Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Ping Goblin: Carroll's lack of character
18 views
Skip to first unread message
Snit
Aug 11, 2012, 2:50:41 AM8/11/12
to
Ok, Goblin... again not asking for any response from you... an while you
have already figured out on your own how lacking in character Carroll is,
this is a great example of how he runs when asked to back his own claims /
account for his own actions.
Carroll proves himself unable to back a single one of his accusations nor
explain his behavior in terms of defending the woman who is proved to have
been harassing me or his own actions of threatening to contact my employer
and lie with the purpose of having me fired. Admittedly a rather lengthy
post, but very telling of who is currently harassing you as well. Be
careful - do not let him know your real identity... he can be quite
dangerous and unstable.
In any case, I have *again* been giving him too much attention... so
whatever reply you have to this, if any, I likely will not respond. Nor
will I be responding to Carroll through third parties... he proved my points
for me quite well. No need to let him get more attention by dragging things
out (he is quite good at that):
On 8/10/12 8:54 PM, in article CC4B257B.7883%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 8/10/12 7:21 PM, in article
> da23b6d4-019f-41fb...@googlegroups.com, "Onion Knight"
> <onionkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 7:23:54 AM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> No, that's not what this post should really be titled... it should
>>>
>>> read:
>>>
>>> What's in a "frame of refernce"?
>>>
>>> Tim (the guy who firmly believes that his word is gold as compared to mine
>>> for anyone on the planet about any topic) recently wrote the following
>>> statement to Snit about the "situation" between Snit and I:
>>>
>>> "As I said before, with your situation I had no frame of refernce in which
>>> to judge who was more likely to be right between you to."
>>>
>>> The facts show that Tim has a "frame of refernce" but he chooses to ignore
>>> it... the pertinent Google archives that I have repeatedly produced in this
>>> newsgroup (and sometimes specifically for Tim), archives that have shown:
>>>
>>> Snit admitting to ID forgery
>
> Gross twisting of truth... from 2004 or so. Not worth re-hashing *again*.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS. The
proof, his response (a complete lack of response):
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.os.linux.advocacy/LRYkcLXQyKs/HhOj9kRR
_JcJ> OR <http://goo.gl/rGZMe>.
>>> Snit lying that he was 'dared' to engage in forgery during his
>>> admission of it
>
> Gross twisting of truth... from 2004 or so. Not worth re-hashing *again*.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Snit admitting to creating web pages devoted to antagonizing and
>>> defaming someone
>
> A complete and utter lie from Carroll... I have no idea what he is even
> basing this on. Likely something from 2004 which I do not even recall.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Snit admitting to sexual harassment
>
> A complete and utter lie from Carroll based on my having given someone who
> was harassing me the benefit of the doubt... but it was proved later I was
> wrong to do so: <http://tinyurl.com/proof-about-ebot>.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Snit making unsubstantiated allegations of marital infidelity
>
> A complete and utter lie from Carroll. He was very open in 2004 about his
> "road trips" to a woman other than his wife and later posted a map from his
> house to hers - claiming she had moved from hours away from him to right
> around the corner. He also noted, if I recall correctly, that his wife
> found out about his actions and became quite upset.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Snit making unsubstantiated allegations that someone has "porn habits"
>
> A complete and utter lie from Carroll.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Snit making unsubstantiated allegations that people are racists
>
> A complete and utter lie from Carroll.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Snit making unsubstantiated allegations that people are bigots
>
> A complete and utter lie from Carroll.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Snit getting busted and admitting to sock puppetry (even in his
>>> anxiety newsgroup)
>
> A complete and utter lie from Carroll. This was based on my using a
> different name on accident (Brock McNuggets) but using the same .sig and,
> when I realized the mistake *my* noting it was me. That is not being
> "busted" for using a "sock". Carroll is out and out lying.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Snit using over a dozen nyms in a span of less than a year to avoid
>>> killfilters as documented by Elizabot
>
> A complete and utter lie from Carroll.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Snit creating a large number of trolling threads as documented by
>>> Sandman in CSMA
>
> A complete and utter lie from Carroll.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Snit posting up emails between he and another poster (ed) without that
>>> poster's permission (and doing so while having hypocritically stating
>>> the had no desire for those emails to be publicm undoubtedly due to
>>> the fact that they contained admissions to lies that ed mentioned they
>>> contained
>
> Gross twisting of truth... from 2008 or so. Not worth re-hashing *again*.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> A lies of quotes made by posters of every persuasion that have all
>>> labeled Snit a liar, troll or worse based on activity like the above
>>> that they all have experience with.
>
> Many of these quotes are forged by Steve and his "buddies" in COLA... and
> what others say is not relevant. Notice the complete lack of quotes *from*
> me... Carroll bases his attacks on what his socks (and some others) have
> written about me. To make things even more insane for Carroll, some of
> those quotes are from people Carroll accused of being my socks... so his
> accusations are contradictory.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> The above list is far from complete but it contains things I have
>>> covered when Snit asks for proof of his "wrongs" (only to later whine
>>> that I am "stalking" by providing them)... I covered them enough to
>>> the point where it's ludicrous for Tim to claim not to have seen some
>>> of them.
>
> The fact you repeatedly lie about me proves my point about you.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> I'm waiting for Tim to show a "frame of refernce" for the
>>> things that I have done that would convince a sane, honest and
>>> honorable person that Snit is in the "right" in the "situation he and
>>> I have between us.
>>>
>>> cue up Snit showing me doing one or more of the following:
>>>
>>> Handing *him* (not a TON of other posters, like he has on his list)
>>> back a very,very tiny bit of what he regularly handed out.
>
> You accuse me for your actions. This is what stalkers do... they blame
> their victims. I do not blame you for anything I do.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Me, pointing to events or situations that sought to explain Snit's
>>> bizarre usenet behavior (not justify it... explain it).
>
> You cannot point to any such behavior accept my tendency to respond to those
> who troll me and the fact I post a lot. Other than that all you have is
> quotes taken from context from 2004 which you insist must be re-hashed again
> and again because you have not been able to move forward.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Me, making the reasonable claim that Snit can't possibly be a "real"
>>> teacher and act on usenet the way he has
>
> Yes: you have told that lie many times while also pointing to one of the
> schools I teach at and describing how to track down which classes I teach.
> Your girlfriend of 2004 even spoke of specific classes and how she tracked
> down who I am. You lie when you claim I somehow "forged" this evidence...
> as if I tricked you and her when and planted info for you to find.
>
> In other words: and out and out lie by you.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Some other red herring BS Snit will drag it to make it appear I have
>>> done what he has done above (a thing he will do in an attempt to shine
>>> the light away from his "wrongs"), a thing he can never accomplish
>
> I do not claim you have done what I have done - I note you do what you do:
> harass and cyberstalk me, including tracking me to one of the places where I
> work and threatening to contact my employer and lie with the intent on
> having me get fired even if you have to "twist arms". You deny this but the
> proof is in your own post:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/5ce16bd71bad1e12>
>
> Those are your words, Carroll. You did exactly as I said. Notice how you
> never back your accusations against me.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. He has *no* defense for his proved
wrong doings.
>>> As was pointed out by another poster, Tim likes to play 'divide and
>>> conquer', let's see how persuasive Tim is as he tries to 'divide' Snit
>>> from his many dishonest and dishonorable usenet deeds. Will he even
>>> bother to try?
>
> You make many accusations and cry when people do not fall over backwards
> believing a liar such as yourself.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> My prediction: NO WAY!
>>
>> I asked you to back your claims and you never did. Where are the quotes? I
>> bet if you have any they are taken out of context and are from 2004, the year
>> you never left.
>
> Exactly correct.
>
> ...
>
>> Why do you accuse Snit of doing wrong when the proof is she was harassing
>> him?
>
> Because he was clearly and unambiguously involved with her in a romantic
> relationship - or at least presented himself as being in one. He became
> insanely jealous and angry when she became obsessed with me. Again, it has
> been proved she was obsessed and harassed me:
> <http://tinyurl.com/proof-about-ebot>.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS nor
can he defend his obvious wrong doings.
>> Why won't you talk about the fact that once the police got involved she
>> stopped posting and Snit did not?
>
> This goes against Carroll's false narrative where his then-girlfriend was
> the victim so he snips and runs from this.
Of course no comment from Carroll. He claims on Usenet he does not run...
but that is all he does when faced with his false accusations, his
disreputable behavior, and his other wrong doing and lies. He is a coward
who cannot answer for any of this.
>> Why do you blame him when the police clearly could tell the truth and it is
>> not what you say?
>
> Same reason: it goes against his false narrative of her being the victim.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran.
>> You have accused me of having access to information you sent Snit outside of
>> COLA. Why not say what that information was and show where I had any access
>> to it?
>
> Because Carroll lied. If he sent such data I never saw it and had nothing
> to share with you or anyone else. Carroll simply lied.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran.
>> Why not back your claim that Snit can't be a real teacher when you have
>> linked
>> to his colleges website where it is easy to find his name listed as an
>> instructor so you know for a fact he is a teacher?
>
> He does not back this claim because Carroll is an out and out liar. This is
> yet another accusation he repeatedly makes and then runs from. On a Skype
> recording he could not so easily do so.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. No wonder he puts down radio-type
shows where he could no so easily run.
>> Why do you pretend he might be impersonating someone when your little slut
>> bragged about tracking him down to be this person who works for the college
>> you point to?
>
> Carroll says you and I agree on all things - I do not agree with your
> wording... but the question is a valid one. Carroll will not speak of why
> he lies and pretended I was impersonating the person his then-girlfriend
> bragged about tracking me down to and Carroll posted directions on how to
> find what classes I teach.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran.
>> You claim Steve that you will answer questions in usenet and not run but all
>> you do is run.
>
> Absolutely true. Carroll runs from these questions *always*. On a
> radio-format show he could not so easily do so.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. As predicted.
>> You will run from those questions because you are a coward. If you will not
>> have a Skype chat with Snit how about with me where I will ask you each of
>> those questions and share your running with all of COLA and CSMA.
>>
> I would love to hear it... but be careful to keep your identity secret from
> him if you do this.
Carroll will *never* do this... on a radio-format show he could not as
easily run as he does on Usenet (and is proving he does even today... poor
guy... he is just such a sad little coward).
>> Your word is crap Steve and you know it. Everyone who calls you on it is
>> deemed by you a sock or shill.
>
> Yes: Carroll makes those accusations repeatedly when he is called out on his
> lies. He keeps tracks of every time he or his socks or others say bad
> things about me but ignores how many times people call him out on his lies
> saying it does not count because the person is my "sock or shill" - though
> he never gives any evidence of the person being my sock (say *you*) or my
> doing anything to encourage anyone to do anything outside of Usenet.
> Carroll uses socks and shills and thinks others are like him... examples of
> his "shills" are a couple of people from CSMA who it was clear they
> literally had either severe learning disabilities or were borderline
> retarded and Steve was able to draw them into his games. It was
> unbelievably repulsive how he manipulated people with such problems.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran.
>> Why not list the names you have used on usenet? Yet another question you
>> will run from.
>
> Yes: Carroll claims to not run but he runs from this every time. And he
> always will.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. He will *never* share any such
list... another reason he would not be on a radio-format show.
>> You claim to not run but you do. On a Skype session you could not do that so
>> you will never agree to talk to me on Skype. How about this: you claim I am
>> a Snit sock. Speak to me on Skype and you will have proof my voice is not
>> his.
>>
> Just be careful he cannot track you. He *will* contact your employer and
> family and friends if he can track who you are... or at the very least
> threaten.
>
>> You do not know my voice so there should be no risk to me. You will not get
>> what your accusations are really mean to dig up which is who I am. Come on
>> Steve I have told you. I am one of the people you have harassed in CSMA to
>> the point I left for my own safety. The problem for you is there are so many
>> people you have harassed like that you have no idea who I am. Talk to me on
>> Skype and see if you can figure it out.
>
> I would love to listen to this recording. Carroll will never agree to it.
And, as predicted, Carroll is not able to offer a single shred of evidence
for his mass of accusations... nor explain his own behavior or answer a
single question. Not one.
Almost feel sorry for my stalker - the best he can do is snip and run when
faced with his own accusations and actions. He is so clearly scared and
unable to defend his BS.
--
* cc was unable to post a set of data that went back to 2007.
* cc is unable to post an Excel Workbook or otherwise back his claims.
* cc failed to show any sigma depiction I called wrong that was not.
* cc could not list a single step missed in making a linear trend line.
have already figured out on your own how lacking in character Carroll is,
this is a great example of how he runs when asked to back his own claims /
account for his own actions.
Carroll proves himself unable to back a single one of his accusations nor
explain his behavior in terms of defending the woman who is proved to have
been harassing me or his own actions of threatening to contact my employer
and lie with the purpose of having me fired. Admittedly a rather lengthy
post, but very telling of who is currently harassing you as well. Be
careful - do not let him know your real identity... he can be quite
dangerous and unstable.
In any case, I have *again* been giving him too much attention... so
whatever reply you have to this, if any, I likely will not respond. Nor
will I be responding to Carroll through third parties... he proved my points
for me quite well. No need to let him get more attention by dragging things
out (he is quite good at that):
On 8/10/12 8:54 PM, in article CC4B257B.7883%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 8/10/12 7:21 PM, in article
> da23b6d4-019f-41fb...@googlegroups.com, "Onion Knight"
> <onionkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 7:23:54 AM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> No, that's not what this post should really be titled... it should
>>>
>>> read:
>>>
>>> What's in a "frame of refernce"?
>>>
>>> Tim (the guy who firmly believes that his word is gold as compared to mine
>>> for anyone on the planet about any topic) recently wrote the following
>>> statement to Snit about the "situation" between Snit and I:
>>>
>>> "As I said before, with your situation I had no frame of refernce in which
>>> to judge who was more likely to be right between you to."
>>>
>>> The facts show that Tim has a "frame of refernce" but he chooses to ignore
>>> it... the pertinent Google archives that I have repeatedly produced in this
>>> newsgroup (and sometimes specifically for Tim), archives that have shown:
>>>
>>> Snit admitting to ID forgery
>
> Gross twisting of truth... from 2004 or so. Not worth re-hashing *again*.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS. The
proof, his response (a complete lack of response):
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.os.linux.advocacy/LRYkcLXQyKs/HhOj9kRR
_JcJ> OR <http://goo.gl/rGZMe>.
>>> Snit lying that he was 'dared' to engage in forgery during his
>>> admission of it
>
> Gross twisting of truth... from 2004 or so. Not worth re-hashing *again*.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Snit admitting to creating web pages devoted to antagonizing and
>>> defaming someone
>
> A complete and utter lie from Carroll... I have no idea what he is even
> basing this on. Likely something from 2004 which I do not even recall.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Snit admitting to sexual harassment
>
> A complete and utter lie from Carroll based on my having given someone who
> was harassing me the benefit of the doubt... but it was proved later I was
> wrong to do so: <http://tinyurl.com/proof-about-ebot>.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Snit making unsubstantiated allegations of marital infidelity
>
> A complete and utter lie from Carroll. He was very open in 2004 about his
> "road trips" to a woman other than his wife and later posted a map from his
> house to hers - claiming she had moved from hours away from him to right
> around the corner. He also noted, if I recall correctly, that his wife
> found out about his actions and became quite upset.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Snit making unsubstantiated allegations that someone has "porn habits"
>
> A complete and utter lie from Carroll.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Snit making unsubstantiated allegations that people are racists
>
> A complete and utter lie from Carroll.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Snit making unsubstantiated allegations that people are bigots
>
> A complete and utter lie from Carroll.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Snit getting busted and admitting to sock puppetry (even in his
>>> anxiety newsgroup)
>
> A complete and utter lie from Carroll. This was based on my using a
> different name on accident (Brock McNuggets) but using the same .sig and,
> when I realized the mistake *my* noting it was me. That is not being
> "busted" for using a "sock". Carroll is out and out lying.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Snit using over a dozen nyms in a span of less than a year to avoid
>>> killfilters as documented by Elizabot
>
> A complete and utter lie from Carroll.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Snit creating a large number of trolling threads as documented by
>>> Sandman in CSMA
>
> A complete and utter lie from Carroll.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Snit posting up emails between he and another poster (ed) without that
>>> poster's permission (and doing so while having hypocritically stating
>>> the had no desire for those emails to be publicm undoubtedly due to
>>> the fact that they contained admissions to lies that ed mentioned they
>>> contained
>
> Gross twisting of truth... from 2008 or so. Not worth re-hashing *again*.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> A lies of quotes made by posters of every persuasion that have all
>>> labeled Snit a liar, troll or worse based on activity like the above
>>> that they all have experience with.
>
> Many of these quotes are forged by Steve and his "buddies" in COLA... and
> what others say is not relevant. Notice the complete lack of quotes *from*
> me... Carroll bases his attacks on what his socks (and some others) have
> written about me. To make things even more insane for Carroll, some of
> those quotes are from people Carroll accused of being my socks... so his
> accusations are contradictory.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> The above list is far from complete but it contains things I have
>>> covered when Snit asks for proof of his "wrongs" (only to later whine
>>> that I am "stalking" by providing them)... I covered them enough to
>>> the point where it's ludicrous for Tim to claim not to have seen some
>>> of them.
>
> The fact you repeatedly lie about me proves my point about you.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> I'm waiting for Tim to show a "frame of refernce" for the
>>> things that I have done that would convince a sane, honest and
>>> honorable person that Snit is in the "right" in the "situation he and
>>> I have between us.
>>>
>>> cue up Snit showing me doing one or more of the following:
>>>
>>> Handing *him* (not a TON of other posters, like he has on his list)
>>> back a very,very tiny bit of what he regularly handed out.
>
> You accuse me for your actions. This is what stalkers do... they blame
> their victims. I do not blame you for anything I do.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Me, pointing to events or situations that sought to explain Snit's
>>> bizarre usenet behavior (not justify it... explain it).
>
> You cannot point to any such behavior accept my tendency to respond to those
> who troll me and the fact I post a lot. Other than that all you have is
> quotes taken from context from 2004 which you insist must be re-hashed again
> and again because you have not been able to move forward.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Me, making the reasonable claim that Snit can't possibly be a "real"
>>> teacher and act on usenet the way he has
>
> Yes: you have told that lie many times while also pointing to one of the
> schools I teach at and describing how to track down which classes I teach.
> Your girlfriend of 2004 even spoke of specific classes and how she tracked
> down who I am. You lie when you claim I somehow "forged" this evidence...
> as if I tricked you and her when and planted info for you to find.
>
> In other words: and out and out lie by you.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Some other red herring BS Snit will drag it to make it appear I have
>>> done what he has done above (a thing he will do in an attempt to shine
>>> the light away from his "wrongs"), a thing he can never accomplish
>
> I do not claim you have done what I have done - I note you do what you do:
> harass and cyberstalk me, including tracking me to one of the places where I
> work and threatening to contact my employer and lie with the intent on
> having me get fired even if you have to "twist arms". You deny this but the
> proof is in your own post:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/5ce16bd71bad1e12>
>
> Those are your words, Carroll. You did exactly as I said. Notice how you
> never back your accusations against me.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. He has *no* defense for his proved
wrong doings.
>>> As was pointed out by another poster, Tim likes to play 'divide and
>>> conquer', let's see how persuasive Tim is as he tries to 'divide' Snit
>>> from his many dishonest and dishonorable usenet deeds. Will he even
>>> bother to try?
>
> You make many accusations and cry when people do not fall over backwards
> believing a liar such as yourself.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> My prediction: NO WAY!
>>
>> I asked you to back your claims and you never did. Where are the quotes? I
>> bet if you have any they are taken out of context and are from 2004, the year
>> you never left.
>
> Exactly correct.
>
> ...
>
>> Why do you accuse Snit of doing wrong when the proof is she was harassing
>> him?
>
> Because he was clearly and unambiguously involved with her in a romantic
> relationship - or at least presented himself as being in one. He became
> insanely jealous and angry when she became obsessed with me. Again, it has
> been proved she was obsessed and harassed me:
> <http://tinyurl.com/proof-about-ebot>.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS nor
can he defend his obvious wrong doings.
>> Why won't you talk about the fact that once the police got involved she
>> stopped posting and Snit did not?
>
> This goes against Carroll's false narrative where his then-girlfriend was
> the victim so he snips and runs from this.
Of course no comment from Carroll. He claims on Usenet he does not run...
but that is all he does when faced with his false accusations, his
disreputable behavior, and his other wrong doing and lies. He is a coward
who cannot answer for any of this.
>> Why do you blame him when the police clearly could tell the truth and it is
>> not what you say?
>
> Same reason: it goes against his false narrative of her being the victim.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran.
>> You have accused me of having access to information you sent Snit outside of
>> COLA. Why not say what that information was and show where I had any access
>> to it?
>
> Because Carroll lied. If he sent such data I never saw it and had nothing
> to share with you or anyone else. Carroll simply lied.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran.
>> Why not back your claim that Snit can't be a real teacher when you have
>> linked
>> to his colleges website where it is easy to find his name listed as an
>> instructor so you know for a fact he is a teacher?
>
> He does not back this claim because Carroll is an out and out liar. This is
> yet another accusation he repeatedly makes and then runs from. On a Skype
> recording he could not so easily do so.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. No wonder he puts down radio-type
shows where he could no so easily run.
>> Why do you pretend he might be impersonating someone when your little slut
>> bragged about tracking him down to be this person who works for the college
>> you point to?
>
> Carroll says you and I agree on all things - I do not agree with your
> wording... but the question is a valid one. Carroll will not speak of why
> he lies and pretended I was impersonating the person his then-girlfriend
> bragged about tracking me down to and Carroll posted directions on how to
> find what classes I teach.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran.
>> You claim Steve that you will answer questions in usenet and not run but all
>> you do is run.
>
> Absolutely true. Carroll runs from these questions *always*. On a
> radio-format show he could not so easily do so.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. As predicted.
>> You will run from those questions because you are a coward. If you will not
>> have a Skype chat with Snit how about with me where I will ask you each of
>> those questions and share your running with all of COLA and CSMA.
>>
> I would love to hear it... but be careful to keep your identity secret from
> him if you do this.
Carroll will *never* do this... on a radio-format show he could not as
easily run as he does on Usenet (and is proving he does even today... poor
guy... he is just such a sad little coward).
>> Your word is crap Steve and you know it. Everyone who calls you on it is
>> deemed by you a sock or shill.
>
> Yes: Carroll makes those accusations repeatedly when he is called out on his
> lies. He keeps tracks of every time he or his socks or others say bad
> things about me but ignores how many times people call him out on his lies
> saying it does not count because the person is my "sock or shill" - though
> he never gives any evidence of the person being my sock (say *you*) or my
> doing anything to encourage anyone to do anything outside of Usenet.
> Carroll uses socks and shills and thinks others are like him... examples of
> his "shills" are a couple of people from CSMA who it was clear they
> literally had either severe learning disabilities or were borderline
> retarded and Steve was able to draw them into his games. It was
> unbelievably repulsive how he manipulated people with such problems.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran.
>> Why not list the names you have used on usenet? Yet another question you
>> will run from.
>
> Yes: Carroll claims to not run but he runs from this every time. And he
> always will.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. He will *never* share any such
list... another reason he would not be on a radio-format show.
>> You claim to not run but you do. On a Skype session you could not do that so
>> you will never agree to talk to me on Skype. How about this: you claim I am
>> a Snit sock. Speak to me on Skype and you will have proof my voice is not
>> his.
>>
> Just be careful he cannot track you. He *will* contact your employer and
> family and friends if he can track who you are... or at the very least
> threaten.
>
>> You do not know my voice so there should be no risk to me. You will not get
>> what your accusations are really mean to dig up which is who I am. Come on
>> Steve I have told you. I am one of the people you have harassed in CSMA to
>> the point I left for my own safety. The problem for you is there are so many
>> people you have harassed like that you have no idea who I am. Talk to me on
>> Skype and see if you can figure it out.
>
> I would love to listen to this recording. Carroll will never agree to it.
And, as predicted, Carroll is not able to offer a single shred of evidence
for his mass of accusations... nor explain his own behavior or answer a
single question. Not one.
Almost feel sorry for my stalker - the best he can do is snip and run when
faced with his own accusations and actions. He is so clearly scared and
unable to defend his BS.
--
* cc was unable to post a set of data that went back to 2007.
* cc is unable to post an Excel Workbook or otherwise back his claims.
* cc failed to show any sigma depiction I called wrong that was not.
* cc could not list a single step missed in making a linear trend line.
Tattoo Vampire
Aug 11, 2012, 9:43:03 AM8/11/12
to
Snit wrote:
> Ok, Goblin
Snit, starting new threads to rehash the same old shit you've started other
new threads for is the classic sign of a troll. :-P
--
Perhaps this situation requires a more Klingon response.
[tv]
> Ok, Goblin
Snit, starting new threads to rehash the same old shit you've started other
new threads for is the classic sign of a troll. :-P
--
Perhaps this situation requires a more Klingon response.
[tv]
Snit
Aug 11, 2012, 11:50:51 AM8/11/12
to
On 8/11/12 6:43 AM, in article 1nbf3nbt...@sitting.at.this.computer,
interested in. Carroll has been trying to convince Goblin of how eeeeeeevil
I am... but when push comes to shove Carroll not only failed to back *any*
of his accusations he could not account for his own behavior - much of which
was linked to his own posts.
Then again, Goblin has already figured out what a liar Carroll is... and how
little character Carroll has. So maybe this was not needed... but it might
help to put some of Carroll's behavior in context.
"Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> wrote:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Ok, Goblin
>
> Snit, starting new threads to rehash the same old shit you've started other
> new threads for is the classic sign of a troll. :-P
I was pointing out some facts to Goblin... ones I think he might be
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Ok, Goblin
>
> Snit, starting new threads to rehash the same old shit you've started other
> new threads for is the classic sign of a troll. :-P
interested in. Carroll has been trying to convince Goblin of how eeeeeeevil
I am... but when push comes to shove Carroll not only failed to back *any*
of his accusations he could not account for his own behavior - much of which
was linked to his own posts.
Then again, Goblin has already figured out what a liar Carroll is... and how
little character Carroll has. So maybe this was not needed... but it might
help to put some of Carroll's behavior in context.
Steve Carroll
Aug 11, 2012, 12:55:11 PM8/11/12
to
On Aug 11, 9:50 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 8/11/12 6:43 AM, in article 1nbf3nbt2p8z3....@sitting.at.this.computer,
too interested. Let's look at the potential for your big clue:
1 - Tim believes what you've posted, he just doesn't want to
acknowledge it.
This doesn't seem likely being how Tim acknowledges virtually
everything that bolsters whatever belief he has. He generally runs
when faced with logical opposition to some goofy stance he's taken
(ring a bell, Snit?), to other things, he responds.
2 - Tim doesn't believe what you've posted and he doesn't want to
respond because he knows it's silly to fight the Google record and
lose over your BS (especially on your behalf), he's already far too
busy fighting it and losing over his own BS.
3 - Tim doesn't want to get involved in what he 'can't see', to do so
would mean he would have to admit I'm right about you... and that
would be very un-Tim like.
> Carroll has been trying to convince Goblin of how eeeeeeevil
> I am...
Nah.. I'm just pointing out reality that you continually ask for, he
can acknowledge it or not... to his own detriment.
> but when push comes to shove Carroll not only failed to back *any*
> of his accusations
So why isn't Tim falling over himself to agree with you by addressing
these specific points? Sorry, Snit... this delusion won't fly... too
many people (including the mum Tim, contrary to his claims) have seen
the concrete evidence I've supplied about you. They've also seen your
'evidence' and many of them have spoken of it in the manner it
deserves. For all his crowing about how not one believes me, the fact
is, NO ONE believes you. Why? Because you blatantly lie and make fools
of people when you do it. Hint: They don't like that.
> he could not account for his own behavior - much of which
> was linked to his own posts.
Account for? I make *no* excuse for calling you on your dishonest and
dishonorable usenet behavior.
> Then again, Goblin has already figured out what a liar Carroll is
What Tim has "figured out" is that I'll use the Google archive to
prove that he is what he's calling others... cowards... and he doesn't
like it a bit (that's his f*cking problem, he should learn to shut
his mouth if he can't take the heat).
> ... and how little character Carroll has.
That two lying cowards claim I have "little" character is of "little"
consequence.
> So maybe this was not needed... but it might
> help to put some of Carroll's behavior in context.
What it did was offer more proof that you do exactly what I say you
do when you're confronted with your bizarre behavior... you deny and
spin. That you're claiming to be "done" with me (for the 8000th time)
is false as Onion Knight (you) will keep responding to me with your
BS. That you think people will continually fall for your 'I'm no
longer going to respond to Steve' routine is just more proof that you
believe people are as stupid as you need them to be.
The reality for you is the same as for Tim... you guys are not
responding to me, you're really responding to your own behavior as it
comes out of the Google archive... and you're trying to justify it by
pointing to the person who posts it as the 'bad guy'.
> On 8/11/12 6:43 AM, in article 1nbf3nbt2p8z3....@sitting.at.this.computer,
>
> "Tattoo Vampire" <sitt...@this.computer> wrote:
> > Snit wrote:
>
> >> Ok, Goblin
>
> > Snit, starting new threads to rehash the same old shit you've started other
> > new threads for is the classic sign of a troll. :-P
>
> I was pointing out some facts to Goblin... ones I think he might be
> interested in.
Ones you have posted several times already and he doesn't appear all
> "Tattoo Vampire" <sitt...@this.computer> wrote:
> > Snit wrote:
>
> >> Ok, Goblin
>
> > Snit, starting new threads to rehash the same old shit you've started other
> > new threads for is the classic sign of a troll. :-P
>
> I was pointing out some facts to Goblin... ones I think he might be
> interested in.
too interested. Let's look at the potential for your big clue:
1 - Tim believes what you've posted, he just doesn't want to
acknowledge it.
This doesn't seem likely being how Tim acknowledges virtually
everything that bolsters whatever belief he has. He generally runs
when faced with logical opposition to some goofy stance he's taken
(ring a bell, Snit?), to other things, he responds.
2 - Tim doesn't believe what you've posted and he doesn't want to
respond because he knows it's silly to fight the Google record and
lose over your BS (especially on your behalf), he's already far too
busy fighting it and losing over his own BS.
3 - Tim doesn't want to get involved in what he 'can't see', to do so
would mean he would have to admit I'm right about you... and that
would be very un-Tim like.
> Carroll has been trying to convince Goblin of how eeeeeeevil
> I am...
can acknowledge it or not... to his own detriment.
> but when push comes to shove Carroll not only failed to back *any*
> of his accusations
these specific points? Sorry, Snit... this delusion won't fly... too
many people (including the mum Tim, contrary to his claims) have seen
the concrete evidence I've supplied about you. They've also seen your
'evidence' and many of them have spoken of it in the manner it
deserves. For all his crowing about how not one believes me, the fact
is, NO ONE believes you. Why? Because you blatantly lie and make fools
of people when you do it. Hint: They don't like that.
> he could not account for his own behavior - much of which
> was linked to his own posts.
dishonorable usenet behavior.
> Then again, Goblin has already figured out what a liar Carroll is
prove that he is what he's calling others... cowards... and he doesn't
like it a bit (that's his f*cking problem, he should learn to shut
his mouth if he can't take the heat).
> ... and how little character Carroll has.
consequence.
> So maybe this was not needed... but it might
> help to put some of Carroll's behavior in context.
do when you're confronted with your bizarre behavior... you deny and
spin. That you're claiming to be "done" with me (for the 8000th time)
is false as Onion Knight (you) will keep responding to me with your
BS. That you think people will continually fall for your 'I'm no
longer going to respond to Steve' routine is just more proof that you
believe people are as stupid as you need them to be.
The reality for you is the same as for Tim... you guys are not
responding to me, you're really responding to your own behavior as it
comes out of the Google archive... and you're trying to justify it by
pointing to the person who posts it as the 'bad guy'.
0 new messages