly from the same computer. Instead of being sent from individual users scattered across the county, these 11 users more than likely disseminated their propaganda from the same location.

In cyberspace, any device on the Internet is assigned an IP address. This address helps locate the millions of devices online each day.

When a comment is posted on our Web site our server records the IP address of the device sending the information.

Thursday morning, 11 messages were sent by a single IP address. Interestingly, not one message was sent by the same username. They were all different and they all supported one candidate.

Does this mean that one computer sent these messages? Not necessarily.

Computers that are networked together can share IP addresses. Libraries, small businesses, even homes with multiple computers can share addresses.

But at 6 a.m. it is likely the messages in question came from a single source.

Even with the IP address there is no way of knowing whether this is one individual acting on his own or in concert with a campaign. That is why I refrained from naming the candidate.

Of course, this is just one example of how people can take advantage of the system. Others may be doing the same, concealing their agendas by using multiple computers in different locations. There is no way of knowing.

One thing is certain in the wild, wild Web — that there is no certainty.

Recent polling shows that more and more Americans are relying less on television and more on the Internet to find information on candidates and election issues.

Unfortunately, Thursday’s series of comments show that Internet users must bring with them a healthy skepticism, questioning the source of everything they read.

In the world of big billboards, mass media and Internet blogging, the only real sources of information are those individuals running for office. Nothing can substitute talking with the candidates and asking them pointed questions.

Of course, that does not guarantee casting the right vote.

From whom would you rather hear — the candidates or tinkerbell and court?

Ben Hillyer is the Web editor of The Natchez Democrat. He can be reached at 601-445-3540.