Where did the Proud ex Trekker go? The one who does not wan

[Anonymous]

On 2004-01-04 14:03:00, Anonymous wrote:

"

On 2004-01-04 13:13:00, Anonymous wrote:


"Anon,  why is it when one of you can't make your point or can't answer simple questions do you find it necessary to pat each other on the back and say don't worry about or "Don't waste your breath defending yourself."





Once again Scott, why do you so adamantly defend Sue and PURE?"

God, ain't that the truth?  But lately, it's actually become rather entertaining, as opposed to flatline boring. I mean come on, how many non-answers do we have to tally up before it becomes obvious THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES?  



 :nworthy: "

...and the webmistress has no brains (ha ha ha)

[Anonymous]

Hmmm...no interest, then why would you have a copy of her law suit?

Where has he said he has any such thing? There are several attorneys and related legal folks who post; at least one other you could call Mr. T.
You sure are a piece a work lady.

[Antigen]

Carey, Scott has a legit point. I, personally, don't think this fear is very well founded. But I can understand why this person might be worried.

However, this person is posting some pretty harsh allegations against you and doing it without a name. And that's not all they're posting! I can't tell you what else cause, unlike our buddy Lee, this person never agreed to claim their anon posts. It's not a legal thing, it's an ethical thing. I don't think I'm actually under any legal obligation wrt protecting ppl's anonymity. But I just wouldn't out someone who 1) is using anon posts for what I think may be legitimate reasons and 2) (more importantly) hasn't agreed to claim their anon posts.

Anon, please consider simply leaving out the allegations that you can't prove w/o busting yourself. It gets nowhere.

Carey, have you considered that this person might be more taken in by some others than intentionally complicit? I really think that's the case. And they wouldn't be the only ones. Just about everyone else, I think, has figured out that there's more to this than a clear-cut good guy/bad guy story.

If they keep engaging you anonymously, just trust that most sensible people take anon posts with at least a grain of salt.

Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism--how passionately I hate them!
--Albert Einstein

[Antigen]

On 2004-01-03 19:29:00, Anonymous wrote:

Why take a chance when no one knows if they will be the next one sued by someone who ain't too happy with the topic of discussion/debate?

Because I find it worth the risk to me in order to provide context and credibility to what I have to say.

We are a one party country. Half of them call themselves Democrats and the other half call themselves Republicans. All the good ideas come from the Libertarians.
--Hugh Downs

[Antigen]

On 2004-01-04 12:03:00, scottT wrote:

Lamentably, these are times of persecution (ask Ginger). If the program is abusive, lets oppose it. I see nothing constructive in drumming up more business for the loathesome ones' attorneys by insisting people reveal their identities as a condition of participating in this forum. Other people might.

Scott, that's one side of it. And I agree with you. Anyone who wants to can post anon on my forums. Unless I'm forced to, I will not change that policy.

But there's another set of rules that we all have to play by, they're as fair and impartial as the weather and just as imutable.

When you read something and you don't know who the author is, you can only judge their words by a few crieria. If you look at the Federalist Papers, which were all published anonymously, you'll see that the authors make no claim anywhere in them that would depend on the credibility of the author. Very often, people post anonymously in that fashion and it's very worth reading.

But some (not all, just some) of these anon posts are personal attacks and statements of fact w/o any proof at all. I'm not going to make any of the people who are doing this stop. I'm trying to stand on my no spam, no flooding policy because I think it's the best policy. But I don't expect people to take some anonymous stranger's word for something they can't prove either.

Suppose you were an idiot.  And suppose you were a member of Congress.  But I repeat myself.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/external-search?tag=circlofmiamithem&keyword=mark+twain&mode=books' target='_new'> Mark Twain

[Antigen]

On 2004-01-04 13:02:00, Anonymous wrote:

 I don't know why Deborah is such a crack-pot

See, this is the sort of comment that's likely to cause someone to wonder who said that and why they believe it. Don't come cryin' ta' me when people are a little incredulous.

When he [Califano] claims that the voters of Arizona and California did not know what they were voting for when they supported the two initiatives, he reminds me of the way Serbia's President Slobodan Milosevic reacted to recent election results in that country.
-- George Soros -- Sunday, February 2 1997; Page C01 The Washington Post

[Antigen]

On 2004-01-04 13:14:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Freedom of speach
 I don't know why Deborah is such a crack-pot

Honestly, I think it's that we're more inclined to talk things out while men are more inclined to employ coercion. That's neither good nor bad on either gender and it certainly doesn't apply to everybody. Just a generalization that's often true.

Not a place upon earth might be so happy as America. Her situation is remote from all the wrangling world, and she has nothing to do but to trade with them.
--Thomas Paine

[scottT]

All questions are answered in the new "So Many Questions,  So few up-front retainers" thread.

[Antigen]

Or, in context, "Scott, for someone who has no interest in protecting PURE and Sue...you wouldn't happen to be the same attorney posting anonymously on the web hostess forum claiming to have a copy of Sue's suit against me and Ginger would you? Hmmm...no interest, then why would you have a copy of her law suit?"

It's a question, Anon. Not a statement of fact. And I think it's a valid question. And I hope Scott will answer it. Why in the world would he not answer it? I'm guessing he will.

To err is human; to forgive is simply not our policy.

 

-- MIT Assasination Club slogan

[Anonymous]

Ginger advises:
Anon, please consider simply leaving out the allegations that you can't prove w/o busting yourself. It gets nowhere.

Your right. Its frustrating.
I was trying to take the heat off of other good  people and explain how and why certain facts from Mz Bocks deposition hit the forums so quickly.
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... tart=20&26
I didn't expect her to make issue of who I am, b/c I am certain she knows.
Why she wants to de-sack me so badly, one can only guess. . . but I don't expect her motives to be very honest or pure.
As for claims that can't be proven; give it some time. As with other alligations oft denied, this to, will be confirmed. But what then?

 Ginger, do you have the quote you intended up there? Don't seem to jive.

[Anonymous]

Ginger, you make the point:

Or, in context, "Scott, for someone who has no interest in protecting PURE and Sue...you wouldn't happen to be the same attorney posting anonymously on the web hostess forum claiming to have a copy of Sue's suit against me and Ginger would you? Hmmm...no interest, then why would you have a copy of her law suit?"

It's a question, Anon. Not a statement of fact. And I think it's a valid question. And I hope Scott will answer it. Why in the world would he not answer it? I'm guessing he will.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh yeah, I'm guessing he will too, and it'll be  interesting and to the point as always.
My point however; while admittedly fuzzy; was this:
She began with a question
(you wouldn't happen to be the same attorney posting anonymously on the web hostess forum claiming to have a copy of Sue's suit against me and Ginger would you?)
and before she could stop and hit send, she went on to make an apparent statement of fact.
(Hmmm...no interest, then why would you have a copy of her law suit?" )
She has clearly assumed the answer to her first question is Yes; and gone on to 'question' the lack of interest Mr. T has explained; insinuating he is a liar.
She went from wondering about something to assuming it to be true in just that short a period of time. This is typical for the lady in question. This is a pattern worth noting.
I think it, therefore it's true, seems to be her way of dealing with life.
If the bug gets far enough up her butt, there'll be no dissuading her; and she'll start a new campaign against yet another imagined evil foe.

[Antigen]

Argh! Just browsing through then hitting the sack.

The quotes are random. It's a profile feature.

All the anons, really, seriously, the only (additional to what the server logs now) information I would have about anyone when they register a username is whatever you fill out. I don't care if it's correct or bogus. Some features won't work w/o a correct email address, but they're non-essential. If you don't want a cookie, fine, you'll just have to log in each time you want to post. That's what the cookie does. It keeps track of how long it's been since the user hit a page and keeps you logged in for 12 hours so you don't have to do that.

You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence.

--Charles Austin Beard

[ This Message was edited by: Antigen on 2004-01-04 21:59 ]

[Anonymous]

On 2004-01-04 21:10:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Ginger, you make the point:



Or, in context, "Scott, for someone who has no interest in protecting PURE and Sue...you wouldn't happen to be the same attorney posting anonymously on the web hostess forum claiming to have a copy of Sue's suit against me and Ginger would you? Hmmm...no interest, then why would you have a copy of her law suit?"



It's a question, Anon. Not a statement of fact. And I think it's a valid question. And I hope Scott will answer it. Why in the world would he not answer it? I'm guessing he will.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Oh yeah, I'm guessing he will too, and it'll be  interesting and to the point as always.

My point however; while admittedly fuzzy; was this:

She began with a question

(you wouldn't happen to be the same attorney posting anonymously on the web hostess forum claiming to have a copy of Sue's suit against me and Ginger would you?)

and before she could stop and hit send, she went on to make an apparent statement of fact.

(Hmmm...no interest, then why would you have a copy of her law suit?" )

She has clearly assumed the answer to her first question is Yes; and gone on to 'question' the lack of interest Mr. T has explained; insinuating he is a liar.

She went from wondering about something to assuming it to be true in just that short a period of time. This is typical for the lady in question. This is a pattern worth noting.

I think it, therefore it's true, seems to be her way of dealing with life.

If the bug gets far enough up her butt, there'll be no dissuading her; and she'll start a new campaign against yet another imagined evil foe.

"

A pattern worth noting?  Maybe to you and a couple of other people that aren't focused on the big picture.  Really Anon, it's hard enough keeping up with significant details like those revealed in actual court records and depositions which speak to more important issues than whether Carey has a bug up her ass or simply jumped to the wrong conclusion. Either way, does it really matter to anybody but those who have a personal stake in this war-on-words?

 :smokin:

[Anonymous]

//Either way, does it really matter to anybody but those who have a personal stake in this war-on-words?//

Suposse not; but some of us do.