Why Doesn't Roy Schestowitz Back Up His Claims?
dropping h
but it seems that when he is asked to produce some evidence of
his claims he is either "busy", claimes he is being "trolled" or
claims he has already offered proof, even though he clearly has
not.
What is it with this lying SOB?
Has his head swelled so large that he feels he is above
criticism?
Here is an exchange with snit that demonstrates what Roy
Schestowitz is really all about and that is a liar interested in
nothing more than his self serving desires like being re-tweeted
from Wikii-Leaks. Can't wait till MI5 knocks on his door.
This is how Roy Schestowitz responds to questions regarding his
claims:
http://techrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/irc-log-
techrights-15082011.html
schestowitz _Goblin: i can do a show any day (morning, evening)
this week, lots of stuff we can cover too! For episode 58...
Aug 15 21:01
schestowitz Mind you, Snit has been uncivilised here and in
USENET while you were away Aug 15 21:01
Snit By all means, do quote my being so, Aug 15 21:02
Snit Please. Aug 15 21:02
*schestowitz installing krb5 Aug 15 21:02
Snit I welcome such support for your insults and accusations.
Aug 15 21:02
schestowitz 1927 installed on the new server so far.. Aug 15
21:02
schestowitz packages.. Aug 15 21:03
Snit LOL! Right: you make insults and accusations and when
questioned about them you are busy. So, fair enough, set a time
when you think you can actually support your claims. Aug 15
21:03
schestowitz cyrus wants krb4 Aug 15 21:03
schestowitz debian doesn't have it Aug 15 21:03
Snit I mean, I asked you about your public accusations of my
being dishonest in terms of KDE experience, and you were busy...
and not only did you never get around to supporting your
accusation - because it was false - you never admitted that.
Aug 15 21:03
schestowitz not squeeze anyway Aug 15 21:03
-TRIdentica/#techrights-[silner/@silner] Apple Offers Flawed
Evidence in LaApple Offers Flawed Evidence in Lawsuit against
Samsung By Andreas Udo de Haes,wsuit against Samsung By An
Aug 15 21:03
Snit So let us pick a time when you are willing to support your
accusations. Clearly *now* is not a good time for you to do so.
Aug 15 21:04
schestowitz I wasn't always busy, I did answer you on that
Aug 15 21:04
schestowitz In length Aug 15 21:04
schestowitz And then you changed the subject Aug 15 21:04
Snit Fine... so pick a time when you can. Aug 15 21:04
schestowitz Moving goalposts Aug 15 21:04
Snit Nope. I did no such thing. The goal is the same: for you
to support your accusation. Aug 15 21:04
schestowitz I already picked a time when I answered you Aug 15
21:04
Snit And you cannot. Face it, you simple cannot do so Aug 15
21:04
schestowitz The time was a week ago Aug 15 21:04
Snit So quote it. But you will not - because your accusation is
false. Aug 15 21:05
schestowitz You can read the log if you forgot this exchange
Aug 15 21:05
Snit But by all means, if you are busy now pick a time when you
can support it. Aug 15 21:05
schestowitz I have better things to do then merely REPEAT what I
already wrote to you Aug 15 21:05
Snit LOL! You will dodge until you turn green... I have read
our exchanges and that is why I know you never supported your
accusation. Aug 15 21:05
schestowitz You used deflection Aug 15 21:05
Snit You accused: "On the show he also said that he had tried
KDE. Later it turned out that he lied because he said he had only
judged it based on videos and/or screenshots.a Aug 15 21:06
Snit There is nothing for me to "deflect"... there is your
accusation which you cannot back up. Aug 15 21:06
Snit You accused me of lying - but you cannot quote where I did
so. Aug 15 21:06
*Blueshift_ has quit (Quit: Page closed) Aug 15 21:06
Snit And when I called you on this you claimed I was trolling
you. Poor you: when you make public accusations of dishonesty
you are asked to actually quote the person you accuse being, you
know, *dishonest*. Aug 15 21:07
schestowitz brb Aug 15 21:07
Snit But pick your time: if you are busy now maybe you can quote
this "lie" of mine later today? Tomorrow? Next week? When...
when are you going to quote this alleged lie of mine? Aug 15
21:08
Snit Fair enough... but then I want a timeframe when you think
you can find this quote where I, as you accuse, lied. Aug 15
21:08
Snit No dodging or side issues... just a time when you can
actually back your accusation. Aug 15 21:08
-TRIdentica/#techrights-[wikileaks2/@wikileaks2] This 2005 cable
from the US emb. in Ankara questioning Turkey-Syria relations
seems very appropriate today: http://t.co/A3nlxOt Aug 15 21:08
TechrightsBot-tr Title: Cable Viewer .::. Size~: 96.53 KB
Aug 15 21:08
Snit And we both know the answer: never. You made a false
accusation and were called on it. And then whined you were being
"trolled" to be called on your false accusation. That it was an
"aggravation" to you to actually have to back your claims.
Aug 15 21:10
Snit Utter rubbish. Aug 15 21:10
Snit
AM:
> This idiot Roy Schestowitz sure likes to spout off at the nozzle
> but it seems that when he is asked to produce some evidence of
> his claims he is either "busy", claimes he is being "trolled" or
> claims he has already offered proof, even though he clearly has
> not.
>
> What is it with this lying SOB?
> Has his head swelled so large that he feels he is above
> criticism?
>
> Here is an exchange with snit that demonstrates what Roy
> Schestowitz is really all about and that is a liar interested in
> nothing more than his self serving desires like being re-tweeted
> from Wikii-Leaks. Can't wait till MI5 knocks on his door.
>
> This is how Roy Schestowitz responds to questions regarding his
> claims:
>
> http://techrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/irc-log-
> techrights-15082011.html
>
>
> schestowitz _Goblin: i can do a show any day (morning, evening)
> this week, lots of stuff we can cover too! For episode 58...
> Aug 15 21:01
>
> schestowitz Mind you, Snit has been uncivilised here and in
> USENET while you were away Aug 15 21:01
Had Roy not mentioned my name I never would have paid attention to what was
going there - my IRC client, like many, alerts me when certain key words I
set up are mentioned.
So, to be clear: this exchange started by Roy bad mouthing me.
> Snit By all means, do quote my being so, Aug 15 21:02
>
> Snit Please. Aug 15 21:02
To be clear: Roy *never* got around to providing any such quote.
Again: Roy never set a time when he could actually support his accusations.
He is always too busy to do so.
> schestowitz I wasn't always busy, I did answer you on that
> Aug 15 21:04
>
> schestowitz In length Aug 15 21:04
And this is an out and out lie from Roy: he *never* offered the quote where
he thinks I lied. Never.
> schestowitz And then you changed the subject Aug 15 21:04
>
> Snit Fine... so pick a time when you can. Aug 15 21:04
>
> schestowitz Moving goalposts Aug 15 21:04
Roy, presumably, is trying to blame me for doing so - but he is the one
doing so. I am merely asking him to support his accusations.
He is the one dodging.
> Snit Nope. I did no such thing. The goal is the same: for you
> to support your accusation. Aug 15 21:04
>
> schestowitz I already picked a time when I answered you Aug 15
> 21:04
Another lie from Roy: he never supplied the quote where he thinks I lied.
> Snit And you cannot. Face it, you simple cannot do so Aug 15
> 21:04
>
> schestowitz The time was a week ago Aug 15 21:04
>
> Snit So quote it. But you will not - because your accusation is
> false. Aug 15 21:05
> schestowitz You can read the log if you forgot this exchange
> Aug 15 21:05
And here Roy is still dishonestly pretending he did support his
accusation...
> Snit But by all means, if you are busy now pick a time when you
> can support it. Aug 15 21:05
> schestowitz I have better things to do then merely REPEAT what I
> already wrote to you Aug 15 21:05
Roy is lying: I am not asking him to repeat anything. He never supplied the
quote he thought contained the lie he referenced.
> Snit LOL! You will dodge until you turn green... I have read
> our exchanges and that is why I know you never supported your
> accusation. Aug 15 21:05
> schestowitz You used deflection Aug 15 21:05
And here Roy goes off into la-la land... how could I "deflect" his offering
of the quote? All it takes is for him to post it.
On and on this went... this is Roy's accusation:
Roy: in COLA
-----
On the show he also said that he had tried KDE. Later it
turned out that he lied because he said he had only judged it
based on videos and/or screenshots.
-----
And here are my comments about KDE and screenshots and videos from the show
he is saying I lied in:
Snit: 8:47
-----
I don't use KDE that much...
-----
Roy: 9:42
-----
Have you had a chance to use KDE3 before?
-----
Snit: 9:43
-----
I have - I mean I have mostly used Gnome - but I have used
KDE.
-----
Roy: 9:47
-----
What did you find very confusing about it?
-----
Snit: 9:52
-----
Well, in the past I've had screenshots and even some videos
online - I don't know if you've seen some of those...
-----
The only screenshots a videos I referenced were ones *I* produced to support
a point - a point based on my use of KDE. Roy took this to mean my
knowledge was merely from those videos and screenshots - as though I had
merely found them and not produced them.
Roy finally, when really pushed, did mention a time code - and it pointed to
the last sentence I quote, above (started at 9:52). As I had predicted, he
misunderstood where those media pieces came from... but he will not admit to
this.
He publicly accused me of lying. I reacted well, assuming he was merely
mistaken. When faced with this, though, Roy reacted poorly and not only
refused to admit to his erroneous accusation he started piling on
accusations.
In other words: at the start he may have merely been mistaken - but it is
clear now he is currently lying over the situation.
--
🙈🙉🙊
Baltic
> He publicly accused me of lying. I reacted well, assuming he was merely
> mistaken. When faced with this, though, Roy reacted poorly and not only
> refused to admit to his erroneous accusation he started piling on
> accusations.
Roy Schestowitz is a pathological liar. Spend even a few minutes
checking the sources of his claims and it will become quite obvious.
> In other words: at the start he may have merely been mistaken - but it is
> clear now he is currently lying over the situation.
He's not mistaken, he's a liar and the sooner you settle down and
admit to yourself that's the case the sooner your blood pressure
will drop.
Why you even want to be involved with a cretin like Roy Schestowitz
is being reason. He is like a typhoid Mary and at some point he will
flame out and be forgotten. Don't let your good name and that of
your family and business be contaminated in the net due to dealing
with a scumbag like Roy. He fools a lot of people but he doesn't
fool the people who are credible like Jack Schofield who regularly
rips Roy Schestowitz apart by using Roy's own words against him and
like you do, asking for proof of his claims.
The result is cookbook and pretty much what you've experienced.
Roy tries to dance around it but without his army to protect him he
gets backed into a corner when he can't provide any data to
substantiate his claims. Then he runs away claiming he is too busy
to argue. Usually about 10 minutes later, his shills like Twitter,
Tessier, oiaohm and the rest of the social misfits will show up and
flood the comments section of whatever blog Roy got grilled on.
It's all very predictable.
My advice is to stay as far away from that maniac as possible.
chrisv
>My advice is to
*plonk*
wheel of torture
useless asshole "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:pqel47p8239gtjvl6...@4ax.com...
> Baltic wrote:
>
>>My advice is to
>
> *plonk*
Plonk - is that the sound you made when your whore mother SHAT you out into
the toilet?
the filthy unclean bitch did not flush because if she did then a useless
piece of shit turd like you would not be around today.
Baltic
PLONK? is this the sound you made when your whore mother shat you
out into
the toilet? the unclean bitch did not even flush because if she did
then a
useless piece of shit turd would not be here today.
"chrisv" is a liar. "chrisv" is a piece of shit.
Snit
11:42 AM:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 11:13:56 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>
>> He publicly accused me of lying. I reacted well, assuming he was merely
>> mistaken. When faced with this, though, Roy reacted poorly and not only
>> refused to admit to his erroneous accusation he started piling on
>> accusations.
>
> Roy Schestowitz is a pathological liar. Spend even a few minutes
> checking the sources of his claims and it will become quite obvious.
While I will not speak of his overall level of honesty, in this case it is
clear he is lying.
>> In other words: at the start he may have merely been mistaken - but it is
>> clear now he is currently lying over the situation.
>
> He's not mistaken, he's a liar and the sooner you settle down and
> admit to yourself that's the case the sooner your blood pressure
> will drop.
As friendly as he was on the show, I was hoping he would not tell lies about
it afterwards.
> Why you even want to be involved with a cretin like Roy Schestowitz
> is being reason. He is like a typhoid Mary and at some point he will
> flame out and be forgotten. Don't let your good name and that of
> your family and business be contaminated in the net due to dealing
> with a scumbag like Roy. He fools a lot of people but he doesn't
> fool the people who are credible like Jack Schofield who regularly
> rips Roy Schestowitz apart by using Roy's own words against him and
> like you do, asking for proof of his claims.
Well, I do plan on being on the show. And, as I have told him, I will ask
him *again* about his false accusations and *again* ask him to acknowledge
his mistakes.
> The result is cookbook and pretty much what you've experienced.
> Roy tries to dance around it but without his army to protect him he
> gets backed into a corner when he can't provide any data to
> substantiate his claims.
One good thing about a show like his is you can sort of pin him down to
specific claims and predictions. He made some:
Snit: 24:45
-----
When you have "Save" on the left and "Save" on the right -
people click on the wrong button. And it's user error -
that's what it's called - but it's not; it's an error of
the system. [About older PCLOS] looking at its default
programs ... and there is a mish mash [quit/exit, save
dialog with "Save" on left or right]
-----
Roy: 25:32
-----
I've used it before and I don't think it's true what you
are saying now.
-----
And:
Snit: 32:28:
-----
[Of the newest PCLOS] I will post - I will make screenshots
or maybe even a quick video and we can look at it. Now I
haven't used the newest one ... but let me look at PC Linux
and I can pretty much guarantee you there will be a mix of
quit and exit, there will be a mix of hot keys, there will
be a mix of save dialogs, there will be a mix of print
dialogs, ... some programs will lose the clipboard when you
quit some programs won't...
-----
Roy: 33:15
-----
[talks about how development happens... ] Interesting that
you raise this point ... when you are using something like
a file dialog you might say that will be inconsistent but
that is just not true ... the way it works in KDE I would
be quite surprised if it is very inconsistent. I would be
very happy if you found some cases where it's not
consistent - maybe even help developers.
-----
Both his claims about older PCLOS and newer PCLOS proved to be incorrect:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PCLOS-OSX-comparison.pdf>
To be fair, I was not completely correct about new PCLOS - an OS / version I
made very clear I had never used. Still, I was more correct than was Roy -
and he claimed to use it often.
> Then he runs away claiming he is too busy to argue. Usually about 10 minutes
> later, his shills like Twitter, Tessier, oiaohm and the rest of the social
> misfits will show up and flood the comments section of whatever blog Roy got
> grilled on.
>
> It's all very predictable.
>
> My advice is to stay as far away from that maniac as possible.
Thanks for the advice - but I still look forward to the show. Even with my
having my hand wide open - no secrets about the topics I shall ask him about
- I am fairly certain of the outcome of my asking him those questions.
--
🙈🙉🙊