"Legs" says Barford is Elusive

.
Well, about two people are reading "Candy Jarman's" coprolitic-coloured "Paul Barford-Heritage-the Ruth" blog. The first is an archaeologist Macrinus, offended by the methodology of debate which this pseudonymous (I am sure of it) person has engaged, the second is somebody calling herself "Legs" who seems to have an insatiable desire to know more and more about one guy in a far off country. Have a look at the timing and content of the latter's posts and decide for yourself if the blog's author is not writing the latter himself too. Note how often the blog's author makes reference to the number of people who are helping "her" in achieving the blog's aim. I suggest the frequency of such references in fact belies the complete opposite.

With regard to the blog's "aim", this "Legs" says:

We just want to get the facts straight regarding Paul. You can't deny, he is a bit elusive. If you really are his friend, then perhaps you could ask him to respond in person to all this. It would really be very helpful.

Helpful to what in particular? It seems to me that "Candy" has already found that there is information on that topic on the internet, that I exist, am a real person, that I have a couple of degrees (though she seems not to be able to work out just what I have written where and with whom and when and in what capacity on the basis of Google Scholar even). I really cannot see that this makes me in any way "elusive". That is more than we can say about "Candice Jarman" let alone "Legs". What actually is "Candice Jarman" trying to achieve? Macrinus calls it a "smear campaign", it seems to me that it does not even deserve that label, since apart from snide innuendo, misquoting and (deliberate?) errors of omission, it does not seem to me that she has been able to find anything more compromising than... well, what?

As Macrinus quite rightly admonishes the blog's author:

you are not attempting to dispel any of the things he has said about MDs/collecting etc. I still can't get a balanced picture because you are not attempting to debate here (in his absence so no need to have to debate with him directly), the issues. You haven't even tried to answer the question I posed in an earlier comment, so it is evident that you have no solid case to make.

[I've added the brackets to emphasize the point made, "Candy" is sniping, "Candy" is happy-slapping, "Candy" is biting at the ankles and running away from a proper debate]. Let's cut the crap about how many degrees I have, how much money I get from what sources, or where I reputedly live - just one ordinary bloke with another. "Candy", what is it you wanted to say about my views on portable antiquity collecting?