From: Rick@dot.dot
In article ,
Snit wrote:
> "Rick" wrote in Rick-4C5D88.13005617082004@news.telus.net on
> 8/17/04 1:01 PM:
>
> > In article ,
> > Snit wrote:
> >
> >> "Rick" wrote in Rick-5F30F2.12430417082004@news.telus.net
> >> on
> >> 8/17/04 12:43 PM:
> >>
> >>> In article ,
> >>> Snit wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Agreed. And unless you have any specific questions about the little
> >>>> story
> >>>> Elizabot and I just shared with you, I have no need to discuss it
> >>>> further.
> >>>> I see that you have asked a couple of questions above - if you want my
> >>>> take
> >>>> on them I will share. If not, well there is no real reason for me to
> >>>> explain my view for Elizabot. :)
> >>>
> >>> No, no more questions for now. Both(? I don't know how many sides there
> >>> are here) sides seem too deeply entrenched for any meaningful discussion.
> >>
> >> I think getting to any "truth" at this point may be a challenge.
> >>
> >> I do think that Elizabot was right when she talked about what "set me off"
> >> to speak to the police... her comments about going to the police I found
> >> to
> >> be completely over the top. She disagrees... I suppose it is up to the
> >> reader to make their own choice.
> >>>
> >>> Ah, well... Had to at least try.
> >>
> >> LOL... if you want some real fun, ask Elizabot and the Steve's about there
> >> friend Sigmond. :)
> >
> > NO. Not now. Not ever. I know better than to dip more than a toenail
> > into that!
> >
> > Actually, that does seem to be the crux of the problem, but I think that
> > after all this time, that there is no painless way to defuse it.
>
> Before that, even, was the argument about if Bush broke the law or not by
> attacking Iraq. Steve Carroll and I went 'round and 'round... though oddly
> enough he almost never mentioned the argument and just played semantic
> games.
>
> If you want my take on the hilarity that ensued, read the "Steve Carroll's
> Guilt" and "Steve Carroll's Games" posts... I have taken to just posting
> those when he tries to attack me... got tired of playing the same game over
> and over.
Sorry, I [am|was] trying not to let 'history' colour my views of people
here. I don't think I've had much interaction with Steve Carroll, but
I'm willing to discuss most topics with him.
>
> > Further, it seems that the only way to solve it is for someone to accept
> > some pain. (Note to onlookers: I am not indirectly suggesting I know who
> > made the post. Hell, I don't even know about the post myself!)
>
> The post in question was actually just a link to some web site that adds the
> name of a person in depending on the URL you use...
>
> Fred.whatever.com would make a story about Fred. Elizabot.whatever.com
> would make a story about Elizabot.
>
> Someone did it to Elizabot. Someone did it to me, as well.
>
> It was not a big deal...
IS THAT ALL IT WAS?!? Virtually meaningless, if you ask me.
> >
> > Actually, I'm still slightly surprised that nobody has claimed that I'm
> > [someone else's | their own] sockpuppet.
>
> I have been thinking that accusation would come up as well... you speak in a
> reasonable way.
>
> Whenever anyone has come into csma who seems to want to be objective, the
> "gang" insists that they are my sockpuppet.
>
> I was keeping track of all the claims for a while... but I think it is safe
> to assume if someone has posted more than once or twice, and posts from
> SuperNews, as I do, then they have been accused of being my sockpuppet.
Hey, they are welcome to try, I think I'm an actual person, but I would
always appreciate active confirmation of my existence. You never know,
of course, one day you just might turn out to be a figment of someone
else's imagination. (Or even worse, maybe even your own!)
--
Rick...
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
