On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:06:34 -0400, Lee Bell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Michael Doelle wrote:
>
>> No, but I'm disturbed by the anon angle.
>
>Me too, but in my personal opinion, censoring somebody who choses to be
>anonymous is the greater of the two evils.

For the N-th time ... NO ONE is proposing censoring him.


Based on everything I've read, all anyone asked was for him to
say ANYTHING he wants about me (which means NO CENSORING), but
say so in his own posting name, whether it's his real name or
a name everyone will recognize to be who the real person is.


Since neither Robert Lung nor any of those who know who Robert
Lung is has volunteered his identity, though a few people have
volunteered that they are NOT the poster ...

In one of Chuck Hopf's post, he made some statments to the
effect that he had rid of Robert Lung, and I asked him if that
was his slipped confession that he WAS Robert Lung, without
getting any response.  Chuck quietly disappeared (rather quite
out of character for him) without answering my questions ...

So, as Sherlock might say, ..., after considering all the evidence
posted by posters as well as from private sources, and having
ruled out certain "suspects", I'll

POSTULATE that

    Chuck Hopf was the author of the Robert Lung posts.

as my "best guess".

I welcome anyone (including Chuck) who knows who Robert Lung is,
to refute that posulate, and explain why.

-- Bob.





to the effect that he