--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@...> wrote: > > If I had to guess, he was asked to pull it.
Probably his seniors in the FBI didn't approove :-) > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" <j_alexander_stanley@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > FWIW, Vaj has also deleted quite a few of the posts he's > > > > made about Robin in the past (made before Robin joined us; > > > > Alex might know when he deleted them). > > > > > > I can do a search of the web activity log, but all it will show > > > is the time and date of the deletion and the post number. It > > > doesn't show the subject line of the deleted post. The post > > > number lets me look up the posting time of the posts before and > > > after the deletion, and referencing the alternate web archive > > > for posts made in that time slot might bring up the deleted post. > > > But, it's really tedious work. > > > > > > http://alex.natel.net/misc/vaj_deleted.jpg > > > > Yeah, too much of a hassle to track down the exact posts that > > were deleted. What I'm wondering is whether a bunch were > > deleted when Robin first joined us--or perhaps after I'd > > suggested to Robin that he check out the discussions we'd had > > about him in the past. If so, and if the deleted post numbers > > fell in the time frame of specific past discussions about > > Robin, it might be worth the trouble to track down what the > > deleted posts said. But I wouldn't ask you to do that. > > > > What *is* interesting is the timing of Vaj's deletion of the > > photo. That happened only a few minutes after raunchy made > > her comparison of Vaj's photo with what she said were photos > > of the old church that was torn down. As it happens, I didn't > > think the bell tower in raunchy's photo was the same as the > > one in Vaj's photo; there were several distinct differences > > if you looked closely. > > > > A little later she posted a correction saying the photo she'd > > found was of the *new* church, for which a "replica" of the > > old bell tower had been built. If it wasn't an *exact* replica, > > that could account for the differences I saw between that > > bell tower and the one in Vaj's photo; Vaj's photo could have > > been of the old church. > > > > In any case, I'm wondering, would there have been any other > > ways to verify from Vaj's photo that it was--or was not-- > > actually taken in Fairfield? > > > > Maybe he didn't delete it as a result of raunchy's post. But > > the timing is curiously close. And why would he have deleted > > it so soon after having made such a big deal of it? What was > > in the photo that he suddenly decided he didn't want us to > > see after all? > > >
