From: toolittletoolate@poo.com   
      
   Rick wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   Not all people understood that when they read it. It wasn't simply a   
   link posted to the group, it was the whole article.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   If you bother to stick around (which I wouldn't be surprised if you   
   didn't), you'll see more.   
      
   > 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]... :)   
      
   I have never claimed to play well with everybody!   
      
   --   
   "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)