"The same person, or at least evidence strongly suggests, loved to construct fantasy personas on Suite101 to lie about his success following Brinker."
All the evidence I've seen in Queen's case consists of the fact that Stockalot's beliefs about her are consistent with his beliefs about her, i.e., an elaborate, self-consistent theory. None of the parts of the theory that matter are verifiable, and I think it's wrong to expect people to reveal enough personal information about themselves on the Net to disprove such theories.
The fact that you know of someone who admitted to lying about their personal circumstances is irrelevant. We all know that kind of thing happens. That doesn't prove that any specific person is doing it.
Even if it were somehow proven that Queen were lying about herself, that wouldn't mean that she was the same person as the one you're talking about, unless you believe there is only one such person on the Net.
"He kept making 'Queen-like mistakes'"
As you know, there has been a lot of speculation about which IDs on Yahoo belong to you. Much of it relies on observations like that, and I'm sure you know that many times they are wrong in IDing you.
"BTW, are you aware that in the last 10 years or so there are all sorts of computer games that let people take on different personalities?"
And because it's possible, that proves that it's true of any given individual that Stockalot takes a disliking to? Sorry, I don't buy it.
I believe that we shouldn't get too wrapped up in trying to figure out what's true and what isn't about what people say about themselves. All we're doing here is exchanging opinions, and if it's that important to know a person's personal circumstances, then we're taking this all too seriously in the first place. People should be basing their investment decisions on verifiable facts, not on what people say about themselves personally, which is unverifiable for at least 99.9% of the posters on the Internet. |
