On Jul 19, 9:54 pm, Steve Carroll <
fretwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 19, 8:29 pm, Foster <
frankfoste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 18:58:02 -0700 (PDT), Steve Carroll wrote:
> > > On Jul 19, 6:45 pm, Foster <
frankfoste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:55:22 -0700, Snit wrote:
> > >>> On 7/19/12 4:34 PM, in article 19a0ii3xihyms$.
199i6l3h7u6bb....@40tude.net,
> > >>> "Foster" <
frankfoste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 23:21:55 +0200, Marti Van Lin wrote:
>
> > >>>>> On 19-07-12 08:05, Hardon wrote:
> > >>>>> Thank you, that is a very nice read. I've seen that article before and
> > >>>>> it's pretty nice to read it again ;-)
>
> > >>>>> With exclusion of SJVN I have a high opinion about Zdnet, which is too
> > >>>>> Pro-Microsoft and biased IMO. There for it is fantastic to read a honest
> > >>>>> and nice article like this.
>
> > >>>> It's so honest that the author doesn't even have the guts to use his
> > >>>> real name.
>
> > >>>> That's because it's probably one of Roy's shills, like Swapnil, or
> > >>>> possibly even Schestowitz himself.
>
> > >>>> Instead of reading that shill piece, read the comments to learn what
> > >>>> people really think of Roy.
> > >>>> That's if you can take it Marti.
> > >>>> And we all know you are very good at taking it.
>
> > >>> Instead of reading what people say about Roy read what Roy writes himself.
> > >>> He has a website full of propaganda and lies and has made direct lies in
> > >>> COLA.
>
> > >> Eveyone knows that already.
> > >> Few will admit it.
>
> > > I'd like to see this "website full of propaganda and lies" Snit is
> > > talking about. Sounds more like web pages that Snit has created.
>
> >
http://techrights.org/?stories
> > Knock yourself out.
>
> > Some advice:
>
> > 1. Check the subject line and see what the article actually says
> > 2. Check the sources and make sure they don't point back to Roy or
> > one of his shills.
> > 3. Factually check EVERYTHING.
>
> > He has gotten better in recent months.
>
> Well, Snit made the claim... but now it seems you are, too. Can't you
> just point to something that is a blatant lie? I could go there and
> not find what are being labeled as lies (especially by someone like
> Snit).
>
> > >> Tell me, how much agreement have *you* gotten exposing his lies?
>
> > > ROFL! Unfortunately, for Snit, his reputation precedes him; that's
> > > what happens when you've cried wolf once too often, you lose all
> > > credibility like Snit has. It's a fact that people are loathe to read
> > > what he writes... much less respond to it. That no one agrees with
> > > whatever lies he may have found means nothing. The very idea that it
> > > would is comical ;)
>
> > It doesn't matter.
> > Each claim stands on it's own.
>
> You're missing the point... most people don't read Snit's crap so the
> idea that people would agree with him, or not, is irrelevant. You
> obviously asked the question as a measurement... I'm telling you your
> yardstick is broken.
>
> > If David Berkowitz exposes the CIA for misappropriation of funds
> > does it make it any less credible because of who he is?
>
> > Judge the situation, not the posters.
>
> How many "situations" do you need to be in where the same person is
> lying over and over before you realize it's a complete waste of time
> to read what they've written? The answer isn't "infinite". If David
> Berkowitz claimed to expose the CIA for the thousandth time he
> wouldn't be listened to anymore, either. What I'm saying is... due to
> the fact that Snit has abused usenet and its readers for as long as he
> has, his response isn't an accurate assessment of anything with
> respect to your question; Snit's response has the least value of
> virtually anyone you could ask. If you believe otherwise you're
> fooling yourself. If you're asking him just to make him feel good...
> fine... but there is no reason to ask him what you did and expect the
> answer to hold any kind of value to anyone without a trolling ax to
> grind. This is part of the cost Snit pays for doing what he has on
> usenet. Here's the best way to show you... consider what you asked
> Snit. Now change it up a little and pretend the person being spoken of
> is Snit and you're asking someone, anyone, familiar with his posting
> history:
>
> Tell me, how much agreement have *you* gotten exposing his lies?
>
> The answer is obvious... *tons*... and virtually anyone you ask who
> has come into contact with him in COLA and CSMA would give that
> answer. This is one reason why Snit's quotes list exists... but it's
> just a snapshot of things he can't deny. For every quote by every
> person that you see on that list, there are boatloads more that you
> don't see and they all say pretty much the same thing. This is the
> "situation" that Snit has created.
>
> > > If there are really all these lies people should be able to point to
> > > them. I saw one attempt today that pointed to a news article about MS
> > > and hookers... but it wasn't really dishonest as it was reported.
>
> > They do and have done so for years.
>
> > Here is one example, there are many if you look for them.
>
> >
http://armchairtheorist.com/the-curious-case-of-boycott-novell/
>
> A LOT to read there. Aren't there any shorter examples? Or can you
> point to a spot in there that is blatantly dishonest and not just a
> difference of opinion? To contrast, here are some examples of blatant
> dishonesty on one topic...just from the last ~week:
>
> "Yes, Carroll's best defense is that his then-girlfriend was a..."
>
> "Carroll obsesses over his accusations from 2004 about me causing his
> then-girlfriend to leave him and..."
>
> "And it pisses him off that his then-girlfriend saw my calling Steve
> out on..."
>
> "...for almost a decade Carroll has been making the same claims. His
> "evidence" that I did wrong is that I noted the behavior of his then-
> girlfriend... "
>
> "...Carroll has repeatedly accused me of impersonating this person his
> girlfriend bragged about..."
>
> "Carroll claims the info was already something I had posted to Usenet
> but he never supports that... and his claim suggests his then-
> girlfriend was a..."
>
> "It is good to see Carroll admit that his then-girlfriend was..."
>
> "but I made it very clear I was *not* attracted to Steve's then-
> girlfriend"
>
> "Specifically, that document shows where his then-girlfriend..."
>
> Blatant dishonesty just isn't that difficult to show.
>
> > In fact ZDnet closed down a thread because his shills invaded it.
> > All public record.
>
> > What you have to do is understand who is a shill (either way) and
> > who is not.
>
> I just look at the statements, they're either true or they're not...
> but it's difficult to tell when it appears to be mostly a matter of
> opinion.
>
> > >>> Heck, people have noted that Roy no longer posts to COLA. He stopped
> > >>> shortly after I was on his show and then he made false claims about my
> > >>> comments.
>
> > >> You did good on the show.
>
> > > I thought he mostly did OK... I even stated as much on this ng.
>
> > In that particular case he did do well.
> > Better than I expected in fact.
>
> I have seen Snit hold a rational discussion in the past...
> unfortunately, he can't keep his crap out of it for long.
>
> > >> You admitted when you didn't have experience with a certain version
> > >> of Linux, or something similar and as trivial as that.
>
> > > Well, he also tried to blow a little smoke... to no good effect.
>
> > No he didn't.
> > He admitted right away he had no experience, as I recall.
> > Correct me if I am wrong.
>
> He admitted it but he still blew some smoke (my opinion).
>
> > >> He and Goober, who remained silent mostly which is just as bad,
> > >> lambasted you behind your back.
>
> > > I saw some of the stuff Roy said and I don't think it was as big a
> > > deal as Snit made out. I probably didn't see it all, though... and
> > > while I think Roy's comments that I saw were a tad over the top , the
> > > idea behind them wasn't way out of whack. That said, i have seen some
> > > of Roy's biases... as I have Snit's.
>
> > Everyone has a bias.
> > Roy wrote the book on it though and it's for commercial (hits and
> > fame) gain.
> > Snit is just off kilter most of the time and dwells on minutia.
>
> He's also an extreme pathological liar. His dwelling on minutia is
> intentional... he thinks it covers his tracks. You say you don't read
> all of these lengthy posts he writes. I have... as have a few
> others... and until you do you can't claim to know what he's capable
> of or not.
>
> > Nobody has the time, nor the inclination to check ALL the facts and
> > both snit and Roy benefit from that.
>
> > You seem to be supporting Roy, so I suggest you really take a closer
> > look because you will uncover some horrendous things wrt to Roy.
>
> I'm not supporting anyone, all I'm doing is asking for people to
> support their statements. If someone says a guy has a "website full of
> propaganda and lies" he/she should be able to back it up when asked.
> That I see it, you're supporting Snit far more than I am supporting
> Roy... and you do it by claiming not to read his crap. If you're
> really not reading it then you shouldn't claim he's this or that, you
> simply don't know what he is. If you are reading then you're covering
> for him (or trying to). This isn't conjecture, it's fact.
Prove that any of those claims are lies. Sounds like Snit is just
talking about your little slut who used to have a thing for Snit.
<
http://tinyurl.com/proof-about-ebot>
You know the one you claimed moved to live right around the corner
from you and then changed your story to say you were lying.
<
http://goo.gl/maps/Q0Ne>
Does your wife know that when she is off screwing pilots you are off
screwing your slut? How honest are the two of you with each other?