From: steve_mackay@hotmail.com   
      
   On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 20:26:29 +0000, 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.   
   >   
   >> >   
   >> > 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!)   
      
   http://csma.sandman.net/atlas/faq/index.php?faq=sigmond   
      
   http://csma.sandman.net/texter/read.php?id=42111   
      
   The 1st one is the Snit/Sigmond FAQ.   
      
   The Second one is Snit's latest fiasco, trying desperately to discredit   
   the above Sigmond FAQ.   
      
   Snit will go on and on, and on about it not being   
   true. But the problem is, it's all verifiable truth.   
      
   Snit should not, and can not be trusted. Period. He's a pathalogical liar.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)