Or, perhaps Steve, Steve, Elizabot

I have noticed the complete lack of their posting since yesterday, about
noon (Elizabot a bit earlier than that).

I know Steve (not Steve, but Steve) and Elizabot at one point hinted they
might be the same person.

Is it possible all three are one? They do seem to be a clique that often
attacks the same person. Not saying this is necessarily so, just noticed
they tend to post or not post at the same times. Similar attacks.
Overlapping victims. Similar posting times.

Any thoughts?

----------
In article <BC6FD387.42481%snit@nospam-cableone.net>, Snit
<snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:


WOW! NEWSFLASH..Some do have a life outside csma!

And this surprises you......consider THIS op for instance!

Perhaps similar opinions may have something to do with it? DOH!

Only one, are all those that are fed up with this constant bickering
instigated primarily by you, and have commented on it, to be considered AS
ONE by you also? or are you just getting through your obsessions one by one?

"Wally" <wally@his.own.pace> wrote in
mkA2c.9974052$Id.1665608@news.easynews.com on 3/7/04 12:38 AM:

Oh, of course. No problem with that. Their lives seem to coincide a lot?
Do you think they all go to the same places? Hang out and share tea and
crumpets?
It seems odd that all three would often pick the same people to attack.
That assumes a consistency in views that is not there for any of them.
Seems I have posted quite a lot recently with no bickering, except when it
comes to them. Your claim that it is instigated by me is unsupported. Can
you support it now?

You seem to be getting lost here. Maybe you should re-read my original post
and / or re-word your comment here.

Ditto comment above. You seem lost here. What can I do to help?

----------
In article <BC7020CA.4261D%snit@nospam-cableone.net>, Snit
<snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:


But!, you do have a problem with that! look at what you say next.

Why would they have to? you seem incapable of drawing a distinction between
their lives and their views.

Why? It seems logical to me that if two or more posters have a certain view,
then it is most probable that they would disagree with someone with contrary
views, "attack" seems hardly appropriate unless one wishes to appear as a
victim.

And yet you say "all three would often pick the same people to attack"
that seems contradictory at best.

Look at this post for example, just consider for a moment, and this is pure
conjecture on my part, perhaps S & E decided to restrict their posting in an
attempt to see how long it would take for you to try drawing them out, now
how long did it take?....not long at all, unless you wish to suggest that it
was their absence that was the *cause* of your post therefore making it
their fault and you the victim?

Not at all, you are the one that asked if I believe that those with lives
outside csma should frequent the same places, and do the same things,
indicating your difficulty in separating individuals, reinforced by the
likelihood that those with the same opinions are to you just one person.

Deal with your obsession with S & E, that would be a start.

In article <BC6FD387.42481%snit@nospam-cableone.net>,
Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:

Yeah. Who Gives A Shit?

--
Sandman[.net]

"Wally" <wally@his.own.pace> wrote in
NjB2c.10068308$Of.1670457@news.easynews.com on 3/7/04 1:46 AM:

No. Really. I have no problem with them having lives. Really.
Er? No. Not at all.
Again, you assume a consistency in their individual views that is not there.
They do not seems to base their posts on a consistent moral (or even
immoral) set of rules... or, if they do, I do not see it. Perhaps you can
describe it for us.
No. Not at all. What criteria do they individually use? Can you find it?
They often, esp. two of the three, act like pack animals. This is not to
say they are one, but that they support each other for the sake of
supporting each other.
You seem to be lost. Perhaps you can re-read the thread.
See, you have not even read my comments. I simply asked you to support your
idea that their coinciding absences and appearances would be based on
individual and unrelated lives. Your assertion does not make sense to me.
Can you support it now? Why would unrelated "lives" lead to related posting
patterns?

"Sandman" <mr@sandman.net> wrote in
mr-4AFD3F.10592707032004@news.fu-berlin.de on 3/7/04 2:59 AM:

Now that is a reasoned response. Thanks.

----------
In article <BC707DBF.4265F%snit@nospam-cableone.net>, Snit
<snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:


Ahhh! just the right amount of flippancy, and then ignore the *ACTUAL*
quote...."Some do have a life outside csma!"

Then were does the notion that "Their lives seem to coincide a lot?" come
from?

You seem to be arguing against yourself, you claim they mount similar
attacks, and yet the "consistency in their individual views" is not there.
I fail to see how inconsistent individual views can lead to similar attacks,
I don't believe that sort of behaviour would go unnoticed in csma for very
long! and yet neither of the people you target are known for this sort of
behaviour.

"us"?... Perhaps I can, but then, perhaps I would rather stick to the topic
contained in your op, rather than get bogged down in a discussion about
morality.........nice try though.

I believe so.......Their individual opinions!

The fact that certain posters may end up feeling like a carcass, doesn't
mean that any other posters have acted like "pack animals" personally if I
subscribed to this "pack animal" scenario I would probably refrain from
baiting them.

So this theory of yours can apply to ANY pair of posters that happen to
agree with each other?

That didn't work the first time.....nothings changed.

Where are *These* comments contained in the only other post you made to me?

here?..."Do you think they all go to the same places? Hang out and share
tea and crumpets?"

If you wish to "simply" ask something then that is what you should do, I
don't see "I simply asked you to support your idea that their coinciding
absences and appearances would be based on individual and unrelated lives."
anywhere in your previous!

This presupposes that I even agree to a related posting pattern even
existing, I do not.
You clearly have discovered a pattern, perhaps you can elaborate on your
findings?
For the one instance that you do claim in your op try.......
http://tinyurl.com/2tkbk (or simply look up coincidence)

"Wally" <wally@his.own.pace> wrote in
s_H2c.1926589$9p3.351432@news.easynews.com on 3/7/04 9:21 AM:

Some do. Actually, I would hope most do. You seem to think I have some
problem with this, or have hinted that I do. That is simply not the case,
even if you repeat it several times.
What does that have to do with connecting their lives and their views.
Again, you are jumping to all sorts of conclusions that have nothing to do
with my comments. My comment was simply that they seem to attack the same
people, these attacks are not based (as far ask I can tell) on some guiding
principles, and that they come and go as a group. Your comments have little
if anything to do with my comments.
If you think they share some guiding principles, please share. This ought
to be good.