From: toolittletoolate@poo.com   
      
   Rick wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   No, that came much later. I'll show you Google links if you'd like.   
      
      
      
   --   
   "You see, my invisible green dragon tells me that God is real, and is   
   even a pretty nice guy, but can not hold his liquor well."   
   - Snit (aka §¼¡Ý) on 4/27/04   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)