HEllo Lee,  
    
  On Wed 2012-Jan-18 18:11, Lee Lofaso (2:203/2) wrote to Richard Webb:  
    
    
    
  RW>Wine is the most popular for this from what I've read.  NO  
  RW>thanks, don't think I'll try it, though a former girlfriend  
  RW>(an rn) wanted me to give it a try once.  That relationship  
  RW>was over in about two weeks.  Too weird for me!!!  
    
  LL> Gets you drunker than a skunk, real fast, from what I've heard.  
  LL> Takes less than a minute to get plastered.  One guy from Texas won a  
  LL> Darwin Award, ingesting three liters of sherry by that route.  
    
  YEp, hadn't heard of him yet, this was early '80's when I  
  dated that lady.  She had the proper apparatus however, but  
  I still didn't think so.  
    
   RC>> The messages were sexually inappropriate..  
    
   LL>> And you know this how?  Do you have evidence that he had done what  
   LL>> you claim?  Does that particular sysop have evidence that he had done  
   LL>> what you claim?  If so, how come no such evidence has ever been made  
   LL>> public either by you or by her?  Or by anybody else for that matter?  
    
   RC>> Because the Sysop asked me not to post, so did Bob Klahn.  
    
  RW>I've heard this from the horse's mouth as well, and she's no reason  
  RW>to lie about it, that's enough proof for me.  
    
  LL> The claims are unsubstantiated and unsupported.  As such, those  
  LL> claims should not be believed by anyone.  It makes no difference as  
  LL> to whether the person who made the claims is a sysop or not. The  
  LL> claims are unsubstantiated and unsupported.  
    
  Says you.  I could have seen the messages in private mail  
  myself had I wished.  I didn't wish.  
    
  LL> "The president would never lie to us!" rang true for almost every  
  LL> American - until the Gary Powers incident.  It took the Russians to  
  LL> convince Americans that their belief was in error.  Because he was  
  LL> caught with his pants down, Dwight Eisenhower was forced to tell the  
  LL> American people that he lied to them.  Today, very few Americans  
  LL> believe the president (or any other politician) tells the truth.  
    
  True, but from recent behavior it wouldn't surprise me that  
  he might do something such as behave in the way he's stated  
  to have.  
    
    
    
  LL> You say she has "no reason to lie" and that is "enough proof" for  
  LL> you. The same is said by friends of mad dictators.  
    
  Might be, but her assertion is consistent with his recent  
  behavior.  I truly believed the man has a problem.  NOt  
  saying it isn't a problem that the medical/industrial  
  complex didn't help create.  I've seen enough of their  
  handiwork that I can easily conceive of his problem being  
  because of the treatment, or mistreatment he received from  
  them.  
    
  LL> I do not believe in Ronald Reagan's "Trust, but verify" philosophy.  
  LL> A much better philosophy is "Never trust, but most definitely  
  LL> verify". It is not so much that people should not be trusted, but  
  LL> rather that nobody should be trusted.  That is not to say that the  
  LL> sysop in question is being less than honest.  However, since her  
  LL> claims are unsupported and unsubstantiated, those claims should not  
  LL> be believed by anyone.  
    
  What's it to you?  YOu don't pay her bills, you didn't buy  
  her system(s) she makes asvailable to the public.  She can  
  set whatever terms and conditions for access she likes, as  
  can I, as can Ed at Doc's place, etc.  None of us do what we do at the  
  behest  
  of any government or organization.  YOu can disbelieve or believe, that's  
  your  
  choice, you have no say.  
  Nobody asked you, nobody is required to ask you.  
    
   RC>> Not once have I seen you post biographical info about yourself,  
   RC>> which tells me you like to play your cards close to the vest, which  
   RC>> is ok.  
    
   LL>> How many times do I have to say it?  I am an entertainer.  
   LL>> A pianist, comedian, and a clown.  All rolled into one, providing  
   LL>> social commentary for all.  :)  
    
  RW>The point lEe's missing here is this:  I've never seen him  
  RW>post the names of coworkers, bosses, neighbors, etc.  YEs, I  
  RW>know LEe is a professional entertainer.  I'm sure he knows  
  RW>that i do that sort of work, as well as support services for  
  RW>such folk.  I know what many folks from FIdo and usenet  
  RW>forums where I hang out do for a living, have some clue as  
  RW>to their socioeconomic status and all that stuff.  
    
  LL> Not everybody understands the concept of "public figures".  
  LL> And there are a handful of people who tell their life story  
  LL> on line for all to see.  Don't ask me why they do that.  I  
  LL> am not a shrink.  But apparently that is their "therapy".  
    
  Maybe, but those folks are imnsho fools.  
    
  LL> OTOH, it could be a mad game an individual using an alias/handle  
  LL> would do...  
    
  That it could be, and sometimes is I'm sure.  
    
  RW>Most of us still practice some discretion in what we post  
  RW>about our day to day existence, even Lee.  Wayne didn't seem  
  RW>to have the capability to do this however.  
    
  LL> Some folks do not have the same capability as most folks.  
  LL> Other folks have the capability, but choose to play a game.  
  LL> I suspect our mutual friend was playing a game.  A game of  
  LL> his own making.  :)  
    
  YOu may be right.  As for me, I got to the point where it  
  became tiresome, and I refused to play anymore.  HE is now  
  filtered in every echo I carry except those which I  
  moderate.  Should he behave in his usual way in an echo I  
  moderate I'll take immediate action.  That may be  
  disagreeable to you, but that doesn't matter either.  I  
  refuse to play whatever game he's playing, and choose to  
  ignore his posts, even should he find access elsewhere.  
    
    
  Regards,  
             Richard  
  ---  
   * Origin:  (1:116/901)