Starbuck wrote:
Chuck,
What was the evidence that lead you to believe it was JimH, do you have the
exact expression and punctuation?


The original post in the attack thread "Open Letter to Chuck Gould" was
formatted with a question about "what do you think about his little
gem"?
A series of ++++++++++'s outlined the top and bottom of a quote
extracted from an old post of mine. Skipper had never formatted a post
like that, that I could recall, in all the years he was a prolific
poster here.

About a week later, an attack post from JimH used the *exact* same
format, even extracting a statement from context and asking about a
"little gem".
A series of +++++++++++'s set off the top and bottom of the quote.

The odds of this being a mere coincidence are nearly zero. There is a
very remote possiblity that JimH found "Skippers" format in the attack
thread so "inspiring" that he deliberately or unconciously copied it
(when he inserted his personal attack post into a friendly discussion
of contrasting ideas and perceptions).

You notice a guy hanging around outside a building. He's hiding his
face, but wearing a yellow cowboy hat, red vest, polka dot pants, green
shoes and is smoking a cigar. You're not really sure who it is. After
concluding business in the building, you walk out and see a
cigar-smoking guy wearing a yellow cowboy hat, red vest, polka dot
pants, and green shoes hanging around in the same location. On the way
out, you see his face and recognize him as so-and-so. Wouldn't most
people conclude it was the very same guy seen on the way in? There's no
proof, of course. Why, during the time you were in the building the
first person could have wandered off, and an entirely different person
with the same exceptionally unique wardrobe could have, coincidentally,
happened along and decided to smoke a cigar in exactly the same spot.
Could have, but we routinely punish defendants for crimes when the only
defense was an equally weak "could have been......"

If the sock-puppetmaster is proven to be somebody else, I will
apologize to JimH. The only other likely possibilty (based on some of
the phrasing in the latest round of sock-puppet attack posting) is so
far back in the pack that the person isn't even to the clubhouse turn
when my primary suspect is crossing the wire. :-)

The whole thing is pretty silly and a waste of time.

JimH will have his apology when and if ever this proves to be somebody
else.
I think the cigar smoker in the yellow cowboy hat and polka dot pants
noticed on the way in is the same cigar smoker noticed on the way out,
and I have expressed that opinion.










wrote in message
oups.com...

*JimH* wrote:
"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...

NOYB wrote:
Farrakhan is now stating that the levees *were* (not "may have been")
blown
up to flood the black areas and save the white areas from flooding
around
New Orleans.


Farrakhan is an extremist.
As a guy firmly entrenched in the middle of the road (insert grin),
sometimes I wish these radical characters would pipe down a bit. It
gives the Limbaugh League and the Hannity Clan a really noisy target
and the next thing you know the talk is going around, "Here's what
liberals *all* think about this or that........."


Are you are saying that you are 'middle of the road' politically and
represent the majority of views/opinions of US citizens Chuck?



Did you miss "insert grin"?
Compared to Farrakhan, I am middle of the road.
I don't care whether my views agree or disagree with the majority- I
think for myself, and the majority do not think at all.



BTW: How are you working on that apology you owe me? ;-)


It will be forthcoming if and when I'm convinced that somebody else was
sock-puppeting Skipper. There is compelling evidence that it was your
handiwork, and no evidence so far that it was anybody else.