🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <unicorn.933.2F20628A@rt66.com> unicorn@rt66.com (Unicorn) writes:
>
>>In Article <3fjbae$pvh@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>, barth@wam.umd.edu (Doctor
>>Demento) wrote:
>
>>[filth deleted]
>
>>>: : Does anyone know who submitted this post?      
>>>
>>>: An angry coin dealer?
>>>
>>>Not to be uncharitable, but given her past track record, you think maybe 
>>>Teri herself could have been responsible?
>>>
>
>>    Given the heinous nature of the post and the innocence of the alleged
>>provocation I would say that is likely. Nothing else makes nearly as much
>>sense.
>
>This is without a doubt the most stupid, idiotic thing I've ever heard.  No

I certainly wouldn't call it stupid or idiotic. Insensitive might
be more appropriate. I don't think anyone that has posted (aside from
Teri and the originator of the threatening letter) has any information
either way, so why risk offending or defaming Teri. 

>matter how much you dislike someone's sales methods or how badly 
>something has broken into a flame-fest there is no excuse for accusing someone 
>of writing this filth about her husband.  If you think that "innocent 
>provocation"can't cause horrid, disgusting people to post filth, you either 
>must not have spent much time reading news groups or you must be incredibly 
>naive.  Ask people about what went on in rec.pets.cats.  
>
>unicorn

So, what went on in rec.pets.cats?
Also, why the anonymity, unicorn?

Michael.