Checking out the group today I see that there is a pointless little
spat going on where Phildo and Peter C, apparently acting in concert,
are trying to ruin the reputation of a poster called: Trinckwasser.

Normally I would ignore these Usenet idiocies where little people with
giant ego's battle pointlessly with puerile point scoring exercises,
but as Peter C has written this diatribe:

Which rather implies I'm Trinckwasser and half the rest of the
newsgroup, I'm going to point out a few things that become obvious when
you look and think a little.

Firstly, I'm prepared to believe that there may be the odd sock puppet
around. I think that the suggestion that Phildo or Peter C actually
created them in order to discredit a poster who they seem to find a
thorn in their sides is not entirely without merit. Or they could be
someone else, or several other people - who knows really?

Firstly:

What we can say with some certainty is that Peter C has gone to some
lengths to find anyone who has disagreed with him and uses a certain
newsreader.

He then claims that these people are all the same poster, and that
poster is, in fact Trinckwasser.

At first sight, perhaps, a plausible hypothesis. But think a little
deeper.

If these are all sock puppets created by the same person, it obviously
didn't occur to that person that anyone would find newsreader
commonality suspicious. If that is the case, why would Trinckwasser,
who uses a different newsreader, use a different one, but the same one
for all the puppets?

It implies that at one and the same time he knows that someone might
use a poster's newsreader as evidence that they are the same as another
poster, goes to the trouble to dig out an old newsreader and then uses
the same one for all the puppets. Not very likely.

Now, consider the names that Peter C has come up with as being
Trinckwasser's puppets. In order to discredit me, he's included someone
who posted several months back: 'Paul'. This poster appeared to be a
youngish man, recently diagnosed, who had his DM under very good
control and had no side effects. He (as many others have) got into a
spat with some of the more aggressive posters here because he would not
toe the ng line and dared to disagree with Peter C and Alan S. I got
involved in that spat because, like Paul, I found the behavior of Peter
C and Alan S and their hangers on oafish in the extreme.

Trinckwasser, as far as I can make out, is a much older poster, not
diagnosed with DM and with poor control and very many DM type
'side-effects'.

What possible reason could Trinckwasser have for creating a puppet who
has a completely different profile to himself and getting into an
argument about carbohydrate loading that could have no place in his
disease control strategy?

Of course, that does not mean that there aren't sock puppets, but
looking at the names that have been suggested, they are not 'defending'
Trinckwasser. They are disagreeing with Phildo and Peter C or some
other poster entirely.

e.g. Peter C said:

Now, you could barely call Ian J's posts much of an 'attack' on anyone
(in the sense of the current sustained attack by Peter C and Phildo on
Trinckwasser), and Jimbo was responding to something that had nothing
to do with Trinckwasser whatsoever.

So Whether it is one or more anonymous posters, another user of this
ng, or Peter C and/or Phildo indulging in some Machiavellian scheme to
discredit someone they disagree with, I have no idea.

What I will say is that they have provided absolutely _NO_ plausible
case that the puppet master, if indeed there is such, is either
Trinckwasser or myself. In fact all they have done is use a cheap trick
to try and discredit as many people who disagree with them as possible.

Of course, if they have any integrity they will not see this post since
they both agreed that kill-filing all the people who disagreed with
them was the way forward, but I expect we'll see their names popping up
quite quickly continuing their campaigning to discredit and silence
those who dare to disagree with them.