Anyone want to take one of Snit's classes?
Edward Stanfield
Why don't we all sign up and then comment on how great of a teacher he is!
I am sure Snit would love getting all that attention.
Sermo Malifer
I have a better idea.
Why don't we ignore Snit's posts and never mention him again?
Peter Köhlmann
< snip >
> I have a better idea.
>
> Why don't we ignore Snit's posts and never mention him again?
The moment Snot Michael Glasser is ignored he starts a flurry of posts on
several newsgroups, reviving years old threads where he already was shown
to be a totally dishonest liar and fraud
He has done that routine several times in the short time frame he was not
totally killfiled on my systems.
Unfortunately his stupid garbage is quoted way too often, so I still get to
see some of that filth from Glasser
--
There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots.
Snit
496e2d00$0$30236$9b4e...@newsspool1.arcor-online.net on 1/14/09 11:20 AM:
> Sermo Malifer wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
>> I have a better idea.
>>
>> Why don't we ignore Snit's posts and never mention him again?
>
> The moment Snot Michael Glasser is ignored he starts a flurry of posts on
> several newsgroups, reviving years old threads where he already was shown
> to be a totally dishonest liar and fraud
>
> He has done that routine several times in the short time frame he was not
> totally killfiled on my systems.
> Unfortunately his stupid garbage is quoted way too often, so I still get to
> see some of that filth from Glasser
You sure beg for my attention a lot.
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
Snit
gkla3o$lue$2...@news.albasani.net on 1/14/09 11:15 AM:
> Edward Stanfield wrote:
>> http://yaris.yc.edu/coursesearch/SearchResults.aspx?Contentcontainer1%3A_ctl0
>> %3Aregion1%3Asubject_dept=All+Subjects&course_id=§ion_number=&keywords=gl
>> asser&Contentcontainer1%3A_ctl0%3Aregion1%3Asessions_range=09SP+(01%2F21%2F20
>> 09+-+05%2F12%2F2009)&Contentcontainer1%3A_ctl0%3Aregion1%3Atime_range_start=6
>> %3A00am&Contentcontainer1%3A_ctl0%3Aregion1%3Atime_range_end=11%3A45pm&any_ti
>> me=1&date_range_start=&date_range_end=&day_=All&Contentcontainer1%3A_ctl0%3Ar
>> egion1%3Acampus=All+Areas&Contentcontainer1%3A_ctl0%3Aregion1%3Adelivery_meth
>> od=-Any+Type-&classes_=All&submit=I%27m+done+with+my+selections.+Show+me+the+
>> results.
>>
>> Why don't we all sign up and then comment on how great of a teacher he is!
>> I am sure Snit would love getting all that attention.
>
> I have a better idea.
>
> Why don't we ignore Snit's posts and never mention him again?
Sigh. Steve is back to it again. Out of one side of his mouth he whines I
must not work, and out of the other he talks about all the classes I teach.
Why not talk about technology? Why does Steve run from that?
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
Chance Furlong
Sermo Malifer <sermom...@noemail.com> wrote:
> Edward Stanfield wrote:
> > http://yaris.yc.edu/coursesearch/SearchResults.aspx?Contentcontainer1%3A_ctl
> > 0%3Aregion1%3Asubject_dept=All+Subjects&course_id=§ion_number=&keywords=
> > glasser&Contentcontainer1%3A_ctl0%3Aregion1%3Asessions_range=09SP+(01%2F21%2
> > F2009+-+05%2F12%2F2009)&Contentcontainer1%3A_ctl0%3Aregion1%3Atime_range_sta
> > rt=6%3A00am&Contentcontainer1%3A_ctl0%3Aregion1%3Atime_range_end=11%3A45pm&a
> > ny_time=1&date_range_start=&date_range_end=&day_=All&Contentcontainer1%3A_ct
> > l0%3Aregion1%3Acampus=All+Areas&Contentcontainer1%3A_ctl0%3Aregion1%3Adelive
> > ry_method=-Any+Type-&classes_=All&submit=I%27m+done+with+my+selections.+Show
> > +me+the+results.
> >
> > Why don't we all sign up and then comment on how great of a teacher he is!
> > I am sure Snit would love getting all that attention.
>
> I have a better idea.
>
> Why don't we ignore Snit's posts and never mention him again?
Steve Carroll and MuahMan would not be able to take your advice.
Snit
T-Bone-FF9498....@unlimited.newshosting.com on 1/14/09 3:10 PM:
Sandman called for those who could not respond to me without lying to just
stop... including himself. And, for the most part, he has held to that.
Steve Carroll cannot... even uses multiple names. His "Edward Stanfield" is
a well known name he uses. Check the headers.
--
The answer to the water shortage is to dilute it.
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
At least you're admitting that you can't reply to yourself without lying
Snit! ... That's a good start! :-)
Snit
C594BCFE.F912%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/14/09 6:14 PM:
>>>> Why don't we ignore Snit's posts and never mention him again?
>>>
>>> Steve Carroll and MuahMan would not be able to take your advice.
>>
>> Sandman called for those who could not respond to me without lying to just
>> stop... including himself.
>
> At least you're admitting that you can't reply to yourself without lying
> Snit! ... That's a good start! :-)
You sure beg for my attention a lot.
--
Dear Aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1123221217782777472
chrisv
> Sermo Malifer <sermom...@noemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Why don't we ignore Snit's posts and never mention him again?
>
>Steve Carroll and MuahMan would not be able to take your advice.
Plonk them, too.
Steve Mackay
How can you claim that "Edward Stanfield" is Steve Carroll?
Tim Adams
Steve Mackay <mackay...@att.net> wrote:
michael, the prescott computer pervert glasser claims almost everybody that
points out reality to him, and that snit doesn't already know, is Steve Carroll.
Why should Edward Stanfield be an exception?
--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-D290FB.17...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net on
1/15/09 3:26 PM:
You sure beg for my attention a lot.
--
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs
Steve Carroll
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-D290FB.17264815012...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net on
> 1/15/09 3:26 PM:
>
>
>
> > In article <yLHbl.13250$yr3....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> > Steve Mackay <mackay.st...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >> Snit wrote:
> >>> "Chance Furlong" <T-B...@megakatcity.com> stated in post
>
> >>>> In article <gkla3o$lu...@news.albasani.net>,> >>>>>>http://yaris.yc.edu/coursesearch/SearchResults.aspx?Contentcontainer1...
You sure give "a lot" of "attention" to people you keep *claiming* are
"begging" for it.
Steve Mackay
I noticed your lack of reply to my question.
You can't logically, without a MASSIVE leap of faith or wishful thinking
on your part, backup your statement.
Snit
d5Tbl.17862$Ws1....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com on 1/15/09 8:23 PM:
Check the thread. And past info. Seriously, do you have any doubt that
Edward Stanfield is one of Carroll's many names?
--
Computers are incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid: humans are incredibly
slow, inaccurate and brilliant; together they are powerful beyond
imagination. - attributed to Albert Einstein, likely apocryphal
Steve Mackay
Yup. Already did. Still, without a HUGE leap of faith, or your wishful
thinking, doesn't tie this Steve.
> And past info.
And?
> Seriously, do you have any doubt that
> Edward Stanfield is one of Carroll's many names?
Many names? He's admitted to a few, none of which have been actual "sock
puppets".
Do you have some kind of actual proof?
Snit
...
>> Check the thread.
>
> Yup. Already did. Still, without a HUGE leap of faith, or your wishful
> thinking, doesn't tie this Steve.
>
>> And past info.
>
> And?
>
>> Seriously, do you have any doubt that
>> Edward Stanfield is one of Carroll's many names?
>
>
> Many names? He's admitted to a few, none of which have been actual "sock
> puppets".
Incorrect.
> Do you have some kind of actual proof?
Which do you deny:
"Evil" John *
"Evil" Snit
Cornelius Munshower
CSMA Moderator
Fretwiz *
Measles
Petruzzellis Kids
Sigmond
Smit
Steve Camoll *
Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> *
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> *
Steve Carroll <stevec...@nowhere.com> *
Steve Carrroll *
Steve Carrolll *
Steve C *
Yevette Owens
--
... something I'm committed to work on, focusing increasing amounts of
resources of Canonical on figuring out on how we actually move the desktop
experience forward to compete with Mac OS X.
- Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Instead of dragging this out into one of your epic threads Snit why can't
you simply explain where the "headers" link the name "Edward Stanfield" to
Steve Carroll?
If it is the "headers" that for you contain the key ... Why are you so
reluctant to share the information Snit?
"His "Edward Stanfield" is a well known name he uses. Check the
headers."-Snit
Prove it, just for once stand up and support what you claim Snit, look at
the up side, if you do, no more can it be said that Snit never supports his
claims, you will have a cast iron example to cite showing otherwise! alas
we all know that is never going to happen though don't we Snit?
Yes! I know what's coming.......
"You sure beg for .........."-Snit
Steve Mackay
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Strange that you should leave out "Edward Stanfield" considering that you
claim to see proof in "headers" Snit! ROTFL
Is this yet another example of what you said was your ability to change your
"current reality" Snit?
Snit
Read the *whole* post the above quote comes from. Then look at the
evidence. Then let's try to start from a place of agreement - look at the
list of known names for Carroll and see which you agree he uses. See which
you disagree. Once you list the ones you agree with then I will know which
we disagree on and can work on showing you the evidence for at least some (I
am not going to dig and re-do a lot of work for you... do your own Google
diving!)
"Evil" John *
"Evil" Snit
Cornelius Munshower
CSMA Moderator
Fretwiz *
Measles
Petruzzellis Kids
Sigmond
Smit
Steve Camoll *
Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> *
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> *
Steve Carroll <stevec...@nowhere.com> *
Steve Carrroll *
Steve Carrolll *
Steve C *
Yevette Owens
--
I think the Apple guys have a very good point when they say we should let
designers lead the definition of the user experience.
Snit
Compare the headers of Edward with the headers of his other known names.
> Is this yet another example of what you said was your ability to change your
> "current reality" Snit?
>
Not sure what you mean by changing your current reality, but on that side
issue, yes, one can change their "current reality." Currently I am sitting.
Now I am, currently, typing this standing up.
Both statements are 100% accurate... I changed what was "real"...
In any case, I will add Edward Stanfield to the list. I am sure there are
many others I have left out that are well known to be Steve.
--
I think we [the folks who make Linux desktops] don't yet deliver a good
enough user experience.
Snit
...
>> Which do you deny:
>>
>> "Evil" John *
>> "Evil" Snit
>> Cornelius Munshower
>> CSMA Moderator
>> Fretwiz *
>> Measles
>> Petruzzellis Kids
>> Sigmond
>> Smit
>> Steve Camoll *
>> Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> *
>> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> *
>> Steve Carroll <stevec...@nowhere.com> *
>> Steve Carrroll *
>> Steve Carrolll *
>> Steve C *
>> Yevette Owens
>>
>>
>>
> Curiously, you still haven't answered my question.
Let's start with where we *agree*. You have already agreed that Steve has
admitted to at least some of those names. Which ones do you think he has
used? Once I know which you accept then we can look at the headers and I
can show you how Steve's headers under his Edward name, along with his
wording and actions, show conclusively that Edward is just another of
Steve's names.
My guess: you know I am right and thus will not admit to which names you
know Steve Carroll has used. To do so would make it where I can then show
how Steve's Edward name uses the same Usenet client and Usenet service as
some of the names you accept. And, of course, even though you have admitted
Steve uses multiple names you will not say which ones you know of... you do
not want to offend your buddy Steve Carroll... you prefer to troll me.
You could, of course, prove me wrong by listing the names you know Steve
Carroll has used - both the ones on that above list and ones you know of
that are not on the list (no doubt there are many). But you will not. You
noted you agree he uses multiple names... and that is as much as you will be
willing to say on that topic.
100% predictable. You have backed yourself into a corner.
Again.
--
When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how
to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not
beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller
Wally
"Steve Mackay" <mackay...@att.net> wrote:
LOL
Snit
...
>>> Which do you deny:
>>>
>>> "Evil" John *
>>> "Evil" Snit
>>> Cornelius Munshower
>>> CSMA Moderator
>>> Fretwiz *
>>> Measles
>>> Petruzzellis Kids
>>> Sigmond
>>> Smit
>>> Steve Camoll *
>>> Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> *
>>> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> *
>>> Steve Carroll <stevec...@nowhere.com> *
>>> Steve Carrroll *
>>> Steve Carrolll *
>>> Steve C *
>>> Yevette Owens
>>>
>> Curiously, you still haven't answered my question.
>
> LOL
>
I have answered repeatedly. I have noted at least some of the evidence
(Usenet client, timing, Usenet service, what forums are posted to, posting
style, etc.) and then Steve Mackay agreed that Steve Carroll uses multiple
names but he is uncertain about the evidence that Steve uses the name Edward
Stanfield. Fair enough... so Steve Mackay (and you for that matter) should
list the names of Steve's you agree he uses so we can look at the headers,
timing, etc. of those posts and of Edward's.
But neither of you are willing to do so. Neither of you really doubt that
Edward Stanfield is yet another name your buddy Steve Carroll is using.
Prove me wrong: list the names you know he has used.
But you will not. 100% predictable.
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
Steve Mackay
I see... So you don't have any proof to back up your claim.
Thank You.
Snit
>> Let's start with where we *agree*.
>
>
>
>> You have already agreed that Steve has admitted to at least some of those
>> names. Which ones do you think he has used? Once I know which you accept
>> then we can look at the headers and I can show you how Steve's headers under
>> his Edward name, along with his wording and actions, show conclusively that
>> Edward is just another of Steve's names.
>>
>> My guess: you know I am right and thus will not admit to which names you know
>> Steve Carroll has used. To do so would make it where I can then show how
>> Steve's Edward name uses the same Usenet client and Usenet service as some of
>> the names you accept. And, of course, even though you have admitted Steve
>> uses multiple names you will not say which ones you know of... you do not
>> want to offend your buddy Steve Carroll... you prefer to troll me.
>>
>> You could, of course, prove me wrong by listing the names you know Steve
>> Carroll has used - both the ones on that above list and ones you know of that
>> are not on the list (no doubt there are many). But you will not. You noted
>> you agree he uses multiple names... and that is as much as you will be
>> willing to say on that topic.
>>
>> 100% predictable. You have backed yourself into a corner.
>>
>> Again.
>
> I see... So you don't have any proof to back up your claim.
>
>
> Thank You.
Gee, If you knew that "Edward Stanfield" used the same Usenet software and
the same Usenet service and posted at about the same time to the same Usenet
forums saying much the same thing as the other names you have admitted you
know Steve uses, then - wanting to defend Steve Carroll - you would not be
willing to state which names you know he uses. The evidence, you know,
would be too damning against Carroll.
And, wow! That is *exactly* what you are doing.
Ok. Now it is clear: you have little if any doubt that Steve Carroll is
also posting as Edward Stanfield. Your actions have shown this beyond any
reasonable doubt.
Prediction: you will deny this but "forget" to list the names you know Steve
Carroll has posted under.
See: you and your co-trolls are very easy to predict. You will also insist
that even though you have shown you know what I am saying about Steve /
Edward is true that you think I owe you some other evidence... evidence to
"prove" to you what you have already shown you believe.
Prove me wrong.
As if!
LOL!
--
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
--Aldous Huxley
Steve Mackay
Michael, I asked you for proof. You didn't provide any.
It's exactly as I expected. Thank You.
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
*you* are the one that claims that the "headers" form the evidence Snit! I
have looked and I obviously can't see what you claim to be able to tell from
those "headers"!
Why are you determined to keep what is according to you pertinent to
determining the author of the post using the name "Edward Stanfield" from
every one else, especially as the accusation is yours Snit?
> Then let's try to start from a place of agreement ...
We have a perfectly logical place to start from Snit...
"Edward Stanfield" made a post, you claim that "Edward Stanfield" is a sock
puppet of Steve Carroll's, you were asked how you knew that, you replied
"His "Edward Stanfield" is a well known name he uses. Check the
headers."-Snit
The logical place to start is firstly to determine if you are right in this
specific instance because it is here and it is right now! if you are proven
right then it may be worth trawling through post after post after post to
determine if the other accusations that you make wrt the other names are
likewise true, but there is no good reason to suppose that your evidence for
those names will take any other form than the evidence you have for the name
"Edward Stanfield", But as I for one expected you will not now explain how
the "headers" prove your case Snit!
And as can be seen below you have yet again failed to include "Edward
Stanfield" in the list of names that you claim that Steve Carroll uses, even
though you have pointed to where you claim evidence of him using the name
"Edward Stanfield" can be found! why is that?
>- look at the list of known names for Carroll and see which you agree he uses.
Why look at a list of names Snit, we have *one* name that not only do you
claim Steve Carroll uses but the *one* name that you have pointed to
"headers" as proof of your claim.
If you cannot prove your case wrt that *one* name having made the accusation
*and* stating where the proof is, then there is not a lot to be gained by
looking at other names Snit!
Have you ever considered looking up the word credibility Snit? If not do so
now and then attempt to gain some by making your case wrt "Edward
Stanfield"!
No, of course I know that you won't, but it had to be asked!
> See which
> you disagree. Once you list the ones you agree with then I will know which
> we disagree on and can work on showing you the evidence for at least some (I
> am not going to dig and re-do a lot of work for you... do your own Google
> diving!)
Exactly! which why there is no need at this time to even consider the list
of names Snit! we have one "Edward Stanfield" that requires no digging, it
is all here in this thread, all that is needed is your explanation as to the
significance of the "headers" Snit!
But of course *that* explanation will never come, we all know that!
>
> "Evil" John *
> "Evil" Snit
> Cornelius Munshower
> CSMA Moderator
> Fretwiz *
> Measles
> Petruzzellis Kids
> Sigmond
> Smit
> Steve Camoll *
> Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> *
> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> *
> Steve Carroll <stevec...@nowhere.com> *
> Steve Carrroll *
> Steve Carrolll *
> Steve C *
> Yevette Owens
So we can forever remove "Edward Stanfield" from your list Snit? LOL
Snit
>> Gee, If you knew that "Edward Stanfield" used the same Usenet software and
>> the same Usenet service and posted at about the same time to the same Usenet
>> forums saying much the same thing as the other names you have admitted you
>> know Steve uses, then - wanting to defend Steve Carroll - you would not be
>> willing to state which names you know he uses. The evidence, you know,
>> would be too damning against Carroll.
>>
>> And, wow! That is *exactly* what you are doing.
>>
>> Ok. Now it is clear: you have little if any doubt that Steve Carroll is
>> also posting as Edward Stanfield. Your actions have shown this beyond any
>> reasonable doubt.
>>
>> Prediction: you will deny this but "forget" to list the names you know Steve
>> Carroll has posted under.
>>
>> See: you and your co-trolls are very easy to predict. You will also insist
>> that even though you have shown you know what I am saying about Steve /
>> Edward is true that you think I owe you some other evidence... evidence to
>> "prove" to you what you have already shown you believe.
>>
>> Prove me wrong.
>>
>> As if!
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>>
>
> Michael, I asked you for proof. You didn't provide any.
>
> It's exactly as I expected. Thank You.
Why are you asking for proof of something you clearly do not even question?
Why are you asking for proof of something where the evidence is
overwhelming?
You are just playing your normal games. And now you will get all huffy and
mad because I called you on your game and, above, predicted your behavior
precisely.
Ready to get your one last dig and say I am not worth your time so you will
KF me? I love it when you do that. Really... seems the only way you can
stop yourself from lying.
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
"Well, I am doing things... and that, I suppose from a certain perspective,
is changing my current reality."-Snit
> but on that side
> issue, yes, one can change their "current reality." Currently I am sitting.
>
> Now I am, currently, typing this standing up.
Would you like a few minutes to look up "current" wrt your usage Snit?
> Both statements are 100% accurate... I changed what was "real"...
In terms of your "current reality" *both* statements cannot possibly be
accurate Snit! do you really need me to explain why? perhaps after looking
up "current" you should examine the 3rd grade books that you enjoy
referencing so much, only try comprehending the text this time and don't get
so distracted by the colorful pictures!
> In any case, I will add Edward Stanfield to the list. I am sure there are
> many others I have left out that are well known to be Steve.
As sure as the "headers" hold the key Snit? LOL
Snit
...
> So we can forever remove "Edward Stanfield" from your list Snit? LOL
Updated list:
"Evil" John *
"Evil" Snit
Cornelius Munshower
CSMA Moderator
Edward Stanfield
Fretwiz *
Measles
Petruzzellis Kids
Sigmond
Smit
Steve Camoll *
Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> *
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> *
Steve Carroll <stevec...@nowhere.com> *
Steve Carrroll *
Steve Carrolll *
Steve C *
Yevette Owens
Which do you agree with? Which do you not?
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
--Albert Einstein
Snit
Once again you show your comprehension level is at, or below, a grade school
student's.
--
"For example, user interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software.
I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user
interface to a program is the most important part for a commercial
company..." Linus Torvalds <http://www.tlug.jp/docs/linus.html>
Steve Mackay
I questioned whether you had proof.
>
> Why are you asking for proof of something where the evidence is
> overwhelming?
I'm sorry Michael, you haven't provided any evidence, much less
"overwhelming" evidence. You provided "overwhelming" speculation. Just
as I predicted you'd do. Thank you for not letting me down.
>
> You are just playing your normal games. And now you will get all huffy and
> mad because I called you on your game and, above, predicted your behavior
> precisely.
I'm not playing any games. I asked for proof. You supplied speculation.
>
> Ready to get your one last dig and say I am not worth your time so you will
> KF me? I love it when you do that. Really... seems the only way you can
> stop yourself from lying.
Can you please point out where I lied? Or shall I just mark this one as
another unsubstantiated claim of yours?
Thank You.
Steve Mackay
Michael, can you please supply us with evidence that Steve Carroll used
all the above names(Besides those that aren't actually based on his name).
Something beyond your speculation.
Thank You.
P.S. We'll cross off "Edward Stanfield", since you have failed, after
multiple attempts, to supply an proof that it is actually Steve Carroll.
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C596583C.FA3F%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/15/09 11:29 PM:
>
I'm still wondering where the Snit that disliked snipping has got to! LOL
> ...
>> So we can forever remove "Edward Stanfield" from your list Snit? LOL
>
> Updated list:
>
> "Evil" John *
> "Evil" Snit
> Cornelius Munshower
> CSMA Moderator
> Edward Stanfield
> Fretwiz *
> Measles
> Petruzzellis Kids
> Sigmond
> Smit
> Steve Camoll *
> Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> *
> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> *
> Steve Carroll <stevec...@nowhere.com> *
> Steve Carrroll *
> Steve Carrolll *
> Steve C *
> Yevette Owens
>
> Which do you agree with? Which do you not?
I have only looked at headers for "Edward Stanfield" and I looked at those
because proof could according to you be found there, alas I was unable to
see any connection to Steve Carroll at all, so I clearly cannot agree to
that name!
So before any more time is wasted on the other names that you have supplied
can you explain exactly what it was about *those* headers that I missed
Snit?
I doubt you will, but I am most eager to give you the opportunity!
Snit
You have shown you clearly believe the very thing you are whining I should
prove to you. You are simply not being honest.
--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
Snit
> On 16/1/09 2:40 PM, in article C5956BCD.EAB5E%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
Your comprehension level is at a grade school level. At best.
Really.
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
Steve Mackay
I apologize for my above typographical error. It should have been
(Besides those that ARE actually based on his name).
Snit
Aha. Ok, you previously showed you agreed with Edward Stanfield, now you
acknowledge the ones "based on his name".. so the list you accept is:
Edward Stanfield
Steve Camoll *
Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> *
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> *
Steve Carroll <stevec...@nowhere.com> *
Steve Carrroll *
Steve Carrolll *
Steve C *
Would an admission from Steve, using his "standard name" convince you of
others?
--
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/f351
Snit
So which *do* you agree with? Once you share that I can help you look at
the headers... something you have admitted failed you as you looked for
evidence.
...
--
The fact that OS X is growing and Linux isn't, tells you that OS X is
offering things that Linux is not.
Snit
I assumed as such in my reply. No harm done.
--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
"showed" ... How? I must have missed that post!
> now you
> acknowledge the ones "based on his name".. so the list you accept is:
>
> Edward Stanfield
> Steve Camoll *
> Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> *
> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> *
> Steve Carroll <stevec...@nowhere.com> *
> Steve Carrroll *
> Steve Carrolll *
> Steve C *
>
> Would an admission from Steve, using his "standard name" convince you of
> others?
You appear to have forgotten to include any evidence Snit! an oversight
perhaps? :-)
Snit
>> Aha. Ok, you previously showed you agreed with Edward Stanfield,
>
> "showed" ... How? I must have missed that post!
>
>> now you
>> acknowledge the ones "based on his name".. so the list you accept is:
>>
>> Edward Stanfield
>> Steve Camoll *
>> Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> *
>> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> *
>> Steve Carroll <stevec...@nowhere.com> *
>> Steve Carrroll *
>> Steve Carrolll *
>> Steve C *
>>
>> Would an admission from Steve, using his "standard name" convince you of
>> others?
>
> You appear to have forgotten to include any evidence Snit! an oversight
> perhaps? :-)
Wally: seriously, learn to read and comprehend things on at least a third
grade level. You are just repeatedly showing you cannot do so.
--
"Uh... ask me after we ship the next version of Windows [laughs] then I'll
be more open to give you a blunt answer." - Bill Gates
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/gates/>
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Why would I want to look at headers concerning names that I agree with Snit?
I just want you to explain about the *one* name that I have so far stated
that I cannot agree with!
> something you have admitted failed you as you looked for evidence.
As usual you are being muddle headed Snit, I never failed to "look at
headers", I failed to find what you claimed was contained there! A simple
remedy would be for you to explain exactly what there was to find ... But
you refuse to do so!
Steve Mackay
>>
>>
>> Thank You.
>>
>>
>> P.S. We'll cross off "Edward Stanfield", since you have failed, after
>> multiple attempts, to supply an proof that it is actually Steve
>> Carroll.
I've restored the rest of my message, that somehow got deleted in your
reply. As it obviously pertains to your statement below. You must have a
problem with your usenet client, since someone who claims to be honest
and honorable, wouldn't do "creative snipping".
> Aha. Ok, you previously showed you agreed with Edward Stanfield, now you
> acknowledge the ones "based on his name".. so the list you accept is:
Michael, I haven't agreed upon, or to anything. Maybe you didn't see the
snipped content that I previously posted. So, we'll just cross Edward
Stanfield off the list, since you failed to provide any proof that it is
Steve Carroll.
>
> Edward Stanfield
> Steve Camoll *
> Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> *
> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> *
> Steve Carroll <stevec...@nowhere.com> *
> Steve Carrroll *
> Steve Carrolll *
> Steve C *
>
> Would an admission from Steve, using his "standard name" convince you of
> others?
Just provide proof, beyond your speculation, that the names NOT based
upon Steve Carrolls name are truly him. Those names would be:
"Evil" John *
"Evil" Snit
Cornelius Munshower
CSMA Moderator
Edward Stanfield
Fretwiz *
Measles
Petruzzellis Kids
Sigmond
Smit
Yevette Owens
Snit
For crying out loud, Wally... learn to read. Seriously, get someone to help
you pass third grade comprehension levels.
--
But if you are somebody who is not too concerned about price, who is not too
concerned about freedom, I don't think we can say the Linux desktop offers
the very best experience.
High Plains Thumper
> Snit wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>> So we can forever remove "Edward Stanfield" from your list
>>> Snit? LOL
>>
>> Updated list:
>>
>> "Evil" John * "Evil" Snit Cornelius Munshower CSMA Moderator
>> Edward Stanfield Fretwiz * Measles Petruzzellis Kids
>> Sigmond Smit Steve Camoll * Steve Carroll
>> <troll...@TK.com> * Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> *
>> Steve Carroll <stevec...@nowhere.com> * Steve Carrroll *
>> Steve Carrolll * Steve C * Yevette Owens
>>
>> Which do you agree with? Which do you not?
>
> Michael, can you please supply us with evidence that Steve
> Carroll used all the above names(Besides those that aren't
> actually based on his name). Something beyond your
> speculation. Thank You.
>
> P.S. We'll cross off "Edward Stanfield", since you have
> failed, after multiple attempts, to supply an proof that it is
> actually Steve Carroll.
The answer is simple. We are all sock puppets of Steve Carroll! :-)
According to Snit, these 121 poster quotes on the Michael Glasser
Snit Circus of pathologial lies are Steve Carroll socks, LOL!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/d3e6fa7980bb2472
1- Adam Kesher: "Steve, IIRC Sandman's website has a member area
and a login. If you forget your password, you can ask it to
e-mail it to you, and a bot will send an e-mail.
*That* is the e-mail Snit got from Sandman's website, and yes
he's that fucked in the head and starved for attention that he'd
claim it to be an e-mail from Sandman himself. So, don't get
sucked into his little circus.
The e-mail, in this particular instance, did probably originate
from Sandman.net."
2- Alan Baker: "People's perceptions of you are *formed* by
behaviour and not withstanding your occasional on topic posts, I
wish you'd leave too. Please note that despite the amazing
silliness that is Edwin, I have never made the same wish of him."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/4a7c3ebf3fc10221
3- Andrew J. Brehm: "You are not flamed because you speak the
truth, you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep
disrupting the newsgroup."
4- AZ Nomad: "The fact that you routinely change your headers to
weasel out of killfiles proves that you're an asshole."
5- Andy/news/nospam: "Why do you keep these things up, Snit? Why
not just let them go away and show how responsible a member of
CSMA you are? You could show your enemies up by being better than
then, rise above the low level you so obviously dislike.
Anything, just stop...."
6- B.B.: "Does the From: header contain the string "Snit"? If
yes, then troll. Otherwise, maybe. Dunno why I had my KF on you
set to expire, but it's fixed now."
7- bobinnv: "I learned some time ago how much better this group
can be if you kill file Snit. I have never understood why more
people don't do the same.."
8- Bob S: "This has always been pretty much a free-for-all group,
but since Snit showed up, its become almost impossible to have a
decent discussion about anything.
The solution is to NOT REPLY TO SNIT. But for some reason, some
people just can't stop feeding him."
9- [b]unny: "snit makes me sad."
10- buzz off: "Snit is obviously mentally ill..."
11- chrisv (cola): "No, she called him "shit", and rightly so,
for they way he was so ignominiously birthed into a toilet at the
bus depot, and simply refused to die, despite repeated flushes.
It's now far too late to *flush* him, but we can still *plonk*
him..."
12- C Lund: "Snit is not my responsibility. Maybe it's time for
you to learn how to use your kill-filter. I am assuming, of
course, that your Usenet browser has a kill-filter."
13- Code Orange: "Then why post it? What need is there for you to
"win" an argument? They don't like you, you don't like them. Why
must you keep this up? What results are you expecting?"
14- Dawg Tail: "You've already apologized for having already
misread what I had previously written. What makes you think that
you're correctly understanding what I'm writting now. You've got
a history of reading into things what you wanted people to have
said instead of what they really said.
I suggest you get over this limitation of yours. It's making you
look foolish."
Dawg Tail: "PC advocates, Mac advocates, Linux advocates. Almost
all of them are making similar claims about Snit. When you have
so many diverse people who share a common perception where do you
think the problem lies? With Snit? Or almost everyone else? The
answer doesn't require an advanced degree to figure out."
15- Dave Fritzinger: "Snit, please go away. Get a life, meet a
woman, do something, but please, please, please, GO AWAY!!!!"
16- Donald L McDaniel: "Jesus, snit. You're a teacher. I thought
you knew what a metaphor was, and could recognize one when it was
presented to you. I guess I had too much confidence in you."
17- ed: "snit, you continually amaze me with how much of a liar
and loser you are. you may notice a semi-regular pattern with me
where i stop responding to your posts for stretches at a time,
then start up responding as if you were a normal person. i
suppose it's tough for the magnitude of your 'loserdom' to stick,
so it loses some of it's sharpness when i stop responding to you.
you almost always start responding back in a semi normal way, but
inevitably degenerate. it's once again that time. i can only ask
that you pass my condolences to your wife and unborn child for
having to put up with such a dishonest fool as yourself. (well,
if your wife is a loser as well, just pass those condolences to
the rug-rat to be; if not, double condolences to her). "
18- Edwin: "You've got to be out of your mind, Snit. You're the
worst troll this group has ever seen. You're a liar and a forger,
and you've almost destroyed this group single-handedly. For you
to post a list of out of context arguments, and lies, and
forgeries about your enemies labled as a "peace effort" has to be
one of the craziest stunts you've pulled. It's all about your
sick need for attention, your need to be center stage at all
times. You'd publicly eat dog turd if you thought it would make
people look at you."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/37e4a720619642a0
19- Elijah Baley: "Seriously, Snit, you need psychiatric help. Go
see a doctor."
20- Elizabot v2.0.2: "I see you were unable to respond to the
points in my post and you are back to your repetitious
regurgitation mode. How childishly typical of you, Snit."
21- fibercut: "That is the problem. In the years I have been
coming to CSMA I have seen in the past year a real hatred among
people, besides the typical Mac vs. Windows typical argument. I
feel that it is like being in a room of really young children
trying there best to best the other person. The one common thing
among all of this seems to be you. I hate to be like this, but
facts are facts. You seem to be in the middle of a great
percentage of arguments. CSMA has become less about Macs and more
about "look everybody, I think he lied". Is there no end then all
this picking at each other on such a personal level. CSMA has
always been al little adversarial but you have personally crank
it up to the point that this place is no longer fun.
Congratulations on stopping CSMA and making this place your own
personal circus."
22- George Graves: "Jason. You have started an argument with the
Snit (AKA Michael Glasser), this should not be done. He will
drive you crazy with his twisted logic, his deep-rooted need to
be ALWAYS right at any cost. He will move goalposts, set up
strawmen, and bore you into submission with his endless
pedanticism. The only way to engage him is to hit and run. NEVER
engage him, it's a futile, empty procedure that will only anger
you and feed him. Take my advice and STAY AWAY!"
23- gimme_this_gimme_t...@yahoo.com: "Hitting the vodka tonight
Snit?"
24- Greycloud: "You really shouldn't lie like that. Everyone else
notices that you are not honest and you have no honor."
25- Henry Flam: "Who gives a damn about this shit? Snit, once in
a while, I make the mistake in thinking that that you are
starting to make sense in your posts; I tend to agree with your
politics. Then you post stuff like this and it destroys any
respect that I have for you."
26- Heywood Mogroot: "*plonk*"
27- Jamie Hart (cola): "It seems that since you are unable to
offer support for your statements, you're reduced to personal
attacks on me. Incidentally, anyone reading this post can see
that I have offered no straw men, and have only asked you to
explain how the things you state as facts can be true. I'm really
sorry that you're taking this attitude, the topic is an
interesting one and I thought you might have some insights. I've
snipped the rest, since you dislike long posts and avoid
answering any of the questions I asked by saying everything was
just repeated. "
28- Jason McNorton: "You're one of the many, many paranoid people
on usenet that should be confined most likely. You sit there and
refresh your screen endlessly. You post the same nonsense over
and over. Either you're a super troll, or you're a super mess."
29- JEDIDIAH (cola): "You're simply full of shit."
30- Jeff B.: "Yo, Snit. We're not pals. I think you're a git."
31- Jeff Hoppe: "This is a Macintosh Advocacy newsgroup. Not a
12-step recovery plan. Your medical problems or conditions won't
help me achieve a greater understanding of my Mac. In fact, it
detracts from it and those kinds of discussions have no place in
a newsgroup such as this."
32- Jesus: "Really, Snit. It's annoying. What are you
accomplishing besides being annoying? Is that your goal?"
33- Jim Lee Jr.: "Snit, read the thread's title, is Bush
mentioned in it? You (and Carroll) ought to learn to stay on
topic and not hijack threads."
34- Jim Polaski: "Why is it that nearly every thread you're
involved in seems like it turns into some tit-for-tat, dozens of
responses to OT things and garbage?"
35- Jim Richardson (cola): "And yet again, Snit runs away, rather
than actually provide evidence for his claims. Par for the course
I suppose."
36- Joey Jojo Junior Shabadoo: "and Snithead has even farther to
fall - in a few weeks he'll be out on the street after midnight,
yelling at passersby 'sucky sucky, $2...'"
37- John C. Randolph: "You're nothing but a troll yourself. What
are you bitching about?"
38- JohnOfArc (cola): "I'm not sure "troll" does it justice- more
like a black hole! But hey, if we all promise to never again even
entertain an unkind thought re Apple, will you take it back and
lock it up? Please??"
39- John Q. Public: "I have not been bothered to read Snit's
postings since I figured out who he is. I don't bother to filter
his posts, I just consider the source and skip to the next one
when I see his name."
40- John Slade: "I don't get posts from Snit. I wouldn't be
shocked that he has some kind of disorder. He made up stuff about
being a computer repairman and teacher. He's just plain loony and
best ignored. Let him deal with his disorder by medication. He's
here to do one thing, get attention from people. He says the
crazy stuff just to get a reaction.
You say you like to beat him over the head. Well that's what he's
counting on, he says stuff he knows isn't true in hopes to get a
rise out of people like you. Ignore him, you won't regret it."
John Slade: "Snit, you have a enough problems as it is without
adding drinking booze to the list. How the hell did you manage to
get out of my killfile? Oh well back into the cage you go, PLONK."
41- Josh McKee: "Snit, I assume there was some point to this
posting? Because I certainly cannot find it."
42- K E: "I haven't read this board for awhile but I see that
even though the trolls still roam free at least the worst troll
of the lot is mostly being ignored by readers on this bb. If the
few stragglers that keep replying to him would just stop
responding to Snit at all this place could be worth coming back
to. There's a good chance he'll pack up and take his trolling to
more fertile ground."
43- Kelsey Bjarnason (cola): "Funny how you simply don't bother
reading the posts that rip your entire thesis to bleeding gobbets
of putrid excrescence. Maybe some day you'll learn how to support
your position, instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and
humming, hoping it'll all go away."
44- Ku Karlovsky (cola): "You repeatedly chastise others for ad
hominem attacks while in the same sentence make your own ad
hominem attacks.You make silly claims and then avoid the subject
of your silliness. You're a liar and a hypocrite and you always
have been."
45- Lars Trager: "Yes, you are stupid."
46- Lefty Bigfoot: "Okay, I tried to put up with it for a long
time, but the few times you post something worth reading just
aren't worth it anymore. *plonk*"
47- Liam Slider (cola): "Maybe he's responding to the fact you've
been an annoying little fuckwit lately. You started out with the
pretense of trying to be fair, but lately all there is from you
in COLA is trashtalk about Linux and you acting every bit the troll."
48- Linonut (cola): "Snit is a Tholenoid."
"Indeed. Snit may be the first retraction of my general killfile
amnesty. The volume of cavilling, whining, foot-stomping,
back-tracking, goal-post shifting, and petulance generated by
that effete candy-ass beggars belief".
49- Lloyd Parsons: "Well, I don't know if Oxford is the most
cretinous, I would think that would be reserved for Snit! ;-)"
50- Mark Kent (cola): "The problem with someone like Mr Glasser
is the same as it is with Mr Wong, even if he were to be honest
now, it would be impossible to determine where the honesty starts
and the usual dishonesty ends. In my primary school, one of the
teachers was very keen on proverbs, and I recall her going over
the "cry wolf" story. Mr Glasser could "cry wolf" over and over
now, and I would not come to help him with his sheep, because I
do not know any way of determining if he's ever telling the
truth, or indeed, if he ever has."
51- Mayor of R'lyeh: "The fact is that he's probably pulling it
to this post since its all about him and he managed to make me
think about him today. A friend of mine has a toddler. I went
over to her house and videotaped her kid doing a bunch of cute
toddler stuff then burned a DVD of it for her. While we were
watching the DVD her kid got mad. He got mad because we quit
making him the center of attention and made that kid on the tv
the center of attention. He even ran up to the tv and tried to
block our view of it. That's how Snit lives his whole life."
52- Michelle Ronn: "The real topic here is that one someone
refutes your "facts", you run away and ignore them. Refuting your
"facts" is easily done in this case. I did it, and you ignored it. "
53- Mike: "Nonsense. I never see you "advocate" anything. All I
see you doing is engage in endless semantic arguments with
everyone. You're the TholenBot of CSMA. BTW, that's *not* a
compliment!"
54- Mike Dee: "I will no longer accuse you of lying here. Instead
I can only say that you are a complete and delusional kook that
happens to inhabit CSMA for the time being. That you are unaware
of how deranged you actually behave further reinforces this
notion. Please seek professional help."
55- mmoore321: "Snit is a human car-accident and we are all
rubbernecking. We know it is bad form, but yet strangely curious.
Treat him the same way, look but just keep moving on."
56- Mojo: "Actually, these facts piss everybody off because they
are off-topic, unnecessarily confrontational, extremely boring
and clearly show that you are crying out for attention."
57- Mr. Blonde: "Lastly, I can't help but comment on the fact
that your obsession with Sandman has actually grown since you
claimed to KF him. Killfilling someone generally implies you're
ignoring that person, yet you piggyback onto virtually every
reply to him here and and check his website's validation status
more often than most people check their e-mail. These are not the
actions of a mentally balanced individual."
58- MR_ED_of_Course: "Seriously, spend half a day at any
pre-school or kindergarten and see if the kids there can't teach
you a thing or two about social behavior."
59- Muahman: "Ummm, dude you post 1000 posts a day. 999 of them
are trolls, if anyone here has issues it's not me."
60- Nashton/Nasht0n: "Oh for crying out loud, if I wasn't
convinced that snit is a total loser, and I rarely call people
losers, I certainly am now. Why bother responding to his
stupidities anyway?"
61- New Bee: "Honest and honorable? You? You've either got a wry
sense of humor, or you're completely nuts. Either way you're just
a waste of time, and you've done more than anybody to make this
group a cesspool. Then you revel in wallowing in your own filth."
62- Not Important: "I get this mental image of you and a sibling
as children in the back seat of the family car saying:
Mom, 'snits' touching me ... and you responding much as you do
now ... I'm not touching you, you're touching me! The problem is
that by now you should've grown out of that type of poke and
complain interaction with others. But, of course, you've haven't
learned how to interact with others in a more 'constructive' and
mutually beneficial manner even now."
63- OldCSMAer: "What's he been doing? Am I going to be sorry I
killfiled him?"
64- OldSage: "What drives me nuts is your unrelenting ability and
desire to argue on the head of a pin about the most trivial of
things."
65- Oxford: "If you are using MT-Newswatcher:
Select offending Author, example Snit...
Go to the Filters Menu, Choose "Kill this Author"
Click "OK"
Then Repeat with each annoying Author of your choice.
Then to see your work...
Choose the Filter Menu again,
Then "Refilter Articles"...
Bam! No more boring, pointless bickering about nothing.
Enjoy!!!!!"
66- Patrick Nihill: "I mean, honestly, who would you rather
discuss something with; Dan, or someone like Zara? Or, for that
matter, Snit, for whom the work 'troll' seems so painfully
inadequate?"
67- Pawel Wojciak: "Jesus Christ, snit... <plonk> "
68- PC Guy: "Forget it Snit, you're a waste of time. For someone
who talks about everyone else not being "honest and honorable"
you appear to be the least honest and honorable of anyone here."
69- Peter: "I've never felt the need to use the filters in
Newswatcher but I thought Id try the Kill this Author.. option
with Snit. Ten seconds later and he's gone! Amazing."
70- Peter Bjorn Perlso: "Plonked for 60 days. Now stfu and take
your argument with sandman into the private room."
71- Peter Hayes: "True, but that removes Snit completely, and
someti... err..... occasiona.... errrrr..... once in a blue moon
he has something useful to say."
72- Peter Jensen (cola): "Where has he ever said that they were
not different windowing environments? Message-ID, please.
Experience has told me not to trust you on anything without
backing evidence."
73- Peter Kohlmann (cola): "Snot is a hideous troll. Nobody is as
dishonest as that piece of unadultered garbage. There are csma
posters even more stupid than Snot. Oxford comes to mind. There
are certainly other csma posters who lie nearly as much. But no
others are so intent on trolling in whatever way possible as Snot"
74- Phil Earnhardt: "You're only interested in trying to get
superficial snipes and extrapolate inappropriate conclusions."
75- Rapskat (cola): "For instance, your sig you reference a long
standing war you have going with some person from csma. It's like
you single out persons to target your attentions upon and then
continuously berate them with constant barbs and goads to
perpetuate their acrimonious responses, which in turn you respond
in kind, etc. ad infinitum. Above all things, your affinity for
Macs and your overbearing pompous nature aside, this is what
convinces me that your primary purpose for frequenting this and
other groups is to troll."
76- RichardK: "Just killfile him already."
77- Rick (cola): "Snit, you are a liar. And an ignorant one. You
trash people that are trying their level best to cope with a
horrendous situation. And you do it without the slightest idea of
what is going on."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/fcad2955ac5cb03b
78- Rick G.: "Just to be plain here, I have no doubt that he is a
troll. I am tolerant of his nature, not blind to it. However, as
a troll, he is ... somewhat clumsy."
79- Robert F.: "Um, perhaps you misunderstand. I don't care if
you quote Mayor McCheese claiming the Earth is a flat plate
perched on the shell of a tortoise, I was merely pointing out
that you run the risk of looking ridiculous when you quote
something patently stupid. If that's your goal, you're on the
right track, and more power to you."
80- Roy Culley (cola): "You appear to be in the latter category.
Starting crossposted threads for the simple purpose of hoping to
generate a flame war. If you truly want to learn more about Linux
and how it can help you and your supposed users why aren't you
requesting help from a more technical Linux newsgroup than an
advocacy group? As the old saying goes, those who can do, those
who can't teach. Your posts seem to confirm that saying IMHO."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/d521a80051e24d08
81- Sandman: "He is by far the most killfiled person in the
-HISTORY- of csma. I've never seen someone so disliked, almost
hated, in a news group before. He has the ability to turn just
about any person against him in just a few posts. On usenet,
trolls do this daily, but the funny part with Michael is that I
actually think he DOESN'T consider himself be a troll - damn what
-EVERYONE ELSE- is calling him. Obviously they are wrong. Only
Tholen himself can match this behaviour."
82- sav: "You really need to take a rest somewhere nice.
Honestly, even the nutters who hang out down on Brighton seafront
made more sense than this. You been doing drugs or something?"
83- Sean Burke: If you're dumb enough to respond to snit, you're
probably dumb enough to click on a spam attachment that promises
to remove smut from your harddrive."
84- ShutterBugz: "so snit-zel has some kind of problem expressing
anger, i guess. he has to vent his frustrations in other ways.
and he thinks he's making sense: well the syntax is there and he
figures he's pretty smart. indeed, he tells us, he's done the
personality tests and the iq tests and he's okay! aaaaahhhhh, you
see he's soooooooo well adjusted."
85- Steve Carroll: "The only things we are sure about Snit is
that he has:
* a monumental reading comprehension problem.
* nym-shifted numerous times to avoid kill-files.
* built too many straw-men to count... some, the size of small
cities.
* been labeled a disingenuous liar/troll(or worse) by the vast
majority.
* used numerous sock-puppets and admitted to it.
* stolen IDs and admitted to it.
* gotten booted off by ISPs for his behavior.
* twisted more context than all csma posters combined.
* made more unsupported accusations than all csma posters combined.
* virtually no life outside of csma."
86- Steve Mackay: "Just killfile Snit, the dishonest piece of
elephant dung, and all would go away. Sure, I got caught up in
the "Snit Circus", but then the cotton candy began to sour, and
CSMA begun to smell like elephant dung."
87- Steven de Mena: "Sorry, you have now lost all credibility with me
for your rediculous argument regarding this."
88- Steve Travis: "Oh oh... Now look what we've done. Snit has
lost all self respect and has sunk to the point of using words
like 'asses' when referring to others. Oh, how could the morally
superior snit have fallen so low.. Please take a moment out of
your busy schedule to feel embarassed for him. Or perhaps we
should set up a fund to get him more happy glue (and the
appropriate plastic bags)."
89- Stuart Krivis: "You might as well just give up and plonk him
then. A snit is a snit is a snit and always will be."
90- TheLetterK: "That is merely your perception, Shit. You're the
one lacking counter evidence, and your arguments basically amount
to "I'm right, nya nya nya." No matter how many examples someone
points at to demonstrate their claim, you blindly continue to
insist that they provide no evidence, or that the evidence given
is irrelevant. Worse still, you fall back on straw men and
disingenuous quote mangling to portray the argument in your
favor. You are one of the worst trolls that inhabit CSMA, Shit.
*Edwin* is more prone to fits of reason than you are. "
91-Tim Adams: "I'd kill file you but then I'd miss the fun. you
see, you never cease to amaze me at just how stupid you really
are. Why just the other day I had a great laugh when I saw you,
the king of liars (in this NG anyway) calling somebody else a liar."
92- Tim Crowley: "I don't know - I think you might have more
compassion. Snit is sick. He needs help. This is the only way the
poor sick fool can get attention. My fucking God, he's taken to
hanging out with and supporting racist pig fuckers like MuahMuah.
It is true that no-one likes him and those that pretend they do
are just using him or don't know him - but come on- it's not his
fault. He's sick. Have some compassion, eh? All these idiot
trolls, Zara, Stew, Tommy, MuaaaahMuaaah, and Snit - they are all
so alike. I pity each and every one of them"
93- Tim Smith: "No, he didn't, and there is no reasonable way you
could actually believe he lied. You are purely trying to troll here."
94- Timberwoof: "*Plonk!*"
95- Tom Bates: "Do you have to turn any thread you post in into
one of your Circus acts?"
96- Tommy: "In case you did not get it, I think the moral was:
Stop polluting the world with your infantile and obsessive
"writings". You give Mac advocacy a bad name. If that was your
goal you have succeeded! That also goes for all that bullshit on
your website"
97- TravelinMan: "I still can't figure out what's wrong with
Snit. Most people have him kill-filed and the few who don't
mostly restrict their responses to 'why don't you go away, no one
wants you here'. Just what would keep someone in this group with
all of that animosity? Must be some kind of severe mental illness."
98- Wally: "Because by your own admission "honor and honesty" are
nothing more than a "game" to you, as such not only do you wish
to define the rules, but no doubt you will also attempt to alter
or bend the rules when inevitably things do not go to your
liking, for this reason I doubt anyone would be foolish enough to
play your game."
99- William R. Walsh: "Now, if you'll excuse me, and accept my
sincere apologies for this, PLONK! Feel proud about that. You're
the first person to be plonked from my new computer! :-) "
100- Woofbert: "*Plonk*"
101- zara: "Look - I'm not into combing through thousands of
posts, to prove what was said or not said - I leave stuff like
that to people without lives, like Snit. But it is assuredly, in
the record. Ping Snit to do a search - you will flatter him, and
give meaning to his tawdry little life."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/a1d4fc7120a6a538
102- Znu: "I think your 'I'll go start a new thread to try to
draw more people into the debate I'm currently having with
Steve/Elizabot/etc' tactic is fairly trollish."
103- High Plains Thumper: "I can understand why posters get sick
and tired of your lame ad hominem attacks, your cowardly
statements shifting the goal posts, your continuous rambling
drivel of how everyone seems to be against you. No one cares a
wooden nickel about your incessant flames wars that are self
created. You pretend to be an advocate but you manage to cause
everyone's hand to be against you." 06 Jan 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/b27ba196819ad38f
104- Geoff M. Fitton: "The Prescott Computer Guy *still* showing
how stupid he is... What a mar00n".
105- William Poaster: "Good grief. If anyone's having a mental
breakdown it's the Prescott Computer Guy, Michael Snit Glasser.
What a f#cked up mess he is'.
106- Tattoo Vampire: "In other words, in another attempt to
troll, you made yourself look like a fool. Again".
107- Mr. Blonde: "Lastly, I can't help but comment on the fact
that your obsession with Sandman has actually grown since you
claimed to KF him. Killfilling someone generally implies you're
ignoring that person, yet you piggyback onto virtually every
reply to him here and and check his website's validation status
more often than most people check their e-mail. These are not the
actions of a mentally balanced individual".
108- CozmicDebris: "I'm done with your three year old games. The
archives show my answers and your inability to process them. Keep
posting your list and proving that you are an idiot troll. I will
not address it any further- you being too stupid to realize and
accept that is not my problem".
109- WhoMe: "F michael IS a teacher, it's no wonder he's home
more than he's anywhere near a classroom".
110- spike1: "The thought is probably to show everyone here just
how bad a troll snit is".
111- Carlo Coggi: "He must believe he is surrounded by 'trolls'
... in the groups he trolls in, that is. I wondered if the
idiotrollers like snit would reply to this thread. Of course, I
didn't see his posts, only your reply".
112- bobinv: "I learned some time ago how much better this group
can be if you kill file Snit. I have never understood why more
people don't do the same".
113- Zaren Ankleweed: "And with that, Snit goes in the global
killfile. No subject, no author, no nothing. Buh-bye".
114- H: "Your crappy posts are still showing up in seperate
threads, are you doing this on purpose to piss people off? I dont
ever censor people cause that's just retarded but if you dont fix
it I'm gonna have to cause I dont wanna see your
name 40 times in a row. So uh, change your client or something".
115- PeterBP: "Oh will you stfu".
116- S'mee (Keith, rec.motorcycles): "Liar...forger and
worthless. You must be related to our resident racist troll, he
lies as much as you."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/ab08c00330c8b58d
117- BaJoRi:
Snit: "You are, of course, lying."
BaJoRi: "No, I am not. You know it, and I know it, and everyone
else who has read your idiocy knows it. I took your statement,
showed it to be wrong, then added even more, just to be a dick
and REALLY show you to be a fool. You need to judiciously snip
out pertinent points because you are an intellectually dwarfed
turd-burglar."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.vacation.las-vegas/msg/647944511b74b82f
118- KK: 'Whoa there, ad hominem man. You started off your
sentence with "Ah" like you'd just realized something profound.'
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.howard-stern/msg/6a89029a5b5be5f8
119- -hh: 'Perversion has utterly nothing to do with the
definition of "synonymous". It is, however, a very clear example
of how you attempt to maliciously debase against anyone who
disagrees with you. As such, I consider this to be a purposeful
attempt by you to try to libel me. This is your only warning to
consider rescinding your remark, with the reminder that you, and
you alone are responsible for that accusation, both in the
ethical as well as the full legal meaning of the word "responsible".'
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/5496641a3426293a
120- Geezer:
Snit: "Steve Carroll has no sense of morality"
Geezer: "Whined the guy who cannot directly address those who
uncover his lies and deceit;)"
Snit: "and no clue about the law."
Geezer: 'Said the guy who believes his unsupported opinions are
"proof". LOL! (snip more of Snit's unsupported lies)'
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/d0517ced5134934d
121- RonB: "Snit is a crank fixated on one issue, who's thing is
twisting your words so he can win an argument against a straw
man. That's enough to killfile him."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/ce8550d4cc5b1b42
--
HPT
Quando omni flunkus moritati
(If all else fails, play dead)
- "Red" Green
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Well, why would I?
>> I just want you to explain about the *one* name that I have so far stated
>> that I cannot agree with!
And you still refuse to disclose the information that you claim to have
found in the "headers"! Gee Snit! I wonder why that would be? LOL
>>> something you have admitted failed you as you looked for evidence.
>>
>> As usual you are being muddle headed Snit, I never failed to "look at
>> headers", I failed to find what you claimed was contained there! A simple
>> remedy would be for you to explain exactly what there was to find ... But
>> you refuse to do so!
>
> For crying out loud, Wally... learn to read.
How about you write what you actually mean to say Snit?
"I can help you look at the headers...something you have admitted failed you
as you looked for evidence."-Snit
As I said...
"I never failed to "look at headers", I failed to find what you claimed was
contained there!"-Wally
It must be very frustrating for you to continually be shown that you are
incapable of writing what you actually mean to say Snit, but really
..There's no need for you to cry out loud about it! Just try a little bit
harder!
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C5966879.FA85%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/16/09 12:38 AM:
>
>>> Aha. Ok, you previously showed you agreed with Edward Stanfield,
>>
>> "showed" ... How? I must have missed that post!
Something else that you're unable to explain! you're not doing at all well
are you Snit? LOL
Peter Köhlmann
> Steve Mackay wrote:
>> Snit wrote:
>>> Wally stated:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>> So we can forever remove "Edward Stanfield" from your list
>>>> Snit? LOL
>>>
>>> Updated list:
>>>
>>> "Evil" John * "Evil" Snit Cornelius Munshower CSMA Moderator
>>> Edward Stanfield Fretwiz * Measles Petruzzellis Kids
>>> Sigmond Smit Steve Camoll * Steve Carroll
>>> <troll...@TK.com> * Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> *
>>> Steve Carroll <stevec...@nowhere.com> * Steve Carrroll *
>>> Steve Carrolll * Steve C * Yevette Owens
>>>
>>> Which do you agree with? Which do you not?
Typical Snot Michael Glasser technique: Avoid answering the question at all
cost, try to insert irrelevant data and (probably) start stating that
someone "agrees with (insert randam idiocy)"
>> Michael, can you please supply us with evidence that Steve
>> Carroll used all the above names(Besides those that aren't
>> actually based on his name). Something beyond your
>> speculation. Thank You.
>>
>> P.S. We'll cross off "Edward Stanfield", since you have
>> failed, after multiple attempts, to supply an proof that it is
>> actually Steve Carroll.
So typical of Michael Glasser.
Next week he will start with stating that he (once again, naturally) proved
(beyond doubt, no less) that his claims are true. And he will naturally
tell us how he "always proves his claims" while others, who actually
provide proof, "never do and run"
< snip list of people posting about that lying Michael Glasser cretin >
--
Your conscience never stops you from doing anything. It just stops you
from enjoying it.
Snit
...
>> Aha. Ok, you previously showed you agreed with Edward Stanfield, now you
>> acknowledge the ones "based on his name".. so the list you accept is:
...
>>
>> Edward Stanfield
>> Steve Camoll *
>> Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> *
>> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> *
>> Steve Carroll <stevec...@nowhere.com> *
>> Steve Carrroll *
>> Steve Carrolll *
>> Steve C *
>>
>> Would an admission from Steve, using his "standard name" convince you of
>> others?
>
> Just provide proof, beyond your speculation, that the names NOT based
> upon Steve Carrolls name are truly him.
You will not even say if a direct admission from Steve is an acceptable form
of proof for you.
And you are not back to denying what you showed you agreed with before...
namely that Steve Carroll uses the name Edward Stanfield.
Your games are getting boring.
--
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?
Tim Adams
Steve Mackay <mackay...@att.net> wrote:
> Snit wrote:
> > "Steve Mackay" <mackay...@att.net> stated in post
> > 8RTbl.17867$Ws1....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com on 1/15/09 9:14 PM:
> >
> > ...
> >>> Check the thread.
> >> Yup. Already did. Still, without a HUGE leap of faith, or your wishful
> >> thinking, doesn't tie this Steve.
> >>
> >>> And past info.
> >> And?
> >>
> >>> Seriously, do you have any doubt that
> >>> Edward Stanfield is one of Carroll's many names?
> >>
> >> Many names? He's admitted to a few, none of which have been actual "sock
> >> puppets".
> >
> > Incorrect.
> >
> >> Do you have some kind of actual proof?
> >
> > Which do you deny:
> >
> > "Evil" John *
> > "Evil" Snit
> > Cornelius Munshower
> > CSMA Moderator
> > Fretwiz *
> > Measles
> > Petruzzellis Kids
> > Sigmond
> > Smit
> > Steve Camoll *
> > Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> *
> > Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> *
> > Steve Carroll <stevec...@nowhere.com> *
> > Steve Carrroll *
> > Steve Carrolll *
> > Steve C *
> > Yevette Owens
> >
> >
> >
> Curiously, you still haven't answered my question.
and if history is any example, he never will. I'd asked him man times to support
the first name on his list and the best he could come up with is 'Steve posted
the same day as "Evil" John did'.
--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
High Plains Thumper
> Steve Mackay wrote:
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Evil" John * "Evil" Snit Cornelius Munshower CSMA
>>> Moderator Fretwiz * Measles Petruzzellis Kids Sigmond Smit
>>> Steve Camoll * Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> * Steve
>>> Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> * Steve Carroll
>>> <stevec...@nowhere.com> * Steve Carrroll * Steve
>>> Carrolll * Steve C * Yevette Owens
>>
>> Curiously, you still haven't answered my question.
>
> and if history is any example, he never will. I'd asked him
> man times to support the first name on his list and the best
> he could come up with is 'Steve posted the same day as "Evil"
> John did'.
Even if one posts truth staring directly in the face, he will do
his selective snippages then post a denial diatribe intermingled
with ad hominem verbiage, openly accusing the poster of failing
to post truth, which shows he is only here to troll.
Most obvious was Snit nymshifting as Rhino Plastee, which he
vehemently denies, even though it was readily evident.
Don Zeigler
> Is this yet another example of what you said was your ability to change your
> "current reality" Snit?
I really think Michael Glasser is mentally unbalanced.
--
Lottery: a tax on people who are bad at math.
Regards,
[dmz]
Owner and proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC
Don Zeigler
> But neither of you are willing to do so. Neither of you really doubt that
> Edward Stanfield is yet another name your buddy Steve Carroll is using.
This is rich - someone who uses sock puppets complaining about someone using
sock puppets.
You need therapy, Snit. Please get it before you snap and kill either yourself
or others.
--
Smoking helps you lose weight -- one lung at a time.
Peter Köhlmann
> Snit wrote:
>
>> But neither of you are willing to do so. Neither of you really doubt
>> that Edward Stanfield is yet another name your buddy Steve Carroll is
>> using.
>
> This is rich - someone who uses sock puppets complaining about someone
> using sock puppets.
>
> You need therapy, Snit. Please get it before you snap and kill either
> yourself or others.
It is fairly sufficient if it is looked after that he kills nobody safe
himself.
--
"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend: and inside a dog,
it's too dark to read." -- Groucho Marx
Snit
gkpjjb$6ou$1...@news.albasani.net on 1/16/09 2:21 AM:
> Steve Mackay wrote:
>> Snit wrote:
>>> Wally stated:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>> So we can forever remove "Edward Stanfield" from your list
>>>> Snit? LOL
>>>
>>> Updated list:
>>>
>>> "Evil" John * "Evil" Snit Cornelius Munshower CSMA Moderator
>>> Edward Stanfield Fretwiz * Measles Petruzzellis Kids
>>> Sigmond Smit Steve Camoll * Steve Carroll
>>> <troll...@TK.com> * Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> *
>>> Steve Carroll <stevec...@nowhere.com> * Steve Carrroll *
>>> Steve Carrolll * Steve C * Yevette Owens
>>>
>>> Which do you agree with? Which do you not?
>>
>> Michael, can you please supply us with evidence that Steve
>> Carroll used all the above names(Besides those that aren't
>> actually based on his name). Something beyond your
>> speculation. Thank You.
>>
>> P.S. We'll cross off "Edward Stanfield", since you have
>> failed, after multiple attempts, to supply an proof that it is
>> actually Steve Carroll.
>
> The answer is simple. We are all sock puppets of Steve Carroll! :-)
You sure beg for my attention a lot.
--
One who makes no mistakes, never makes anything.
Snit
Come back when you can understand what you read. And write.
--
Do you ever wake up in a cold sweat wondering what the world would be
like if the Lamarckian view of evolution had ended up being accepted
over Darwin's?
Snit
497059af$0$31864$9b4e...@newsspool3.arcor-online.net on 1/16/09 2:55 AM:
You sure beg for my attention a lot.
--
I know how a jam jar feels...
... full of jam!
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-83394A.06...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net on
1/16/09 4:27 AM:
You sure beg for my attention a lot.
--
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments
that take our breath away.
Snit
You sure beg for my attention a lot.
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
Snit
20090116122902...@this.domain.or.that on 1/16/09 5:29 AM:
> Wally wrote:
>
>> Is this yet another example of what you said was your ability to change your
>> "current reality" Snit?
>
> I really think Michael Glasser is mentally unbalanced.
You sure beg for my attention a lot.
--
BU__SH__
Snit
> Don Zeigler wrote:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> But neither of you are willing to do so. Neither of you really doubt
>>> that Edward Stanfield is yet another name your buddy Steve Carroll is
>>> using.
>>
>> This is rich - someone who uses sock puppets complaining about someone
>> using sock puppets.
>>
>> You need therapy, Snit. Please get it before you snap and kill either
>> yourself or others.
>
> It is fairly sufficient if it is looked after that he kills nobody safe
> himself.
You sure beg for my attention a lot.
--
"In order to discover who you are, first learn who everybody else is. You're
what's left." - Skip Hansen
Don Zeigler
> Come back when you can understand what you read. And write.
Come back when you can post something other than "you sure beg for my
attention a lot" every time someone calls you out on your lunacy.
--
Proud member of PETA (People Enjoying Tasty Animals)
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Come back when you can understand what you read. And write.
>
> Come back when you can post something other than "you sure beg for my
> attention a lot" every time someone calls you out on your lunacy.
You sure beg for my attention a lot.
chrisv
>Wally wrote:
>
>> Is this yet another example of what you said was your ability to change your
>> "current reality" Snit?
>
>I really think Michael Glasser is mentally unbalanced.
You think?
Snit
k631n49496t4h3rhs...@4ax.com on 1/16/09 6:34 AM:
Unlikely that he really does.
--
... something I'm committed to work on, focusing increasing amounts of
resources of Canonical on figuring out on how we actually move the desktop
experience forward to compete with Mac OS X.
Steve Mackay
> "Steve Mackay" <mackay...@att.net> stated in post
> k2Xbl.10491$W06....@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com on 1/16/09 12:53 AM:
>
> ...
>>> Aha. Ok, you previously showed you agreed with Edward Stanfield, now you
>>> acknowledge the ones "based on his name".. so the list you accept is:
> ...
>>> Edward Stanfield
>>> Steve Camoll *
>>> Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> *
>>> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> *
>>> Steve Carroll <stevec...@nowhere.com> *
>>> Steve Carrroll *
>>> Steve Carrolll *
>>> Steve C *
>>>
>>> Would an admission from Steve, using his "standard name" convince you of
>>> others?
>> Just provide proof, beyond your speculation, that the names NOT based
>> upon Steve Carrolls name are truly him.
>
> You will not even say if a direct admission from Steve is an acceptable form
> of proof for you.
If he directly enters this thread and posts a direct admission, sure. Or
a google groups link that directly shows he has posted as such. No
speculations or leaps of faith.
>
> And you are not back to denying what you showed you agreed with before...
> namely that Steve Carroll uses the name Edward Stanfield.
>
> Your games are getting boring.
>
>
Snit, I've not agreed that Steve Carroll is Edward Stanfield. Please try
and keep up. And try and keep this honest. If you erroneously believe I
agreed with your speculation, and leap of faith that Steve posted as
Edward Stanfield, please supply me with a google groups link to the post.
Curiously, you've not answered my question about your list. You
certainly wouldn't be avoiding it, would you?
Steve Mackay
>>>
>>>>> Gee, If you knew that "Edward Stanfield" used the same Usenet software and
>>>>> the same Usenet service and posted at about the same time to the same
>>>>> Usenet
>>>>> forums saying much the same thing as the other names you have admitted you
>>>>> know Steve uses, then - wanting to defend Steve Carroll - you would not be
>>>>> willing to state which names you know he uses. The evidence, you know,
>>>>> would be too damning against Carroll.
>>>>>
>>>>> And, wow! That is *exactly* what you are doing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok. Now it is clear: you have little if any doubt that Steve Carroll is
>>>>> also posting as Edward Stanfield. Your actions have shown this beyond any
>>>>> reasonable doubt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Prediction: you will deny this but "forget" to list the names you know
>>>>> Steve
>>>>> Carroll has posted under.
>>>>>
>>>>> See: you and your co-trolls are very easy to predict. You will also insist
>>>>> that even though you have shown you know what I am saying about Steve /
>>>>> Edward is true that you think I owe you some other evidence... evidence to
>>>>> "prove" to you what you have already shown you believe.
>>>>>
>>>>> Prove me wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> As if!
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Michael, I asked you for proof. You didn't provide any.
>>>>
>>>> It's exactly as I expected. Thank You.
>>> Why are you asking for proof of something you clearly do not even question?
>> I questioned whether you had proof.
>>
>>> Why are you asking for proof of something where the evidence is
>>> overwhelming?
>> I'm sorry Michael, you haven't provided any evidence, much less
>> "overwhelming" evidence. You provided "overwhelming" speculation. Just
>> as I predicted you'd do. Thank you for not letting me down.
>>
>>> You are just playing your normal games. And now you will get all huffy and
>>> mad because I called you on your game and, above, predicted your behavior
>>> precisely.
>> I'm not playing any games. I asked for proof. You supplied speculation.
>>
>>> Ready to get your one last dig and say I am not worth your time so you will
>>> KF me? I love it when you do that. Really... seems the only way you can
>>> stop yourself from lying.
>> Can you please point out where I lied? Or shall I just mark this one as
>> another unsubstantiated claim of yours?
>>
>> Thank You.
>>
>>
> You have shown you clearly believe the very thing you are whining I should
> prove to you. You are simply not being honest.
Okay, then we both agree you lied. We're now getting someplace.
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>> "Steve Mackay" <mackay...@att.net> stated in post
>> k2Xbl.10491$W06....@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com on 1/16/09 12:53 AM:
>>
>> ...
>>>> Aha. Ok, you previously showed you agreed with Edward Stanfield, now you
>>>> acknowledge the ones "based on his name".. so the list you accept is:
>> ...
>>>> Edward Stanfield
>>>> Steve Camoll *
>>>> Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> *
>>>> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> *
>>>> Steve Carroll <stevec...@nowhere.com> *
>>>> Steve Carrroll *
>>>> Steve Carrolll *
>>>> Steve C *
>>>>
>>>> Would an admission from Steve, using his "standard name" convince you of
>>>> others?
>>> Just provide proof, beyond your speculation, that the names NOT based
>>> upon Steve Carrolls name are truly him.
>>
>> You will not even say if a direct admission from Steve is an acceptable form
>> of proof for you.
>
> If he directly enters this thread and posts a direct admission, sure. Or
> a google groups link that directly shows he has posted as such. No
> speculations or leaps of faith.
From a past post:
---------
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/ddd5f7f282b26254>
[I have been busted] using 5 different handles... 3 of which
can be attributed to MTNewswatcher problems recently... due
to my having installed Leopard.
And other comments from Steve Carroll about the using multiple names:
"Of course I posted as fretwizz"
- Steve Carroll
"I did post as sigmond and create that sex webpage
starring elizabot... what of it?"
- Steve Carroll
"I've been booted off by past providers before because people
complain about me and all my bullshit. I don't want to lose
my ISP *again* but I still need my army of sock puppets so I
continually search usenet for whatever servers I haven't yet
been booted from."
- Steve Carroll
"Snit... why do I need to hide behind a sock puppet to
post that stuff?"
- Steve Carroll
And look up these names in Google:
Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com>
Steve C <fret...@comcast.net>
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net>
Steve Carroll <stevec...@nowhere.com>
Steve Carrroll <no...@nowhere.net>
---------
As a side note, with the "sigmond" quote, Steve falsely attributed his
comments to me, but here is a post with him posting the very link he was in
reference to:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/b2f5a8ff8bbab53a>
And, of course, Steve cannot point to any example of me either saying what
he falsely attributed to me nor any example of my posting the link he whined
about and claimed *I* posted.
>> And you are not back to denying what you showed you agreed with before...
>> namely that Steve Carroll uses the name Edward Stanfield.
>>
>> Your games are getting boring.
>
> Snit, I've not agreed that Steve Carroll is Edward Stanfield.
From a recent post:
-----
Gee, If you knew that "Edward Stanfield" used the same Usenet
software and the same Usenet service and posted at about the
same time to the same Usenet forums saying much the same
thing as the other names you have admitted you know Steve
uses, then - wanting to defend Steve Carroll - you would not
be willing to state which names you know he uses. The
evidence, you know, would be too damning against Carroll.
And, wow! That is *exactly* what you are doing.
Ok. Now it is clear: you have little if any doubt that Steve
Carroll is also posting as Edward Stanfield. Your actions
have shown this beyond any reasonable doubt.
Prediction: you will deny this but "forget" to list the names
you know Steve Carroll has posted under.
See: you and your co-trolls are very easy to predict. You
will also insist that even though you have shown you know
what I am saying about Steve / Edward is true that you think
I owe you some other evidence... evidence to "prove" to you
what you have already shown you believe.
-----
And, as I predicted, you proved me correct. You can pretend like you do not
know Steve Carroll uses the name "Edward Stanfield", but you have *shown*,
through your actions, that you do believe so. Your denials are simply not
to be taken seriously.
...
So now we know, based on your own claims and actions, that you accept that
Steve has posted as the following names:
Edward Stanfield
Fretwiz *
Sigmond
Steve Camoll *
Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> *
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> *
Steve Carroll <stevec...@nowhere.com> *
Steve Carrroll *
Steve Carrolll *
Steve C *
And that is the majority of the list I have provided. So even if we
disagree some, for the most part we are in agreement about Steve using many
names on Usenet.
Excellent! I am really happy we have come to agreement. Any more you want
to make clear you are aware of? Here is my list:
"Evil" John *
"Evil" Snit
Cornelius Munshower
CSMA Moderator
Edward Stanfield
Fretwiz *
Measles
Petruzzellis Kids
Sigmond
Smit
Steve Camoll *
Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> *
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> *
Steve Carroll <stevec...@nowhere.com> *
Steve Carrroll *
Steve Carrolll *
Steve C *
Yevette Owens
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
Snit
>> You have shown you clearly believe the very thing you are whining I should
>> prove to you. You are simply not being honest.
>
> Okay, then we both agree you lied. We're now getting someplace.
You sure beg for my attention a lot.
Steve Mackay
So he's admitted to posting as:
Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com>
Steve C <fret...@comcast.net>
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net>
Steve Carroll <stevec...@nowhere.com>
Steve Carrroll <no...@nowhere.net>
This is a pretty short list that doesn't show sock puppet use as you
continue to claim.
I'm certainly not pretending to do anything. I haven't seen any proof
that Steve posts as Edward Stanfield. You've shown us some speculation.
But really nothing that resembles proof.
> ...
>
> So now we know, based on your own claims and actions, that you accept that
> Steve has posted as the following names:
No. The only thing we know is you're continuing to post speculation.
Steve has admitted to posting as the following:
Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com>
Steve C <fret...@comcast.net>
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net>
Steve Carroll <stevec...@nowhere.com>
Steve Carrroll <no...@nowhere.net>
>
> Edward Stanfield
> Fretwiz *
> Sigmond
> Steve Camoll *
> Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> *
> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> *
> Steve Carroll <stevec...@nowhere.com> *
> Steve Carrroll *
> Steve Carrolll *
> Steve C *
>
> And that is the majority of the list I have provided. So even if we
> disagree some, for the most part we are in agreement about Steve using many
> names on Usenet.
No, we are not in agreement. Steve has admitted to using exactly 5
different names. The ones I've listed twice in this post. Nothing more,
nothing less.
> Excellent! I am really happy we have come to agreement. Any more you want
> to make clear you are aware of? Here is my list:
The only agreements that I believe we've come to, is that you haven't
been able to back up your claim of Steve posting as Edward Stanfield.
And your admission that you lied about having proof that Steve posted as
Edward Stanfield.
Now on to /your/ list below. Lets take it one at a time.
You have exactly ONE reply, ONE post to show proof. Otherwise, I'll take
it as your admission of failure.
You've often made this claim, So can you please post proof that Steve
has posted as CSMA Moderator?
Proof would include the following.
----------------------------------
1.) Headers that clearly show an IP address that matches one Steve has
used in the past.
2.) An admission from Steve that he has posted as CSMA Moderator.
------------------------------------
Nowhere above have I required you to show me some sort of conspiracy
theory or speculations. So please don't post them. They will be
immediately dismissed as such.
Snit
...
> No. The only thing we know is you're continuing to post speculation.
> Steve has admitted to posting as the following:
>
> Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com>
> Steve C <fret...@comcast.net>
> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net>
> Steve Carroll <stevec...@nowhere.com>
> Steve Carrroll <no...@nowhere.net>
>
>>
>> Edward Stanfield
>> Fretwiz *
>> Sigmond
>> Steve Camoll *
>> Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> *
>> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> *
>> Steve Carroll <stevec...@nowhere.com> *
>> Steve Carrroll *
>> Steve Carrolll *
>> Steve C *
>>
>> And that is the majority of the list I have provided. So even if we
>> disagree some, for the most part we are in agreement about Steve using many
>> names on Usenet.
>
>
> No, we are not in agreement. Steve has admitted to using exactly 5
> different names. The ones I've listed twice in this post. Nothing more,
> nothing less.
Well, at least you are now admitting to some of the names you know he
uses... so we both agree he has changed his "handle" quite a lot... at least
five variations that you listed... and one it looks like you just left out
accidently (Camoll).
Do you deny that Steve Carroll posted as Fretwiz? There seems to be *no*
controversy around that name! I even posted a quote of his direct
admission.
So what do you say: no controversy on this one... you can acknwoledge Steve
Carroll posted as Fretwiz, right?
How about sigmond? While Steve falsely attributed his comments to me, he is
the one who wrote:
I did post as sigmond and create that sex webpage starring
elizabot... what of it?
He was in reference to the link he posted here:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/b2f5a8ff8bbab53a>.
No doubt that he is the one who posted the link... right? He posted the
link and he wrote the quote, above. No real controversy there? Right?
So that makes 5 plus cammoll plus Fretwiz plus sigmond.
At the very least, if you are honest, you should be up to 8 different
handles which you will admit he has used... and keep in mind Steve is also
the one who said this:
"I've been booted off by past providers before because people
complain about me and all my bullshit. I don't want to lose
my ISP *again* but I still need my army of sock puppets so I
continually search usenet for whatever servers I haven't yet
been booted from."
- Steve Carroll
So if you are now disagreeing with the fact he uses Edward Stanfield then so
be it... at least you have acknowledged his usage of multiple names (at
least 5... but 8 if you stick to what you have said in this thread). And his
excuse was this:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/ddd5f7f282b26254>
[I have been busted] using 5 different handles... 3 of which
can be attributed to MTNewswatcher problems recently... due
to my having installed Leopard.
Yeah... he has to use "different handles" because Leopard / MTNewswatcher
forced him to do it. He is just a poor, innocent victim, right?
Well, that is his story.
Steve Carroll
> "Steve Mackay" <mackay.st...@att.net> stated in post
> LHVbl.11069$D32.10...@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com on 1/15/09 11:26 PM:
>
>
>
> >> Gee, If you knew that "Edward Stanfield" used the same Usenet software and
> >> the same Usenet service and posted at about the same time to the same Usenet
> >> forums saying much the same thing as the other names you have admitted you
> >> know Steve uses, then - wanting to defend Steve Carroll - you would not be
> >> willing to state which names you know he uses. The evidence, you know,
> >> would be too damning against Carroll.
>
> >> And, wow! That is *exactly* what you are doing.
>
> >> Ok. Now it is clear: you have little if any doubt that Steve Carroll is
> >> also posting as Edward Stanfield. Your actions have shown this beyond any
> >> reasonable doubt.
>
> >> Prediction: you will deny this but "forget" to list the names you know Steve
> >> Carroll has posted under.
>
> >> See: you and your co-trolls are very easy to predict. You will also insist
> >> that even though you have shown you know what I am saying about Steve /
> >> Edward is true that you think I owe you some other evidence... evidence to
> >> "prove" to you what you have already shown you believe.
>
>
> >> As if!
>
> >> LOL!
>
> > Michael, I asked you for proof. You didn't provide any.
>
> > It's exactly as I expected. Thank You.
>
> Why are you asking for proof
Because you haven't supplied him any.
>
> Why are you asking for proof of something where the evidence is
> overwhelming?
Overwhelming according to whom?
(snip Snit's crap as he avoids obvious realities he can never address)
Steve Carroll
> "Steve Mackay" <mackay.st...@att.net> stated in post
>
>
>
> > Snit wrote:
> >> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> >> C596583C.FA3F%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/15/09 11:29 PM:
>
> >>> So we can forever remove "Edward Stanfield" from your list Snit? LOL
>
> >> Updated list:
>
> >> "Evil" Snit
> >> Cornelius Munshower
> >> CSMA Moderator
> >> Edward Stanfield
> >> Fretwiz *
> >> Measles
> >> Petruzzellis Kids
> >> Sigmond
> >> Smit
> >> Steve Carroll <trollkil...@TK.com> *
> >> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> *
> >> Steve Carroll <stevecarr...@nowhere.com> *
> >> Steve Carrroll *
> >> Steve Carrolll *
> >> Steve C *
>
> >> Which do you agree with? Which do you not?
>
> > all the above names(Besides those that aren't actually based on his name).
>
> acknowledge the ones "based on his name".. so the list you accept is:
>
> Steve Camoll *
> Steve Carroll <trollkil...@TK.com> *
> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> *
> Steve Carroll <stevecarr...@nowhere.com> *
> Steve Carrroll *
> Steve Carrolll *
> Steve C *
>
> others?
I love this;) Watch how easy it is to expose your hypocrisy...
According to the standard you've *claimed* to adhere to (providing
Mackay agrees with your standard) it shouldn't convince him. Remember
what you said... a person's actions, not even their admission of their
own guilt, is the only way to determine guilt.
Poor Snit... he is, once again, caught in a completely transparent
double standard where I am concerned. LOL!
Steve Carroll
> "Steve Mackay" <mackay.st...@att.net> stated in post
>
> ...
>
>
>
> >> Aha. Ok, you previously showed you agreed with Edward Stanfield, now you
> >> acknowledge the ones "based on his name".. so the list you accept is:
> ...
>
> >> Edward Stanfield
> >> Steve Camoll *
> >> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> *
> >> Steve Carroll <stevecarr...@nowhere.com> *
> >> Steve Carrroll *
> >> Steve Carrolll *
> >> Steve C *
>
> >> Would an admission from Steve, using his "standard name" convince you of
> >> others?
>
> > Just provide proof, beyond your speculation, that the names NOT based
> > upon Steve Carrolls name are truly him.
>
> You will not even say if a direct admission from Steve is an acceptable form
> of proof for you.
You have already claimed that an admission of guilt is not an
acceptable form of "proof" to you. So why is it when I am involved?
Poor hypocritical Snit... LOL!
Steve Carroll
>
> > ...
> >>> Aha. Ok, you previously showed you agreed with Edward Stanfield, now you
> >>> acknowledge the ones "based on his name".. so the list you accept is:
> > ...
> >>> Edward Stanfield
> >>> Steve Camoll *
> >>> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> *
> >>> Steve Carroll <stevecarr...@nowhere.com> *
> >>> Steve Carrroll *
> >>> Steve Carrolll *
> >>> Steve C *
>
> >>> Would an admission from Steve, using his "standard name" convince you of
> >>> others?
> >> Just provide proof, beyond your speculation, that the names NOT based
> >> upon Steve Carrolls name are truly him.
>
> > You will not even say if a direct admission from Steve is an acceptable form
> > of proof for you.
>
> If he directly enters this thread and posts a direct admission, sure. Or
> a google groups link that directly shows he has posted as such. No
> speculations or leaps of faith.
Interestingly, Snit has stated that, for him, an admission of guilt of
an action is not an acceptable form of proof of that guilt. Of course,
for the hypocrite Snit this doesn't apply when I am involved. LOL!
Snit
> So he's admitted to posting as:
>
> Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com>
> Steve C <fret...@comcast.net>
> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net>
> Steve Carroll <stevec...@nowhere.com>
> Steve Carrroll <no...@nowhere.net>
>
> This is a pretty short list that doesn't show sock puppet use as you
> continue to claim.
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.anxiety-panic/msg/c5d7cf2a07f397
ee?dmode=source>
---------
Path:
g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!news.motzarella.
org!motzarella.org!not-for-mail
From: "Steve Carrolll" <trollkil...@TK.com>
Newsgroups:
24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt.politics,alt.support.anxiety-panic,comp.os.linux.
advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Getting Snit to stop forging my ID
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 18:31:39 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <g6lrtv$fu0$2...@registered.motzarella.org>
References: <g6lgu9$417$1...@registered.motzarella.org>
<g6lh3b$5hd$1...@registered.motzarella.org>
X-Trace: feeder.motzarella.org
U2FsdGVkX1+GXKQKVtfjHakXthlEdKB5C1L4EEKfWLHf1u0JbUlhMS77ElmKu3zaurulSU43bjKH
AzRT2HaeBZR82GqeL/N0rqJh8M2PjbU34Y+4zl/dv5gNgeRQbgTT5XIcWrFwlVM=
X-Complaints-To: Please send complaints to ab...@motzarella.org with full
headers
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 01:31:43 +0000 (UTC)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX1/tkExAvZirJh4V/ozdrAfbFce8hHEAduA=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:t+mf0H/VtvBjVlE6P2GEpRtY0Nk=
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
---------
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.anxiety-panic/msg/569832df307cbe
b7?dmode=source>
--------
Path:
g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!feeder.e
rje.net!news.motzarella.org!motzarella.org!not-for-mail
From: "Edward Stanfield" <127.0....@rot.com>
Newsgroups:
24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt.politics,alt.support.anxiety-panic,comp.os.linux.
advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Getting Snit to stop forging my ID
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:26:48 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <g6lh3b$5hd$1...@registered.motzarella.org>
References: <g6lgu9$417$1...@registered.motzarella.org>
X-Trace: feeder.motzarella.org
U2FsdGVkX1+SeYZCZnpSLd6hMuM+tChHaAiH7QwGONWUeWmjxDqacQaVcpxwzOG2DyFlaV9iv/uA
NC3Evt6JU11VD4sYn7tx/3wpcWdVjQDlxTUUqyjS+P2ImgpAqzC5SwRra28ybmw=
X-Complaints-To: Please send complaints to ab...@motzarella.org with full
headers
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 22:26:52 +0000 (UTC)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX1+T3/aBFi7H3ZxNR/3Emle85EnW3FrVM8Y=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LVPeOEu42RpTlHVxtVKzBS+nFI4=
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
--------
Organization: exact same
Usenet provider: both from motzarella
Newsreader: both using MS Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
How many others share the same header info with Carroll and Stanfield?
Are you telling me that those headers are from different people?
But, let me guess, Steve Carroll is just a poor, innocent victim who is
forced to use, as you have already agreed to, at least five different
handles... and those handles just happen to have the same headers as other
people who he has never posted as. Right?
LOL!
--
The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of
limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and
great nations. - David Friedman
Steve Carroll
> "Steve Mackay" <mackay...@att.net> stated in post
> 9%1cl.8892$8_3...@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com on 1/16/09 8:53 AM:
>
> > So he's admitted to posting as:
>
> > Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com>
> > Steve C <fret...@comcast.net>
> > Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net>
> > Steve Carroll <stevec...@nowhere.com>
> > Steve Carrroll <no...@nowhere.net>
>
> > This is a pretty short list that doesn't show sock puppet use as you
> > continue to claim.
>
> ee?dmode=source>
>
> ---------
> Path:
> g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!news.motzarella .
> b7?dmode=source>
>
> --------
> Path:
> g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!feeder. e
Fact: I didn't write either one of those posts.
Fact: I've never reg'd with "motzarella.org".
Fact: You (or anyone) could have written both of those posts.
Prove I wrote either of those any time you feel you're able, Snit... I
can always use another laugh at your expense;)
Steve Carroll
> "Steve Mackay" <mackay.st...@att.net> stated in post
> iXUbl.5064$jZ1.4...@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com on 1/15/09 10:29 PM:
>
> ...
>
>
>
> >> Which do you deny:
>
> >> "Evil" John *
> >> "Evil" Snit
> >> Cornelius Munshower
> >> CSMA Moderator
> >> Measles
> >> Petruzzellis Kids
> >> Sigmond
> >> Smit
> >> Steve Carroll <trollkil...@TK.com> *
> >> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> *
> >> Steve Carroll <stevecarr...@nowhere.com> *
> >> Steve Carrroll *
> >> Steve Carrolll *
> >> Steve C *
>
> > Curiously, you still haven't answered my question.
>
> admitted to at least some of those names.
So... you and he "*agree*" that the ones I admitted to having posted
under constitute proof of me having posted under those names.
Interesting... because elsewhere you made it clear that, to you,
it's "only" a "persons' actions" that determine guilt of having
done that action. Remember your little multiple choice, Mr. Lying
Hypocrite?
A) A legal charging of a crime
B) A court determined conviction
C) The person's actions
D) An admission of guilt
Here is what you claimed was your answer at that time:
"I would argue that only C is valid".
Note your use of the word "only".
You've also written:
"He is guilty because of his actions, not his words about his actions"
"I would say his guilt or innocence is determined by his actions.
Our
knowledge of the guilt or innocence will be determined in a different
way".
'You are guilty of actions"
"I do not think your guilt is determined by being caught"
My prediction: You will try to spin a little tale about how the
"action" of a crime is not like other 'actions'... that an admission
of an action works as proof of that action as long as the "action" is
not a crime, especially where the name Steve Carroll is involved.
Snit "logic" at its finest;)
"I do not focus on personalities over content." - Snit
ROFLMAO!
Steve Mackay
Michael, why are you continuing to dwell on the fact that you can't back
up your claim of Steve posting as Edward Stanfield?
We've moved on to the next one on your list, CSMA Moderator. I gave you
one post to provide proof that it was him. You've failed. Twice in the
same thread.
So, lets move on down the list.
"Evil John"
Same rules apply.
Proof would include the following.
----------------------------------
1.) Headers that clearly show an IP address that matches one Steve has
used in the past.
2.) An admission from Steve that he has posted as "Evil John"
------------------------------------
Nowhere above have I required you to show me some sort of conspiracy
theory or speculations. So please don't post them. They will be
immediately dismissed as such.
You have exactly ONE reply, ONE post to show proof. Otherwise, I'll take
it as your admission of failure.
Thank You.
Your 0 for 2 so far Michael.
Snit
You have admitted to many... and I have shown you headers that show you he
also posted as others.
If you are still in denial of the facts that is your problem... lack of
honesty on your part does not constitute a need to produce *more* evidence
on mine.
--
When thinking changes your mind, that's philosophy.
When God changes your mind, that's faith.
When facts change your mind, that's science.
Snit
> Proof would include the following.
> ----------------------------------
> 1.) Headers that clearly show an IP address that matches one Steve has
> used in the past.
I have shown you the headers... Steve was using a service which does not
show the IP, but it clearly was the same Usenet service and the same Usenet
client, down to the version.
This "other" person clearly almost always responds to Steve and to myself...
rarely anyone else.
You can bury your head in the sand - I will not join you. Reality and I
agree... and you claim to disagree.
Have fun!
--
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs
Snit
C5960BB9.EAD5F%use...@gallopinginsanity.com on 1/16/09 10:02 AM:
Yup... Steve Mackay decided this was not nearly enough to show Steve Carroll
using yet another "handle", even though Steve Mackay acknowledged that Steve
Carroll had used five or more handles.... some with the absurd excuse that
his OS and news client forced him to.
LOL!
Snit
Well, Steve Mackay? No answer from you.
> So what do you say: no controversy on this one... you can acknwoledge Steve
> Carroll posted as Fretwiz, right?
>
> How about sigmond? While Steve falsely attributed his comments to me, he is
> the one who wrote:
>
> I did post as sigmond and create that sex webpage starring
> elizabot... what of it?
>
> He was in reference to the link he posted here:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/b2f5a8ff8bbab53a>.
> No doubt that he is the one who posted the link... right? He posted the
> link and he wrote the quote, above. No real controversy there? Right?
>
> So that makes 5 plus cammoll plus Fretwiz plus sigmond.
Well, Steve Mackay? No answer from you.
> At the very least, if you are honest, you should be up to 8 different
> handles which you will admit he has used... and keep in mind Steve is also
> the one who said this:
>
> "I've been booted off by past providers before because people
> complain about me and all my bullshit. I don't want to lose
> my ISP *again* but I still need my army of sock puppets so I
> continually search usenet for whatever servers I haven't yet
> been booted from."
> - Steve Carroll
>
> So if you are now disagreeing with the fact he uses Edward Stanfield then so
> be it... at least you have acknowledged his usage of multiple names (at
> least 5... but 8 if you stick to what you have said in this thread). And his
> excuse was this:
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/ddd5f7f282b26254>
>
> [I have been busted] using 5 different handles... 3 of which
> can be attributed to MTNewswatcher problems recently... due
> to my having installed Leopard.
>
> Yeah... he has to use "different handles" because Leopard / MTNewswatcher
> forced him to do it. He is just a poor, innocent victim, right?
>
> Well, that is his story.
Come on Steve Mackay... you are suddenly very quite on this whole issue.
LOL!
--
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?
Steve Mackay
Many? Many purple elephants? What is it Michael?
> and I have shown you headers that show you he
> also posted as others.
>
> If you are still in denial of the facts that is your problem... lack of
> honesty on your part does not constitute a need to produce *more* evidence
> on mine.
>
You have not provided any "evidence". You have provided speculation. But
thank you for your best effort. It's really ok to fail Michael. So don't
dwell on it, and lets move on. But I do have a feeling that you may
finish with the same percentage that Detroit Lions did this year(hint,
they went 0 and 16)
You are now 0 for 3 in providing evidence that support your claims.
So, lets move on down the list.
"Evil Snit"
Same rules apply.
Proof would include the following.
----------------------------------
1.) Headers that clearly show an IP address that matches one Steve has
used in the past.
2.) An admission from Steve that he has posted as "Evil Snit"
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>> "Steve Mackay" <mackay...@att.net> stated in post
>> EN4cl.1344$PE4....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com on 1/16/09 11:58 AM:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> "Steve Mackay" <mackay...@att.net> stated in post
>>>> 9%1cl.8892$8_3...@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com on 1/16/09 8:53 AM:
>>>>
>>>>> So he's admitted to posting as:
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com>
>>>>> Steve C <fret...@comcast.net>
>>>>> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net>
>>>>> Steve Carroll <stevec...@nowhere.com>
>>>>> Steve Carrroll <no...@nowhere.net>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a pretty short list that doesn't show sock puppet use as you
>>>>> continue to claim.
>>>>
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.anxiety-panic/msg/c5d7cf2a07f39>>>>
7
>>>> ee?dmode=source>
>>>>
>>>> ---------
>>>> Path:
>>>>
g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!news.motzarella>>>>
.
>>>> b7?dmode=source>
>>>>
>>>> --------
>>>> Path:
>>>>
g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!feeder.>>>>
e
You have admitted to the fact that Steve Carroll uses multiple "handles"...
but I am not sure, now, which ones you are accepting. Please list the ones
you currently agree with.
"Evil" John *
"Evil" Snit
Cornelius Munshower
CSMA Moderator
Edward Stanfield
Fretwiz *
Measles
Petruzzellis Kids
Sigmond
Smit
Steve Camoll *
Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> *
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> *
Steve Carroll <stevec...@nowhere.com> *
Steve Carrroll *
Steve Carrolll *
Steve C *
Yevette Owens
For example, you have been shown specific quotes from Steve that show him
talking about Frewiz, sigmond, and Edward Stanfield. If you have not
accepted each of those state your objections... but I am OK if you do not
agree 100% with me. I am looking mostly for where we *agree*, not where we
disagree. I have no desire to help you build a circus where we spend time
calling each other names and otherwise acting poorly.
Are you able to act maturely?
--
Never stand between a dog and the hydrant. - John Peers
Snit
>> You have admitted to many...
>
> Many? Many purple elephants? What is it Michael?
You have admitted you agree with me: both of us recognize that Steve Carroll
posts with many "handles"... including ones which he used and then claimed
he was made to by his OS and Usenet reader.
We might disagree on details... but overall we are in agreement on this.
I am curious if you have accepted, given the quotes directly from Steve
Carroll that I have shown you, that Steve also has used the following names:
* Fretwiz - I quoted Carroll's admission
* sigmond - I quoted Carroll's admission, which he falsely attributed to me
but the material he referenced was from his own post... which I
linked to.
* Edward Stanfield - I showed how Carroll's headers matched Stanfield's and
noted how Stanfield responds almost exclusively to Carroll and
my posts.
If you disagree with the evidence I would be curious why... though I shan't
play any game where you demand more and more evidence for what has already
been well established.
--
The fact that OS X is growing and Linux isn't, tells you that OS X is
offering things that Linux is not.
Steve Carroll
> "Steve Mackay" <mackay.st...@att.net> stated in post
>
> > Proof would include the following.
> > ----------------------------------
> > 1.) Headers that clearly show an IP address that matches one Steve has
> > used in the past.
>
> I have shown you the headers... Steve was using a service which does not
> show the IP
Point to the post(s) that you make this claim for... then prove I'm
the author. See how this works YET?
> , but it clearly was the same Usenet service and the same Usenet client, down to the version.
Given the "evidence" you've shown thus far all that is "clear" to me
is that someone wrote at least one post using the name Steve Carroll
and you are falsely claiming that I wrote it. You seem to forget that
you were claiming someone forged posts using your name... so, by your
"logic" here anything that bears your name must have been written by
you. Or will you hypocritically apply a double standard to me, you
know, the way you usually do?
Poor hypocrite Snit. LOL!
Don Zeigler
> Unlikely that he really does.
Yes, I do. You actually believe you're right all the time, and that everyone
else is out to get you. You're paranoid.
We've joked about Hadron Quark resembling Captain Queeg of the Caine Mutiny,
but it's apparent that you're the one who should be referred to as Queeg.
--
Reading taglines makes you stupid.
Regards,
[dmz]
Owner and proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC
Snit
20090117033921...@this.domain.or.that on 1/16/09 8:39 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Unlikely that he really does.
>
> Yes, I do. You actually believe you're right all the time, and that everyone
> else is out to get you. You're paranoid.
>
> We've joked about Hadron Quark resembling Captain Queeg of the Caine Mutiny,
> but it's apparent that you're the one who should be referred to as Queeg.
You sure beg for my attention a lot.
--
Don Zeigler
> Poor Snit... he is, once again, caught in a completely transparent
> double standard where I am concerned. LOL!
Hopefully none of Snot's family, friends or business associates will ever run
across this thread archived on Google. It's the most shining example yet of
his obviously unbalanced mental state. He's told so many whoppers he can't
even keep his story straight.
--
I misplaced my dictionary. Now I'm at a loss for words.
Snit
> Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>> Poor Snit... he is, once again, caught in a completely transparent
>> double standard where I am concerned. LOL!
>
> Hopefully none of Snot's family, friends or business associates will ever run
> across this thread archived on Google. It's the most shining example yet of
> his obviously unbalanced mental state. He's told so many whoppers he can't
> even keep his story straight.
You sure beg for my attention a lot.
--
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
There is one major similarity between those headers that you failed to
mention Snit, *neither* shows any conclusive link to Steve Carroll!
> How many others share the same header info with Carroll and Stanfield?
Why do you ask that question wrt "Carroll and Stanfield" Snit?
The headers clearly show ... Steve Carrolll and Edward Stanfield!
> Are you telling me that those headers are from different people?
Who cares if they are or not? the fact remains that there is absolutely no
reason to suggest that either was written by Steve Carroll!
> But, let me guess, Steve Carroll is just a poor, innocent victim who is
> forced to use, as you have already agreed to, at least five different
> handles...
Forced to use Snit? Steve Carroll has already explained why he *chose* to
use five different handles... In over a decade!
> and those handles just happen to have the same headers as other
> people who he has never posted as. Right?
Wrong! Steve Carroll has never said that he has used the names that
correspond to the headers that you are referencing!
He stated....
"Gee, in over a decade of my posting you managed to find me using 5
different handles (mainly based on spam avoiding mail addresses) 3 of
which can be attributed to MTNewswatcher problems recently... due to my
having installed Leopard. Apparently, along with all its other problems,
Leopard took out quite a few Mac apps."-Steve Carroll
I believe the five mentioned are....
Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com>
Steve C <fret...@comcast.net>
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net>
Steve Carroll <stevec...@nowhere.com>
Steve Carrroll <no...@nowhere.net>
And as we have all agreed those five are all easily identified as Steve
Carroll, Their use did not involve any attempt at sock puppetry at all, and
they do not share the same info as the headers that you have produced Snit!
So when are you going to attempt to link a header from one that was from
Steve Carroll to one that you claim was a sock puppet of Steve Carroll?
My guess ... Hell will freeze over first!
> LOL!
You want a laugh Snit? There is a poster who recently complained bitterly
that I brought up info from 2004, that same poster is now brining up info
from a decade+ ago! Guess who! LOL .... Yup! hypocrite Snit!
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Mackay" <mackay...@att.net> stated in post
> EN4cl.1344$PE4....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com on 1/16/09 11:58 AM:
>
>> Proof would include the following.
>> ----------------------------------
>> 1.) Headers that clearly show an IP address that matches one Steve has
>> used in the past.
>
> I have shown you the headers... Steve was using a service which does not
> show the IP, but it clearly was the same Usenet service and the same Usenet
> client, down to the version.
But *not* clearly Steve Carroll! ROTFL!
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
How do those headers show that Snit?
All you have produced are headers which may or may not be from the same
poster, but which most certainly do not show any connection to Steve
Carroll!
> If you are still in denial of the facts that is your problem...
You have produced no facts that substantiate your claim Snit, therefore
denial of those alleged facts does not come into it!
> lack of
> honesty on your part does not constitute a need to produce *more* evidence
> on mine.
So you still don't understand the difference between evidence and proof
Snit?
You have not produced any evidence at all that supports your claim Snit!,
you have only supplied evidence of the existence of two headers neither of
which show any conclusive link to Steve Carroll!
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
And he is absolutely right to do so!
> even though Steve Mackay acknowledged that Steve
> Carroll had used five or more handles....
The assumption that the names in the headers that you supplied was among the
five was yours and yours alone Snit, we are all waiting for you to produce
anything at all that substantiates *your* assumption!
> some with the absurd excuse that
> his OS and news client forced him to.
Who apart from you has suggested that Steve Carroll was *forced* to use
different names Snit? Steve Carroll made it clear that that was the action
that he *chose* to take!
"Gee, in over a decade of my posting you managed to find me using 5
different handles (mainly based on spam avoiding mail addresses) 3 of
which can be attributed to MTNewswatcher problems recently... due to my
having installed Leopard."-Steve Carroll
> LOL!
>
>
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> * Edward Stanfield - I showed how Carroll's headers matched Stanfield's and
> noted how Stanfield responds almost exclusively to Carroll and
> my posts.
No! you showed a header from a poster calling himself "Steve Carrolll" why
are you lying and claiming that it was from "Steve Carroll" Snit?
Is *that* your proof a Snit altered name from a header?
LOL!