--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@...> wrote: > > The "online reputation" thing is a bit of a red > herring in this case, I think. You would only > search on RC's name + the offending term if you > already knew there was some issue regarding it. > Just searching on "Robin Carlsen," as I just did, > produced a lot of interesting references but none > (at least in the first few pages, which is all I > looked at) to the offending term.
Thank you, feste, of course you are absolutely correct. The only folks who are likely to run into the accusation are those who search *FFL* for posts by and/or about Robin--and it'll be obvious to them that Robin had more defenders than accusers, and that (sorry, feste) the accuser was a slice short of a sandwich and couldn't (or wouldn't) explain why she made the accusation in the first place. Curtis knows all this perfectly well. He isn't stupid. His red herring was calculated to intimidate us to stop calling Share to account (and to stir up trouble between me and Robin, the way he tried to do last year--to no effect except to damage his own reputation). Oh, yes, and of course nobody would be doing a search on Google or Yahoo for "MaskedZebra" *at all* unless they'd already found Robin on FFL. Either that little detail escaped Curtis entirely when he posted his "statistics," or he thought nobody would be smart enough to notice that it ground his red herring into little tiny bits. There are even more reasons why Curtis's "statistics" are thoroughly bogus, but these two are more than sufficient.