iPhone 5 Quality Control Slipping

[RonB]

I guess near-slave labor is just not what it used to be.

~~
Foxconn workers halt production at iPhone plant
...
Xinhua said some workers were unhappy when Apple strengthened quality
inspections of the iPhone 5 following consumer complaints regarding
aesthetic flaws in the phone. In the Xinhua report, the spokesman — who
was not named — characterized the incident as a worker-management dispute
instead of a strike and was unable to provide a specific number of workers
involved.

China Labor Watch said several iPhone 5 production lines at the factory
were paralyzed after the workers found the new quality control demands
difficult to meet and went on strike. The group said the workers also were
angry about being forced to work through China's National Day Golden Week
holiday, which ends Sunday.
~~
http://snipurl.com/257nu0n

Wait a minute. iCultists are complaining about flaws in their iCrap
phones? But ... but ... I thought the reason people bought iCrap phones
was for their "superior" quality?

It gets so confusing.

--
RonB
Using Linux Mint Mate 13

[7]

RonB wrote:

> I guess near-slave labor is just not what it used to be.
>
> ~~
> Foxconn workers halt production at iPhone plant
> ...
> Xinhua said some workers were unhappy when Apple strengthened quality
> inspections of the iPhone 5 following consumer complaints regarding
> aesthetic flaws in the phone. In the Xinhua report, the spokesman — who
> was not named — characterized the incident as a worker-management dispute
> instead of a strike and was unable to provide a specific number of workers
> involved.
>
> China Labor Watch said several iPhone 5 production lines at the factory
> were paralyzed after the workers found the new quality control demands
> difficult to meet and went on strike. The group said the workers also were
> angry about being forced to work through China's National Day Golden Week
> holiday, which ends Sunday.

I thought it was a criminal offense for factories to put into plan
any action that deliberately force factory workers to work through their
national holidays?

One can understand essential services, but non-essential factories?

[Snit]

On 10/6/12 6:25 AM, in article k4pbg5$ncs$1...@dont-email.me, "RonB"

<ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I guess near-slave labor is just not what it used to be.

The same company also makes Android devices you idiot.


--
<http://goo.gl/uFKQS>
15 points Foster and his farm of loonies will *always* run from... and
absolute proof they know their accusations are false.

[Tattoo Vampire]

Snit wrote:

> The same company also makes Android devices you idiot.

Ooooo!!! Gotta love it when Snit talks all tough and stuff.

You're a weakling, Snot.
--
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.

[tv]

[7]

Snit wrote:



>> I guess near-slave labor is just not what it used to be.
>
> The same company also makes Android devices you idiot.

You must be lying again.

Why hasn't your sponsor and international
patent trolling company Appil Corporation sued that factory?

They sued every other factory that makes Android.

That must be the reason why Appil share prices have plummeted
in the last few days.

[Snit]

On 10/6/12 10:55 AM, in article Cg_bs.175692$It6....@fx11.am4, "7"

<email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:

> Snit wrote:
>
>
>
>>> I guess near-slave labor is just not what it used to be.
>>
>> The same company also makes Android devices you idiot.
>

> You must be ...

right.

I am!

[fungus]

On Saturday, October 6, 2012 2:38:19 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> On 10/6/12 10:55 AM, in article Cg_bs.175692$It6....@fx11.am4, "7"
>
> <email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Snit wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >>> I guess near-slave labor is just not what it used to be.
>
> >>
>
> >> The same company also makes Android devices you idiot.
>
> >
>
> > You must be ...
> right.

> I am!

The snit circus in action. Here we have snit snipping the context and replying. It's one of his dirty tricks. Lying is another one. Snit is a pathological liar.

[-hh]

On Oct 6, 1:55 pm, 7

<email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> Snit wrote:
> >> I guess near-slave labor is just not what it used to be.
>
> > The same company also makes Android devices you idiot.
>
> You must be lying again.

It is easy enough to fact-check if Foxconn makes non-Apple (and
Android) products.

> They sued every other factory that makes Android.

Since you mentioned Android:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10797_3-57506215-235/samsung-accused-of-labor-violations-in-china/

FYI, most of these (75%) are factories directly managed by Samsung;
there's no Foxconn-esque third party to try to blame the abuses on ...
such as what has happened before and is being attempted once again
here.




-hh

[Snit]

On 10/6/12 11:52 AM, in article
564cb22c-a936-4f80...@googlegroups.com, "fungus"

I snip 7 that way because his initial comments are completely illiterate, he
can *never* defend his BS, and he is clearly just trolling. For a *real*
response I would *never* respond in such a way.

[Snit]

On 10/6/12 12:08 PM, in article
68144c58-d38d-4fa4...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, "-hh"

<recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:

> On Oct 6, 1:55�pm, 7
> <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>> Snit wrote:
>>>> I guess near-slave labor is just not what it used to be.
>>
>>> The same company also makes Android devices you idiot.
>>
>> You must be lying again.
>
> It is easy enough to fact-check if Foxconn makes non-Apple (and
> Android) products.

Exactly. But 7 is just trolling.

>> They sued every other factory that makes Android.
>
> Since you mentioned Android:
>
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-10797_3-57506215-235/samsung-accused-of-labor-violat
> ions-in-china/
>
> FYI, most of these (75%) are factories directly managed by Samsung;
> there's no Foxconn-esque third party to try to blame the abuses on ...
> such as what has happened before and is being attempted once again
> here.

Right. But 7 is a complete idiot.

[Fungus]

On Saturday, October 6, 2012 3:15:32 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> On 10/6/12 11:52 AM, in article
>
> 564cb22c-a936-4f80...@googlegroups.com, "fungus"
>
> <funge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Saturday, October 6, 2012 2:38:19 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> >> On 10/6/12 10:55 AM, in article Cg_bs.175692$It6....@fx11.am4, "7"
>
> >>
>
> >> <email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Snit wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> I guess near-slave labor is just not what it used to be.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> The same company also makes Android devices you idiot.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> You must be ...
>
> >> right.
>
> >
>
> >> I am!
>
> >
>
> > The snit circus in action. Here we have snit snipping the context and
>
> > replying. It's one of his dirty tricks. Lying is another one. Snit is a
>
> > pathological liar.
>
> >
>
> I snip 7 that way because his initial comments are completely illiterate, he
>
> can *never* defend his BS, and he is clearly just trolling. For a *real*
>
> response I would *never* respond in such a way.

You are a fucking liar snit. And here is the proof.

Here is a post where a statement is made:
https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/c32ab285f89a5837?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect&pli=1

"So let's suppose for a moment both skypes are indeed 2 different
people. Both skype #1 and skype #2 are two (CC is not in question)
different people."

And here is your reply where you purposely snipped what was said in order to fuel your snit circus:

https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/da1b48c68791d8f1?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect

> Both skype #1 and skype #2 are two (CC is not in question)
> different people.

"Correct - though you denied this for a *long* time. Good to see you admit
your claims have been complete rubbish. "

And you do this all the time snit.
You are a pathological liar who refuses to admit that you have a mental problem.

Take your snit circus elsewhere because I can post many other example of your lying. It's there for anyone to see for themselves.

[Onion Knight]

You made that up.
Why do you lash out?

[Snit]

On 10/6/12 12:34 PM, in article
cefb29ee-8eb8-4a5c...@googlegroups.com, "Fungus"

I responded to Foster's lies dozens of times. See my .sig where I prove not
only that his claims were wrong but where he clearly knows this.

I have no obligation to repeat myself (though I often do!)

[Fungus]

There you go again you fucking pathological liar.

See the snit circus in action?
Nobody said a word about Foster, or anyone else.
That's how snit starts up his snit circus.
He wants people to get sucked into whatever his claims against foster are despite the fact that I never mentioned foster. All I did was show an example of how snit lies.

What was shown was a clear example of snit cutting and snipping posts and then responding out of context.

So now that he has been caught and exposed, he starts up the snit circus claiming he has already replied to posts.
It's not about how many times you reply snit.

It's about HOW you reply. How you lie, how you make things up and how you think everyone is less intelligent than you are.

Try and focus snit. Overcome your anxiety for a minute and focus.

Now that you are focusing, explain why you cut, snipped and replied out of context in order to "prove " your point?

Once again, the snit circus is out of business.

[Snit]

On 10/6/12 2:41 PM, in article
32c5fa8a-b291-4337...@googlegroups.com, "Fungus"

<funge...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I responded to Foster's lies dozens of times. See my .sig where I prove not
>> only that his claims were wrong but where he clearly knows this.
>>
>> I have no obligation to repeat myself (though I often do!)
>
> There you go again you fucking pathological liar.

Your BS is boring. Really. I have no obligation to respond to the same
points over and over and over. I responded to the points that were new - or
newish - and did not respond to his idiotic repetition. I noted where I
snipped. *NOTHING* dishonest about that.

Just like there is nothing dishonest about my snipping much of the rest of
your idiotic and meaningless rant.
...

> Nobody said a word about Foster, or anyone else.

Look at your own links where you *did* link to his post and the accused me
of lying in response. I noted I did no such thing... and that I have fully
responded to the material you claimed I had not.

In other words, I noted how wrong your claim was... and pointed you to the
proof.

So you run.

Get over it. You were wrong. Oh well

...

> Now that you are focusing, explain why you cut, snipped and replied out of
> context in order to "prove " your point?

I did no such thing. Your example has already been shown to be wrong... yet
you repeat yourself as though it had not been.

This is dishonest of you.

...

See: snipping your BS is fine. *NOTHING* wrong with it. I responded to
your points - and noted where they were wrong.

Now go whine to someone else.

[fungus]

On Saturday, October 6, 2012 6:01:53 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> On 10/6/12 2:41 PM, in article
>
> 32c5fa8a-b291-4337...@googlegroups.com, "Fungus"
>
> <funge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> I responded to Foster's lies dozens of times. See my .sig where I prove not
>
> >> only that his claims were wrong but where he clearly knows this.
>
> >>
>
> >> I have no obligation to repeat myself (though I often do!)
>
> >
>
> > There you go again you fucking pathological liar.

>
>
> Your BS is boring. Really. I have no obligation to respond to the same
>
> points over and over and over.

Here comes the snit circus. See what snit is doing here? He is claiming he has responded to the same points over and over again.

Ok snit, so where did you respond to being accused of cutting, snipping another person's post in order to reply to it out of context and prove your points?
Where have you done this?
Where have you responded already?
Where do you explain it.

If you have responded to that point, note the context snit THAT POINT, then it should be trivial for you to point to it.

> I responded to the points that were new - or
>
> newish - and did not respond to his idiotic repetition. I noted where I
>
> snipped. *NOTHING* dishonest about that.

ROTFLMAO.
Yes it IS dishonest snit.
How can you even have the gall to claim otherwise?

You changed the entire context of the original statement so that it meant something else and that something else was an advantage to you so you could lie even more.

> Just like there is nothing dishonest about my snipping much of the rest of
>
> your idiotic and meaningless rant.

You just don't like it when your snit circus is exposed for the bullshit it really is.
You don't like that snit do you?

Good, because I have plenty more examples in my basket of tricks for you snit.
and you are going to dislike them even more snit. You better take your anxiety pills because you are going to need them. Take a double dosage.

> > Nobody said a word about Foster, or anyone else.

> Look at your own links where you *did* link to his post and the accused me

>of lying in response. I noted I did no such thing... and that I have fully
> responded to the material you claimed I had not.

No.
I claimed you snipped and cut and pasted.

YOU are the one claiming you responded many times.

See above.

See how the snit circus works?
He lies to cover his lies and tries to put the burden of proof back on the other person.

Yes you DID LIE snit.

Stop claiming you didn't.

> responded to the material you claimed I had not.

Let's see it snit.
And BTW I never said you didn't reply.

Let's see it snit.

>
>
> In other words, I noted how wrong your claim was... and pointed you to the
>
> proof.
>

My claim is you LIE by snipping, cutting and taking statements out of context.
All your other bull shit about what I said is another one of your lies.

Show me where I said what you claimed.
>
> So you run.
>
I'm not running.

BTW this is another trick of the snit circus.
He accuses everyone who exposes his bullshit and lies of running.

>
> Get over it. You were wrong. Oh well

Another lie.

You are a very sick person snit.
Get help, for your own sake.

>
>
>
> ...
>
> > Now that you are focusing, explain why you cut, snipped and replied out of
>
> > context in order to "prove " your point?
>
>
>
> I did no such thing. Your example has already been shown to be wrong... yet
>
> you repeat yourself as though it had not been.
>
>
>
> This is dishonest of you.
>

No snit, it's dishonest of you.
Are you claiming you didn't cut, snip and take statements out of context?

It seems that way.

The evidence shows you to be a liar.

>

[Snit]

On 10/6/12 3:16 PM, in article
853bd835-c04e-475d...@googlegroups.com, "fungus"
<funge...@gmail.com> wrote:

If you want a more detailed response stop repeating your same accusations -
esp. after they have been proved wrong (or, more accurately, your attempts
to support your claim have been shown to be wrong - this does not prove
there are not examples which would not be supportive of your claim, you just
failed to find one).

Anyway, you are boring me.

...

[fungus]

On Saturday, October 6, 2012 6:23:07 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> On 10/6/12 3:16 PM, in article
>
> 853bd835-c04e-475d...@googlegroups.com, "fungus"
>
> <funge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> If you want a more detailed response stop repeating your same accusations -
>
> esp. after they have been proved wrong (or, more accurately, your attempts
>
> to support your claim have been shown to be wrong - this does not prove
>
> there are not examples which would not be supportive of your claim, you just
>
> failed to find one).

ROTFLMAO!
You lie and lie and lie some more snit.
Keep it up.

I supported my claim from the first post. I should the original context of the message and then I demonstrated how you snipped off parts of it in order to take it out of context to mean something completely different. And then, to further prove your dishonorable intentions, you reply to the snipped section with a reply that obviously takes into account your motive.

>
> Anyway, you are boring me.

I sure hope so because that's yet another method your snit circus uses.
You seemingly get bored when people confront you with your own words.

You can post thousands of messages 24x7 and 3 little messages are boring you?
Poor baby. It mus be the fact that I've hit a nerve column and you don't like it.

Give it up Onion Knight / snit, you aren't fooling anyone and all they have to do is read my posts to see what a pathological liar with psychological problems you truly are.

The only surprise in this thread is that Onion Knight hasn't made an appearance.
ROTFLMAO.

[Snit]

On 10/6/12 3:33 PM, in article
614bb9e6-f996-4edf...@googlegroups.com, "fungus"

<funge...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, October 6, 2012 6:23:07 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 10/6/12 3:16 PM, in article
>>
>> 853bd835-c04e-475d...@googlegroups.com, "fungus"
>>
>> <funge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> If you want a more detailed response stop repeating your same accusations -
>> esp. after they have been proved wrong (or, more accurately, your attempts
>> to support your claim have been shown to be wrong - this does not prove
>> there are not examples which would not be supportive of your claim, you just
>> failed to find one).
>
> ROTFLMAO!

Yes, it is funny how much of a failure you have been in backing your claim.
Anyway, step up your game if you want another response from me. As I noted,
you are boring.

[fungus]

On Saturday, October 6, 2012 6:42:19 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:

>
> Yes, it is funny how much of a failure you have been in backing your claim.
>
> Anyway, step up your game if you want another response from me. As I noted,
>
> you are boring.

That's the difference between you and I snit. You crave responses from people which is why you sit in comp.os.linux.advocacy 24x7 posting your lies.

OTOH I could give a flying fuck about getting a response from you because most of the time it's nothing but lies. The only reason I'm responding at all is to watch you twitch and dig yourself a deeper hole.

You can claim you're the next president of the US for all I car, that doesn't make it the truth. I've exposed your lying ass and you have no recourse other than to lie and make false claims.

If you did indeed have any proof of your claims, you would be smearing it all over the place via your snit circus but the fact that all you can come back with is statements like "you are boring me" just shows that you are beaten and beaten with your own lying words.

This is the last reply in this thread. You have no recourse other than to tell more lies, so I will just leave it as it is. For anyone who doubts what I am saying, see my first post where I demonstrate how the snit circus works and how he cuts and snips and then replies out of context.

It speaks for itself and Google has it all logged for anyone to read.

In fact, I'll make it easy for everyone. Here it is again:

``````````quote

https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/c32ab285f89a5837?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect&pli=1

So let's suppose for a moment both skypes are indeed 2 different
people. Both skype #1 and skype #2 are two (CC is not in question)
different people.

https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/da1b48c68791d8f1?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect

> Both skype #1 and skype #2 are two (CC is not in question)
> different people.

Correct - though you denied this for a *long* time. Good to see you admit
your claims have been complete rubbish.

``````````quote

[Snit]

On 10/6/12 4:00 PM, in article
6e5c39ed-2fba-43cd...@googlegroups.com, "fungus"

<funge...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, October 6, 2012 6:42:19 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, it is funny how much of a failure you have been in backing your claim.
>> Anyway, step up your game if you want another response from me. As I noted,
>> you are boring.
>
> That's the difference between you and I snit.

Sure: I back my accusations and you do not.

PS: see, you *were* able to keep my attention. Well done! *CLEARLY* that
is your only goal in life.

...

> This is the last reply in this thread.

Incorrect. My reply is after yours... so yours is not the last.

[Gregory Shearman]

On 2012-10-06, fungus <snit@sockpuppet> wrote:

<PLONK>

--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

[owl]

Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 10/6/12 4:00 PM, in article
> 6e5c39ed-2fba-43cd...@googlegroups.com, "fungus"
> <funge...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Saturday, October 6, 2012 6:42:19 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Yes, it is funny how much of a failure you have been in backing your claim.
> >> Anyway, step up your game if you want another response from me. As I noted,
> >> you are boring.
> >
> > That's the difference between you and I snit.

> Sure: I back my accusations and you do not.

Hmm. "Between you and I".
Where have I seen that sort of illiteracy before?

[Snit]

On 10/6/12 8:10 PM, in article slrnk71sm1.75...@netscape.net,

"Gregory Shearman" <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote:

> On 2012-10-06, fungus <snit@sockpuppet> wrote:
>
> <PLONK>

Good choice. Suddenly several "new" people are following me around now that
I made it clear I have a couple names set to auto-read. How odd is that?
LOL!

[Snit]

On 10/6/12 8:16 PM, in article d55...@rooftop.invalid, "owl"

You only confuse COLA with all of Usenet, so not you. LOL!

[Snit]

On 10/6/12 8:16 PM, in article d55...@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<o...@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

In other words, you have now realized the mistake I made is a common one,
*not* like the utter illiteracy of 7. Good to see you recognize that.
Before you showed no understanding of this.

[owl]

Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 10/6/12 8:16 PM, in article d55...@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <o...@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> On 10/6/12 4:00 PM, in article
> >> 6e5c39ed-2fba-43cd...@googlegroups.com, "fungus"
> >> <funge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> On Saturday, October 6, 2012 6:42:19 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, it is funny how much of a failure you have been in backing your claim.
> >>>> Anyway, step up your game if you want another response from me. As I
> >>>> noted, you are boring.
> >>>
> >>> That's the difference between you and I snit.
> >
> >> Sure: I back my accusations and you do not.
> >
> > Hmm. "Between you and I".
> > Where have I seen that sort of illiteracy before?
> >
> You only confuse COLA with all of Usenet, so not you. LOL!

Are you lost again? That reply makes no sense.

[Snit]

On 10/6/12 8:59 PM, in article sre...@rooftop.invalid, "owl"

You mean: it does not make sense to you... or you are not willing to admit
to it. Your little goof was quite amusing.

[owl]

Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 10/6/12 8:16 PM, in article d55...@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <o...@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> On 10/6/12 4:00 PM, in article
> >> 6e5c39ed-2fba-43cd...@googlegroups.com, "fungus"
> >> <funge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> On Saturday, October 6, 2012 6:42:19 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, it is funny how much of a failure you have been in backing your claim.
> >>>> Anyway, step up your game if you want another response from me. As I
> >>>> noted,
> >>>> you are boring.
> >>>
> >>> That's the difference between you and I snit.
> >
> >> Sure: I back my accusations and you do not.
> >
> > Hmm. "Between you and I".
> > Where have I seen that sort of illiteracy before?
> >
> In other words, you have now realized the mistake I made is a common one,
> *not* like the utter illiteracy of 7. Good to see you recognize that.
> Before you showed no understanding of this.

That's a pathetically weak response, Rainman. If you weren't the only one
here tonight, I would go pick on somebody interesting.

[Snit]

On 10/6/12 9:09 PM, in article ie33...@rooftop.invalid, "owl"

LOL! You just realized you shot your own BS down. Poor you.

So now we know you have figured out 7's gibberish is not just in the form of
making common mistakes *and* that your confusion of COLA and all of Usenet
was far worse than confusing "I" and "me". Good for you.

By the way, your name calling sorta gives you away. :)

[owl]

Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 10/6/12 8:59 PM, in article sre...@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <o...@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> On 10/6/12 8:16 PM, in article d55...@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> >> <o...@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 10/6/12 4:00 PM, in article
> >>>> 6e5c39ed-2fba-43cd...@googlegroups.com, "fungus"
> >>>> <funge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> On Saturday, October 6, 2012 6:42:19 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, it is funny how much of a failure you have been in backing your
> >>>>>> claim.
> >>>>>> Anyway, step up your game if you want another response from me. As I
> >>>>>> noted, you are boring.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's the difference between you and I snit.
> >>>
> >>>> Sure: I back my accusations and you do not.
> >>>
> >>> Hmm. "Between you and I".
> >>> Where have I seen that sort of illiteracy before?
> >>>
> >> You only confuse COLA with all of Usenet, so not you. LOL!
> >
> > Are you lost again? That reply makes no sense.
> >
> You mean: it does not make sense to you... or you are not willing to admit
> to it. Your little goof was quite amusing.

What little goof? Until you provide some proof that Apple has someone
on usenet playing at the level of 7 or Big Steel, I'll stand by my
assertion.

[owl]

You are the idiot drawing an equivalence between cola and all of usenet.
I made an assertion about all of usenet. No mention of cola. So far
you have failed to show any evidence that contradicts my assertion.
Go find the evidence... But of course you will not. You cannot.
Because you know I'm right.

[Snit]

On 10/6/12 9:21 PM, in article sek4...@rooftop.invalid, "owl"

<o...@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

>>>> In other words, you have now realized the mistake I made is a common one,
>>>> *not* like the utter illiteracy of 7. Good to see you recognize that.
>>>> Before you showed no understanding of this.
>>>
>>> That's a pathetically weak response, Rainman. If you weren't the only one
>>> here tonight, I would go pick on somebody interesting.
>
>> LOL! You just realized you shot your own BS down. Poor you.
>
>> So now we know you have figured out 7's gibberish is not just in the form of
>> making common mistakes *and* that your confusion of COLA and all of Usenet
>> was far worse than confusing "I" and "me". Good for you.
>
>> By the way, your name calling sorta gives you away. :)
>
> You are the idiot drawing an equivalence between cola and all of usenet.

I noted you made that mistake. I merely mocked you for it.

> I made an assertion about all of usenet. No mention of cola. So far
> you have failed to show any evidence that contradicts my assertion.

Might I suggest you read your own posts from tonight, you know, where you
acknowledged your error and agreed I could mock you for it:


Snit:
-----
But shall we now mock your confusion between COLA and all of Usenet?
-----

Owl:
-----
If you like.
-----

But now you have amnesia about your comment "Too bad Apple doesn't have
anybody on usenet playing at that level." Clearly you *meant* COLA, unless
you claim to read all of Usenet.

> Go find the evidence... But of course you will not. You cannot.
> Because you know I'm right.

I will not find evidence *other* than quoting you and your admission is what
you mean, right?

LOL!

[Snit]

On 10/6/12 9:16 PM, in article se49...@rooftop.invalid, "owl"

Ah, now you are saying you meant all of Usenet. Nice back pedal. And I do
not care who is doing what in any other forum. Go fish yourself.

[owl]

Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 10/6/12 9:21 PM, in article sek4...@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <o...@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> >>>> In other words, you have now realized the mistake I made is a common one,
> >>>> *not* like the utter illiteracy of 7. Good to see you recognize that.
> >>>> Before you showed no understanding of this.
> >>>
> >>> That's a pathetically weak response, Rainman. If you weren't the only one
> >>> here tonight, I would go pick on somebody interesting.
> >
> >> LOL! You just realized you shot your own BS down. Poor you.
> >
> >> So now we know you have figured out 7's gibberish is not just in the form of
> >> making common mistakes *and* that your confusion of COLA and all of Usenet
> >> was far worse than confusing "I" and "me". Good for you.
> >
> >> By the way, your name calling sorta gives you away. :)
> >
> > You are the idiot drawing an equivalence between cola and all of usenet.

> I noted you made that mistake. I merely mocked you for it.

You made the error of assuming that when I said "usenet" I did not
*really* mean "all of usenet," but just COLA, and that my using the
term "usenet" would give you an opening for attack. Unfortunately
for you and your strange reading comprehension "skills," when I said
"usenet" that's what I meant: All of usenet. Not just COLA, you
illiterate clod.

> > I made an assertion about all of usenet. No mention of cola. So far
> > you have failed to show any evidence that contradicts my assertion.

> Might I suggest you read your own posts from tonight, you know, where you
> acknowledged your error and agreed I could mock you for it:

I gave you permission to do whatever you like. I made no error. You may
have made an error in comprehending what I wrote, but then we have already
established that you are illiterate, so that is to be expected.

> Snit:
> -----
> But shall we now mock your confusion between COLA and all of Usenet?
> -----

> Owl:
> -----
> If you like.
> -----

> But now you have amnesia about your comment "Too bad Apple doesn't have
> anybody on usenet playing at that level." Clearly you *meant* COLA, unless
> you claim to read all of Usenet.

What amnesia? I meant what I said. All of usenet.

> > Go find the evidence... But of course you will not. You cannot.
> > Because you know I'm right.

> I will not find evidence *other* than quoting you and your admission is what
> you mean, right?

> LOL!

Strange sense of humor.

[Snit]

On 10/6/12 9:44 PM, in article se....@rooftop.invalid, "owl"

<o...@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 10/6/12 9:21 PM, in article sek4...@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>> <o...@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>>> In other words, you have now realized the mistake I made is a common one,
>>>>>> *not* like the utter illiteracy of 7. Good to see you recognize that.
>>>>>> Before you showed no understanding of this.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a pathetically weak response, Rainman. If you weren't the only one
>>>>> here tonight, I would go pick on somebody interesting.
>>>
>>>> LOL! You just realized you shot your own BS down. Poor you.
>>>
>>>> So now we know you have figured out 7's gibberish is not just in the form
>>>> of
>>>> making common mistakes *and* that your confusion of COLA and all of Usenet
>>>> was far worse than confusing "I" and "me". Good for you.
>>>
>>>> By the way, your name calling sorta gives you away. :)
>>>
>>> You are the idiot drawing an equivalence between cola and all of usenet.
>
>> I noted you made that mistake. I merely mocked you for it.
>
> You made the error of assuming that when I said "usenet" I did not
> *really* mean "all of usenet," but just COLA, and that my using the
> term "usenet" would give you an opening for attack. Unfortunately
> for you and your strange reading comprehension "skills," when I said
> "usenet" that's what I meant: All of usenet. Not just COLA, you
> illiterate clod.

Nice attempt to back pedal. I do not buy it.

>>> I made an assertion about all of usenet. No mention of cola. So far
>>> you have failed to show any evidence that contradicts my assertion.
>
>> Might I suggest you read your own posts from tonight, you know, where you
>> acknowledged your error and agreed I could mock you for it:
>
> I gave you permission to do whatever you like. I made no error. You may
> have made an error in comprehending what I wrote, but then we have already
> established that you are illiterate, so that is to be expected.

Nice attempt to back pedal. I do not buy it.

>> Snit:
>> -----
>> But shall we now mock your confusion between COLA and all of Usenet?
>> -----
>
>> Owl:
>> -----
>> If you like.
>> -----
>
>> But now you have amnesia about your comment "Too bad Apple doesn't have
>> anybody on usenet playing at that level." Clearly you *meant* COLA, unless
>> you claim to read all of Usenet.
>
> What amnesia? I meant what I said. All of usenet.

Nice attempt to back pedal. I do not buy it.

>>> Go find the evidence... But of course you will not. You cannot.
>>> Because you know I'm right.
>
>> I will not find evidence *other* than quoting you and your admission is what
>> you mean, right?
>
>> LOL!
>
> Strange sense of humor.

That was not as funny as your previous trolling.

[owl]

Nice projecting there, Captain Strawman.

> >>> I made an assertion about all of usenet. No mention of cola. So far
> >>> you have failed to show any evidence that contradicts my assertion.
> >
> >> Might I suggest you read your own posts from tonight, you know, where you
> >> acknowledged your error and agreed I could mock you for it:
> >
> > I gave you permission to do whatever you like. I made no error. You may
> > have made an error in comprehending what I wrote, but then we have already
> > established that you are illiterate, so that is to be expected.

> Nice attempt to back pedal. I do not buy it.

Nice projecting there, Captain Strawman.

> >> Snit:
> >> -----
> >> But shall we now mock your confusion between COLA and all of Usenet?
> >> -----
> >
> >> Owl:
> >> -----
> >> If you like.
> >> -----
> >
> >> But now you have amnesia about your comment "Too bad Apple doesn't have
> >> anybody on usenet playing at that level." Clearly you *meant* COLA, unless
> >> you claim to read all of Usenet.
> >
> > What amnesia? I meant what I said. All of usenet.

> Nice attempt to back pedal. I do not buy it.

Nice projecting there, Captain Strawman.

> >>> Go find the evidence... But of course you will not. You cannot.
> >>> Because you know I'm right.
> >
> >> I will not find evidence *other* than quoting you and your admission is what
> >> you mean, right?
> >
> >> LOL!
> >
> > Strange sense of humor.

> That was not as funny as your previous trolling.

You are ridiculous as a judge of what is funny, Rainman.

[Snit]

On 10/6/12 10:13 PM, in article urn...@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<o...@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

...

>>> Strange sense of humor.
>
>> That was not as funny as your previous trolling.
>
> You are ridiculous as a judge of what is funny, Rainman.

Poor you... not finding your back pedaling funny.

Snit:
-----
But shall we now mock your confusion between COLA and all of Usenet?
-----

Owl:
-----
If you like.
-----

Now you want to pretend like you did not do what you admitted to earlier
tonight. Oh well.

[Steve Carroll]

On Oct 6, 1:15 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 10/6/12 11:52 AM, in article
> 564cb22c-a936-4f80...@googlegroups.com, "fungus"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <fungee2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 6, 2012 2:38:19 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:

> >> On 10/6/12 10:55 AM, in article Cg_bs.175692$It6.46...@fx11.am4, "7"

>
> >> <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Snit wrote:
>
> >>>>> I guess near-slave labor is just not what it used to be.
>
> >>>> The same company also makes Android devices you idiot.
>
> >>> You must be ...
> >> right.
>
> >> I am!
>
> > The snit circus in action. Here we have snit snipping the context and
> > replying. It's one of his dirty tricks. Lying is another one. Snit is a
> > pathological liar.
>
> I snip 7 that way because his initial comments are completely illiterate, he
> can *never* defend his BS, and he is clearly just trolling.  For a *real*
> response I would *never* respond in such a way.

I (and several others) do this to you after having watched you do it
in CSMA. Got a point, Mr. Hypocrite? Someone is rightfully pointing
out that you whine about having done to you what you do to others
(your hypocrisy). This kind of snipping is just one of the things you
do that highlights your hypocrisy... there are many.

[Steve Carroll]

On Oct 6, 10:44 pm, owl <o...@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> > On 10/6/12 9:21 PM, in article sek4p...@rooftop.invalid, "owl"

> > <o...@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> > >>>> In other words, you have now realized the mistake I made is a common one,
> > >>>> *not* like the utter illiteracy of 7.  Good to see you recognize that.
> > >>>> Before you showed no understanding of this.
>
> > >>> That's a pathetically weak response, Rainman.  If you weren't the only one
> > >>> here tonight, I would go pick on somebody interesting.
>
> > >> LOL!  You just realized you shot your own BS down.  Poor you.
>
> > >> So now we know you have figured out 7's gibberish is not just in the form of
> > >> making common mistakes *and* that your confusion of COLA and all of Usenet
> > >> was far worse than confusing "I" and "me".  Good for you.
>
> > >> By the way, your name calling sorta gives you away.  :)
>
> > > You are the idiot drawing an equivalence between cola and all of usenet.
> > I noted you made that mistake.  I merely mocked you for it.
>
> You made the error of assuming that when I said "usenet" I did not
> *really* mean "all of usenet," but just COLA, and that my using the
> term "usenet" would give you an opening for attack.  Unfortunately
> for you and your strange reading comprehension "skills," when I said
> "usenet" that's what I meant:  All of usenet.  Not just COLA, you
> illiterate clod.

Nice "beat down," (as some in here like to say ;)

Snit obviously has a little reality problem, coupled with his "skills"
it's... well... you know ;)

[chrisv]

Snot wrote:
> On 10/6/12 8:10 PM, in article
> slrnk71sm1.75...@netscape.net, "Gregory Shearman"
> <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-10-06, fungus <snit@sockpuppet> wrote:
>>
>> <PLONK>

+24 of Snot's asshole posts, slipping through my filters.
*plonk* , *plonk* , *plonk* , *plonk* , *plonk* , *plonk*
*plonk* , *plonk* , *plonk* , *plonk* , *plonk* , *plonk*
*plonk* , *plonk* , *plonk* , *plonk* , *plonk* , *plonk*
*plonk* , *plonk* , *plonk* , *plonk* , *plonk* , *plonk*

>
> Good choice. Suddenly several "new" people are following me around
> now that I made it clear I have a couple names set to auto-read. How
> odd is that? LOL!

*THREADPLONK*

[Snit]

On 10/7/12 1:22 PM, in article 201210072022...@anonymous.usenet,

"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Snot wrote:
>> On 10/6/12 8:10 PM, in article
>> slrnk71sm1.75...@netscape.net, "Gregory Shearman"
>> <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2012-10-06, fungus <snit@sockpuppet> wrote:
>>>
>>> <PLONK>
>
> +24 of Snot's asshole posts, slipping through my filters.

Poor chrisv... cannot help but prove how scummy he is.

[chrisv]

some idiot forging chrisv wrote:

> Snot wrote:
>>
>> "Gregory Shearman"

>>>
>>> On 2012-10-06, fungus <snit@sockpuppet> wrote:
>>>
>>> <PLONK>
>
>+24 of Snot's asshole posts, slipping through my filters.
>*plonk* , *plonk* , *plonk* , *plonk* , *plonk* , *plonk*
>*plonk* , *plonk* , *plonk* , *plonk* , *plonk* , *plonk*
>*plonk* , *plonk* , *plonk* , *plonk* , *plonk* , *plonk*
>*plonk* , *plonk* , *plonk* , *plonk* , *plonk* , *plonk*

>> Good choice. Suddenly several "new" people are following me around
>> now that I made it clear I have a couple names set to auto-read. How
>> odd is that? LOL!

I would not put it past this disease to be brain-damaged enough to
imagine that I would ever "follow it around".

>*THREADPLONK*

Ignore the forger.

[Ezekiel]

"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:CC95A557.C81B%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> On 10/6/12 6:25 AM, in article k4pbg5$ncs$1...@dont-email.me, "RonB"

> <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I guess near-slave labor is just not what it used to be.
>

Poor WronG... once again he devotes all his time to finding every negative
story about Apple that he can. Looks like jealousy has reared its ugly head
once again.

How's that Android kwalitie kontroll that made 100's of millions phones
built over the past several years all vulnerable to having the SIM card
destroyed and all of your data wiped?

<quote>
It turns out that the "Dirty USSD" exploit demonstrated yesterday on Samsung
devices affects ***all Android devices*** running anything below Android
4.1.x aka Jelly Bean.

During his presentation, Borgaonkar mentioned that the same attack can be
used to "kill" SIM cards.... ... vulnerable to remote wipe or permanent
destruction of the SIM card - if they haven't been updated since June.

He added that all Android devices running Android 2.3.x (Gingerbread), 3.x
(Honeycomb), 4.0.x (Ice Cream Sandwich) and 4.1.x (Jelly Bean) are
vulnerable to this flaw if they had not been updated since June.
</quote>

Android - the Swiss-Cheese malware OS that made making a phone call
dangerous!

> The same company also makes Android devices you idiot.
>

Little *facts* like this don't seem to get in the way of those proven piece
of shit liars.

--
"Microsoft Executives deposed in sworn testimony before Courts, in 2005, and
in *every* quarterly SEC filing, that Linux users made up over 17% of all
Internet users with a growth rate of >3% per annum."

Dumb Willy Poaster - repeating the same LIE for YEARS.

08 May 2008 <pan.2008.05.08....@leafnode.amd64.eu>
19 Jul 2009 <ibjbj6-...@jaunty64bit.unbuntulinux.org>
26 Jan 2010 <pan.2010.01.26....@mandriva2010.org>

[Snit]

On 10/8/12 6:54 AM, in article k4ulub$i3p$1...@dont-email.me, "Ezekiel"

RonB is completely obsessed with Apple. He seems to spend his every waking
moment hoping there will be bad news about the company. This is as stupid as
the people who are obsessed with hoping for and finding good news. He is an
iCultist.