From: Rick@dot.dot
In article <41226bdc$0$212$75868355@news.frii.net>,
Elizabot wrote:
> 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.
OK, I assume that this [is|was] 'that sex webpage' that people refer to.
I assumed, from the above description that it was some sort of prank
page that people link to in order to offend somebody else, sort of like
the infamous slashdot goatse guy. By the description it seems to be
relatively harmless, and more or less just plain stupid.
I'm relatively lucky here, as I don't have the history. But I do form
impressions of people eventually, and I've not seen anything *currently*
that is particularly heinous, just a lot of snide remarks from all
sides.
On the plus side, each of you seem to be interesting people in your own
rights, just that none of you play well with [others|particulars]... :)
--
Rick...
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
