Why I am a good mark for the trolls
Snit
Steve Carroll, Tim Adams, Wally, Sandman, Steve Mackay, Alan Baker, Peter
Köhlmann, High Plains Thumper, Tattoo Vampire and other trolls target me?
Certainly there are other marks for their bullying.
A number of reasons.
1) I post a lot. That puts me in their targets.
2) When they post even outrageous accusations and lies about me I often take
the time to give the greatest benefit of doubt that they might actually
*believe* what they are saying... and I defend myself by showing the truth.
Over and over I will do this. It becomes annoying, and others associate me
with the trolls. It is self-defeating but I am also someone who believes in
people, so I give them chance after chance after chance to do the right
thing. While this *has* occasionally worked - some people who used to troll
Usenet now post much more reasonably - it is rare that this actually works.
For an example of trolls who target me on this, look at Wally and Tim Adams
and Steve Carroll... even though the have lost the arguments they have with
me *years* ago they cannot let go and spew the same absurd accusations over
and over and over and over. I generally respond and point to the facts that
show they are wrong. In many cases the facts are as clear as noting the
empty set is written as {} and not as {0}. It is not like most of these are
debates with gray areas!
3) My personal information is not hard to find. Bullies know they can use
that against me. And they do.
For examples of trolls who have focused on this, look at Tim Adams, William
"Geoff M. Fitton" Poaster, Sandman, and others.
4) While I make mistakes, as we all do, I am knowledgeable about computer
topics, especially in the areas I generally talk about. My views do not go
with the "party line": I think the best form of advocacy is to be honest
about a product - warts and all. Both OS X and Linux are well worth
advocating, and I do, but both also have problems I have discussed in some
depth in the respective forums. The die-hard "advocates" who see advocacy
as lying about the product they like do not like my honest and honorable
approach to advocacy.
As an example of how trolls have a party when I do make a mistake in terms
of technology, look at how Steve freaked out for *months* when I made a
comment about the MacBook Air that he was able to take out of context to
make it look bad. He knows I am knowledgeable, so he tried to kick me
where he thought it would hurt.
5) I do not back down from pointing out the lies of others.
For an example of this, note Peter Köhlmann's obvious hatred of me... he
denied posting to CSMA and I pointed to the posts where he clearly did so.
No gray area. He denied it still. No doubt he was not mistaken, he was
lying. I called him on his lie. I called him on some others. He freaked
out and is still freaking out.
While the above people, and some others, will continue to make accusations
against me of being dishonest or of twisting words (which, really, is a form
of dishonesty), notice how they cannot find any examples. I have been
challenging them to do so for some time now... and they cannot. Steve
Carroll tried - by pointing to a comment of mine from 2004 where he thinks
someone jumped from one topic to anther for a different reason than I do
(though he cannot explain his reasoning with anything nearing coherence).
Sandman tried: he pointed to his own site and failed to point to any
comments by me. Wally and Tim Adams tried... but they showed they were not
up to 3rd grade levels of comprehension levels (literally... I am not
exaggerating with that). As far as I know nobody else even tried (High
Plains Thumper quoted Wally's clearly inaccurate accusations).
In response, of course, there will be some "clever" troll who snips my post
and gives an unsupported accusations or just sinks to name calling. What
there will *not* be is *any* reasonable support for the accusations they
spew about me.
Which will just show support for my points, above. They will not be able to
help it - they *will* support my above claims.
--
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?
Steve Carroll
> The question of why I am a mark for the trolls has come up recently. Why do
> Steve Carroll, Tim Adams, Wally, Sandman, Steve Mackay, Alan Baker, Peter
> Köhlmann, High Plains Thumper, Tattoo Vampire and other trolls target me?
> Certainly there are other marks for their bullying.
>
> A number of reasons.
And all of them are created out of a delusion you are having. No one,
but you, has called all the people you have just listed "trolls". OTOH
virtually every poster in csma and many in cola have labeled you a
liar, troll or worse.
(snip Snit's delusions)
Don Zeigler
> The question of why I am a mark for the trolls has come up recently.
[snip lunacy]
Michael "Messiah Complex" Glasser.
--
Regards,
[dmz]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC
...I can keep a secret, it's the people I tell who can't.
Snit
C585783C.E8255%use...@gallopinginsanity.com on 1/3/09 8:17 PM:
Reply 1: Steve Carroll. As predicted - snipped my post, gave unsupported
accusations, and sank to name calling. He made no effort to even *hint* at
support for his accusations.
Score: Snit 1, Trolls 0
--
Teachers open the door but you must walk through it yourself.
Tattoo Vampire
> And all of them are created out of a delusion you are having. No one,
> but you, has called all the people you have just listed "trolls". OTOH
> virtually every poster in csma and many in cola have labeled you a
> liar, troll or worse.
>
> (snip Snit's delusions)
I'm beginning to think that Snit actually believes what he posts to be the
truth. He definitely has mental health issues. I guess sitting on his ass
24/7/365 in front of the computer has finally driven him insane.
--
The trouble with apathy these days is nobody cares.
Regards,
[dmz]
Owner and proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> The question of why I am a mark for the trolls has come up recently.
Your wife has started 2009 talking to you? She has a big heart!
> Why do
> Steve Carroll, Tim Adams, Wally, Sandman, Steve Mackay, Alan Baker, Peter
> Köhlmann, High Plains Thumper, Tattoo Vampire and other trolls target me?
Karma?
> Certainly there are other marks for their bullying.
Name one.
> A number of reasons.
>
> 1) I post a lot. That puts me in their targets.
Many people post a lot, It's clearly not that, you lie a lot? Yup that'll do
it!
>
> 2) When they post even outrageous accusations and lies about me I often take
> the time to give the greatest benefit of doubt that they might actually
> *believe* what they are saying... and I defend myself by showing the truth.
See ... Bulls eye!
> Over and over I will do this. It becomes annoying,
Now *that* is true, you do repeat yourself a lot, and it is annoying!
> and others associate me with the trolls.
So you use sock puppets in an effort to break that association? Hhmmmm!
> It is self-defeating
Of course, But that won't deter you from doing it!
> but I am also someone who believes in people,
Then you should listen to them more and ignore the 'voices'..
"The wee little elephants that whisper in my ear disagree. Therefore you
are wrong."-Snit
> so I give them chance after chance after chance to do the right
> thing.
> While this *has* occasionally worked - some people who used to troll
> Usenet now post much more reasonably - it is rare that this actually works.
Ignoring you is posting more reasonably? ... OK!
>
> For an example of trolls who target me on this, look at Wally and Tim Adams
> and Steve Carroll... even though the have lost the arguments they have with
> me *years* ago they cannot let go and spew the same absurd accusations over
> and over and over and over. I generally respond and point to the facts that
> show they are wrong. In many cases the facts are as clear as noting the
> empty set is written as {} and not as {0}. It is not like most of these are
> debates with gray areas!
"With enough glue... anything is possible" - Snit
>
> 3) My personal information is not hard to find. Bullies know they can use
> that against me. And they do.
"I live a fairly conservative life style - one wife... no drugs...
heterosexual... would never support my wife having an abortion..."-Snit
Ever considered keeping some information to yourself Snit?
>
> For examples of trolls who have focused on this, look at Tim Adams, William
> "Geoff M. Fitton" Poaster, Sandman, and others.
"It should be illegal to point guns at (and therefore threaten) innocent
people."-Snit
"To give everyone a nuke (with the ability to USE it) would be a huge
danger."-Snit
Gee! there's no pulling the wool over Snits eyes, such amazing insight!
>
> 4) While I make mistakes, as we all do, I am knowledgeable about computer
> topics, especially in the areas I generally talk about. My views do not go
> with the "party line": I think the best form of advocacy is to be honest
> about a product - warts and all. Both OS X and Linux are well worth
> advocating, and I do, but both also have problems I have discussed in some
> depth in the respective forums. The die-hard "advocates" who see advocacy
> as lying about the product they like do not like my honest and honorable
> approach to advocacy.
Honest and honorable approach to advocacy.?
"I have become very cautious in my wording - to the point of including
enough disclaimers as to make the actual point harder to see."-Snit
Hhhhmmmmmmmm!
>
> As an example of how trolls have a party when I do make a mistake in terms
> of technology, look at how Steve freaked out for *months* when I made a
> comment about the MacBook Air that he was able to take out of context to
> make it look bad. He knows I am knowledgeable, so he tried to kick me
> where he thought it would hurt.
"Yes. Well... maybe. What do you mean by "psychosomatic complaints"?
Don't be discouraged when you find out that our details differ, but you
could be describing me quite accurately."-Snit
>
> 5) I do not back down from pointing out the lies of others.
>
> For an example of this, note Peter Köhlmann's obvious hatred of me... he
> denied posting to CSMA and I pointed to the posts where he clearly did so.
> No gray area. He denied it still. No doubt he was not mistaken, he was
> lying. I called him on his lie. I called him on some others. He freaked
> out and is still freaking out.
"Ok, do you or do you not partially agree with it. You did state that you
did not agree with it "at all". Please remember I pointed out a a partial
part of it, and you claimed you did not agree with that... so you have shown
that when you say you do not agree with something "at all" you might agree
with parts of it."-Snit
Stop confusing ridiculing your <cough-cough> logic with freaking out Snit!
>
> While the above people, and some others, will continue to make accusations
> against me of being dishonest or of twisting words
Gee I wonder why? LOL
> (which, really, is a form of dishonesty),
Then why do you do it?
> notice how they cannot find any examples. I have been
> challenging them to do so for some time now... and they cannot.
"it is not a full complete quote. I will correct it."-Snit
LOL
> Steve
> Carroll tried - by pointing to a comment of mine from 2004 where he thinks
> someone jumped from one topic to anther for a different reason than I do
> (though he cannot explain his reasoning with anything nearing coherence).
> Sandman tried: he pointed to his own site and failed to point to any
> comments by me. Wally and Tim Adams tried... but they showed they were not
> up to 3rd grade levels of comprehension levels (literally... I am not
> exaggerating with that). As far as I know nobody else even tried (High
> Plains Thumper quoted Wally's clearly inaccurate accusations).
>
> In response, of course, there will be some "clever" troll who snips my post
> and gives an unsupported accusations or just sinks to name calling. What
> there will *not* be is *any* reasonable support for the accusations they
> spew about me.
>
> Which will just show support for my points, above. They will not be able to
> help it - they *will* support my above claims.
"And I cry when there is nobody who understands that."- Snit
Wanna tissue Snit?
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
> Reply 1: Steve Carroll. As predicted - snipped my post, gave unsupported
> accusations, and sank to name calling. He made no effort to even *hint* at
> support for his accusations.
>
> Score: Snit 1, Trolls 0
>
Steve Wrote...
"And all of them are created out of a delusion you are having. No one,
but you, has called all the people you have just listed "trolls"."
Absolutely true and easily verified!
"OTOH virtually every poster in csma and many in cola have labeled you a
liar, troll or worse."
Absolutely true and common knowledge!
"Many people post a lot, It's clearly not that, you lie a lot? Yup that'll
do it!"-Wally
Score: Snit takes a dope test..... and proves he *is* one!
Lusotec
> The question of why I am a mark for the trolls has come up recently. Why
> do Steve Carroll, Tim Adams, Wally, Sandman, Steve Mackay, Alan Baker,
> Peter Köhlmann, High Plains Thumper, Tattoo Vampire and other trolls
> target me? Certainly there are other marks for their bullying.
I have a rule in knode to ignore threads with the word "Snit" in the
subject. Some people have nothing better to do than post insults. My advice
is to just ignore them.
Regards.
William Poaster
> Snit wrote:
>
>> The question of why I am a mark for the trolls has come up recently.
>
> [snip lunacy]
>
> Michael "Messiah Complex" Glasser.
What Michael Snit "Prescott Computer Guy" Glasser doesn't get is, that
*he* is the troll. Many normal posters are *totally* fed up with him, &
ignore him.
--
No room for the horrors
of Micro$oft here!
-- Stephen Fry - Room 101 --
7
wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Appil Department of Marketing:
> The question of why I am a mark for the trolls has come up recently.
It is because you talk like a little girly in your youtube videos.
Seriously, I think you should get a decent PC, and install Linux
and compiz and then your eyes will be opened. And you will stop
being a girlie. Besides Appil are BSD Pirates ;)
Please try some Linux and give your anti-Linux rants a rest.
Its all free http://www.livecdlist.com
http://www.distrowatch.com
100 Days of 3D Desktop - Ubuntu Compiz
--------------------------------------
1. Do you want to go back to 2D desktop after 100 days on 3D Compiz Linux ?
NO THANK YOU!!!
2. Has your productivity gone through the roof?
YES THANKS!!!
3. What of the appil/windummy retards who fluff about on 2D?
HOORA! GOOD LUCK TO THOSE RETARTDS!!!!
4. So what holds you back from improving productivity?
a) - Disk speed! Disk speed! Disk speed!
SSDs MUST improve their speed x10 to gain ANY further advantages
b) - Suite Catasrophe
Todays suites are the catastrophic failure points
for productivity loss. A productivity suite like Open Office
contain a handful of members that provide various functions
word processing and spreadsheet.
New suite building application framework
for suite builders that allows
functions to be dropped in from ALL GPL'd applications.
A suite builder application will glue relevant applications
into one application that can be opened once to process one
kind of job. For example a embedded electronic project development
kit and html documention suit could improve my productivity.
I would open the suit builder, drop in Konqueror for HTML
viewing, Seamonkey composer for HTML editing,
Eagle CAD for PCB schematic, Gambas for RS232 communications and
data gathering, SQL Server for data processing,
Open Office Calc for spreadsheet analysis and graphing tools.
The purpose of suit builder is to facilitate rapid
creation of work and its communication.
With GLP's code, this is entirely feasible.
With proprietory code, this is entirely IMPOSSIBLE.
5. Anything missing?
Post processing free drop in of audio and video clips.
Don't want to spend time converting audio to mp3/ogg/proprietory etc.
Don't want to spend time cleaning up and compressing videos.
Just want to take the best compressed, noise eliminated
license free format ogg and theora and drop it in directly from
recorder/video camera/web cam directly into HTML documentation
and suite built applications to widely distribute and communicate.
6. Any final parting insults to the COLA-TROLLs?
Yes - up yours!
3D desktops and free software delivers power
that proprietory WILL NEVER DELIVER.
Use it for 100 days and your brain will start to take advantage
of 3D working and you will never go back to the 2D desktop again.
Phil Da Lick!
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 14:15:10 +0900, Wally wrote:
>
>
>>> 1) I post a lot. That puts me in their targets.
>> Many people post a lot, It's clearly not that, you lie a lot? Yup that'll do
>> it!
>
> out a negative aspect of Linux, no matter how true and no matter how much
> credibility it has the Linux loons will label you a troll and tar and
> feather you.
Untrue. What will get you labelled, tarred and feathered is banging on
and on about how crap linux is without stating anything positive. Ever.
Hadron
> On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 23:06:06 -0500, Don Zeigler wrote:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> The question of why I am a mark for the trolls has come up recently.
>>
>> [snip lunacy]
>>
>> Michael "Messiah Complex" Glasser.
>
> What Michael Snit "Prescott Computer Guy" Glasser doesn't get is, that
> *he* is the troll. Many normal posters are *totally* fed up with him, &
> ignore him.
This might surprise you Willy "boring, me too" Poaster, but you and
High Plains Hypocrite and Don Zeigler are not "normal posters". You are
quite insane and your constant harassment and bringing of personal
details into COLA is simply disgusting.
--
"Hey, who needs mp3, wma, acc when we can have ogg?"
-- "Moshe Goldfarb." <brick_...@gmail.com> in comp.os.linux.advocacy
Hadron
Rubbish. See the attempted discussions on the benefits of a consistent
UI over the entire desktop suite for an example. We actually had posters
here telling us that a good consistent UI was a waste of a programmers
time and only retards needed one. Hard to believe I know, but true.
Snit
C585783C.E8255%use...@gallopinginsanity.com on 1/3/09 8:17 PM:
> The question of why I am a mark for the trolls has come up recently. Why do
Reply 1: Steve Carroll.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/ca4a215831c0c9f5>
As predicted: snipped my post, gave unsupported accusations, and sank to
name calling. He made no effort to even *hint* at support for his
accusations.
Score: Snit 1, Trolls 0
Reply 2: High Plains Thumper
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c6519b6fde775082>
As predicted: snipped my post, gave unsupported accusations, and sank to
name calling. He made no effort to even *hint* at support for his
accusations. He did post Steve Carroll's list of scavenged and forged
"quotes", but *none* from me. Not one.
Score: Snit 2, Trolls 0
Reply 3: William Geoff M. Fitton Poaster
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/70ef35e0d0ad8656>
As predicted: snipped my post, gave unsupported accusations (of blackmail!),
and sank to trying to tie his BS to my business name to pull Google
searchers of people looking for me to *his* BS. He did post a message ID,
but it did not in any way, shape, or form support his bizarre and delusional
accusation of *blackmail*. Where did he even come up with that? Just a
plea for attention?
Score: Snit 3, Trolls 0
Reply 4: Wally - responding to Poaster
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/70ef35e0d0ad8656>
As predicted: Made am accusation of "contradictions" but did not even try to
support his claim. Later:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/aa93eae84730a761>
Freaks out completely, posting a bunch of quotes taken completely out of
context and attributing Steve Carroll's quotes to *me*. Specifically:
"With enough glue... anything is possible". Also posts quotes he has
completely fabricated, as far as I can tell. They do not appear to be in
the Google archive, but the search is being flakey there again.
Score: Snit 4, Trolls 0
Reply 5: Don Zeigler
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/ab7e2357a484c45b>
As predicted: snipped my post, gave an unsupported accusation, and even
changed the name of the the subject line in his response (hey, I forgot to
predict that one!)
Score: Snit 5, Trolls 0
Reply 6: 7
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/b43100a0f694946a>
As predicted: snipped my post, gave unsupported personal attacks (about my
voice in videos... what???), and then posted information on things other
than the topic. Not sure he even understood what he read. Just weird.
Score: Snit 6, Trolls 0
I wonder how many more will go out of their way to prove me correct? In any
case, please note I predicted they would... they are very, very predictable.
I will not be adding comments from those who have already proved me
correct... even if they post more. I will update this list if other trolls
opt to jump in and prove me correct or, as if, refute my claims and actually
support their BS. LOL. *Not* going to happen, even with my taunting of
them.
--
Satan lives for my sins... now *that* is dedication!
Snit
gjqc9o$s4$1...@edwardhall.motzarella.org on 1/4/09 6:06 AM:
> William Poaster <w...@ubuntu-intrepid.eu> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 23:06:06 -0500, Don Zeigler wrote:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> The question of why I am a mark for the trolls has come up recently.
>>>
>>> [snip lunacy]
>>>
>>> Michael "Messiah Complex" Glasser.
>>
>> What Michael Snit "Prescott Computer Guy" Glasser doesn't get is, that
>> *he* is the troll. Many normal posters are *totally* fed up with him, &
>> ignore him.
>
> This might surprise you Willy "boring, me too" Poaster, but you and
> High Plains Hypocrite and Don Zeigler are not "normal posters". You are
> quite insane and your constant harassment and bringing of personal
> details into COLA is simply disgusting.
I find it amazing that no matter how many times I openly mock the trolls for
their lack of even *trying* to support their accusations against me how they
continue to fail to even try. No quotes of lies or other wrong doing...
other than to note I post off topic - though when I do it is almost always
in response to trolls.
--
"And so, in no sense, is stability a reason to move to a new version. It零
never a reason." - Bill Gates
Snit
on 1/4/09 4:35 AM:
Winter break is ending soon... I will certainly not be giving them as much
attention soon. I am just seeing what their absolute best arguments /
evidence against me are. Turns out not one of them can find a single "lie"
by me... even though they often accuse me of lying. It is as if they revel
in being incompetent. Or, really, dishonest.
--
Never stand between a dog and the hydrant. - John Peers
Don Zeigler
> This might surprise you Willy "boring, me too" Poaster, but you and
> High Plains Hypocrite and Don Zeigler are not "normal posters". You are
> quite insane and your constant harassment and bringing of personal
> details into COLA is simply disgusting.
Cry me a river, you fatheaded loser.
--
I didn't fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian.
Don Zeigler
> Winter break is ending soon... I will certainly not be giving them as much
> attention soon.
LOL!!!! Sure, Snot. Your posting volume was just as high before "winter
break".
How can you take a break from a job you don't have, anyhow?
--
Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand.
Don Zeigler
> I have a rule in knode to ignore threads with the word "Snit" in the
> subject.
Set one to ignore "Snit" in the "From" field and you'll be in good shape.
--
Jesus is coming! Everyone look busy.
Hadron
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> This might surprise you Willy "boring, me too" Poaster, but you and
>> High Plains Hypocrite and Don Zeigler are not "normal posters". You are
>> quite insane and your constant harassment and bringing of personal
>> details into COLA is simply disgusting.
>
> Cry me a river, you fatheaded loser.
I wouldn't waste a drip from my running nose on scum like you.
--
"Don't like Linux.. don't use it. Simple."
-- Rick <no...@nomail.com> in comp.os.linux.advocacy, alt.os.windows-xp
Hadron
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Winter break is ending soon... I will certainly not be giving them as much
>> attention soon.
>
> LOL!!!! Sure, Snot. Your posting volume was just as high before "winter
> break".
>
> How can you take a break from a job you don't have, anyhow?
More personal attacks and bringing of real life into it. Wow, you really
are a nasty little man Vampire.
William Poaster
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> This might surprise you Willy "boring, me too" Poaster, but you and
>> High Plains Hypocrite and Don Zeigler are not "normal posters". You are
>> quite insane and your constant harassment and bringing of personal
>> details into COLA is simply disgusting.
Bullshit. Quack the "kernel hacker" (who can't! LOL), is a luser & binned
in almost *every* group the troll has posted in.
As for insane, I'm not the one who's a *self-confessed* troll & pretending
to be something I'm not!
For being "boring, me too", he should look as his own replies to Flatfish
& Michael Snit Glasser. He's so far up their collective asses, he must be
able to see out of their mouths.
> Cry me a river, you fatheaded loser.
Now it can f#ck off to a windoze group, & cry on someone's shoulder.
Sinister Midget
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Winter break is ending soon... I will certainly not be giving them as much
>> attention soon.
>
> LOL!!!! Sure, Snot. Your posting volume was just as high before "winter
> break".
>
> How can you take a break from a job you don't have, anyhow?
He means his wife's winter break. Now he'll have to get up, go to the
refrigerator and get his own sandwich, the one she made for him before
going to work to support his "teaching" stuff. Plus he'll have to get
his own Cheetos and Ding-Dongs from the cupboard.
Such is the burden of the Prescott Computer Guy.
--
Consider for a moment any beauty in the name Ralph.
-- Frank Zappa
Snit
> Don Zeigler <sit...@this.computer> writes:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Winter break is ending soon... I will certainly not be giving them as much
>>> attention soon.
>>
>> LOL!!!! Sure, Snot. Your posting volume was just as high before "winter
>> break".
>>
>> How can you take a break from a job you don't have, anyhow?
>
> More personal attacks and bringing of real life into it. Wow, you really
> are a nasty little man Vampire.
The funny thing is Don is the one who claimed to not be at work. Whatever...
if has a job and is happy with it then fine... and if not and he is looking
for work then I wish him well.
I simply do not understand why he feels the need to make personal attacks...
other than that is the only way he knows to try to feel better about
himself. A shame. If he were to grow up a little he might be able to add
good content to COLA.
--
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Peter Köhlmann
> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lickRE...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> Gary M. Stewart wrote:
>>> On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 14:15:10 +0900, Wally wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> 1) I post a lot. That puts me in their targets.
>>>> Many people post a lot, It's clearly not that, you lie a lot? Yup
>>>> that'll do it!
>>>
>>> As far as comp.os.linux.advocacy is concerned, all you have to do is
>>> point out a negative aspect of Linux, no matter how true and no matter
>>> how much credibility it has the Linux loons will label you a troll and
>>> tar and feather you.
>>
>>
>> Untrue. What will get you labelled, tarred and feathered is banging on
>> and on about how crap linux is without stating anything
>> positive. Ever.
>
> Rubbish. See the attempted discussions on the benefits of a consistent
> UI over the entire desktop suite for an example. We actually had posters
> here telling us that a good consistent UI was a waste of a programmers
> time and only retards needed one. Hard to believe I know, but true.
>
If it is true, you certainly will be able to show us some MSg-IDs, right,
liar Hadron Quark?
It isn't true. As usual you distort and misrepresent what really was
written.
Come on, you lying POS, prove your claims. After all, it would be for the
very first time.
You are just as bad as Snot Michael Glasser, who never is able to actually
point to posts he says "prove what he claims". You are just a dishonest
POS like that cretinous twit
--
Who the fuck is General Failure, and why is he reading my harddisk?
William Poaster
> On 2009-01-04, Don Zeigler <sit...@this.computer> claimed:
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Winter break is ending soon... I will certainly not be giving them as
>>> much attention soon.
>>
>> LOL!!!! Sure, Snot. Your posting volume was just as high before "winter
>> break".
>>
>> How can you take a break from a job you don't have, anyhow?
>
> He means his wife's winter break. Now he'll have to get up, go to the
> refrigerator and get his own sandwich, the one she made for him before
> going to work to support his "teaching" stuff. Plus he'll have to get his
> own Cheetos and Ding-Dongs from the cupboard.
Ya think Mrs Glasser will trust Snit to open & close a cupboard door,
without trapping his Ding-Dongs in it? ;-)
> Such is the burden of the Prescott Computer Guy.
--
Don Zeigler
> I wouldn't waste a drip from my running nose on scum like you.
Sir, you cut me to the quick. Woe is me.
You jellyfish.
--
Aim Low, Reach Your Goals, Avoid Disappointment.
Don Zeigler
> He means his wife's winter break. Now he'll have to get up, go to the
> refrigerator and get his own sandwich, the one she made for him before
> going to work to support his "teaching" stuff. Plus he'll have to get
> his own Cheetos and Ding-Dongs from the cupboard.
>
> Such is the burden of the Prescott Computer Guy.
LOL!!!!
--
"Scotty, beam us aboard!" (2x4 drops from sky)
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> As predicted: Made am accusation of "contradictions" but did not even try to
> support his claim.
Why do you think that I used the quote below Snit? LOL
Because I knew that I would not need to dredge up an old contradiction from
you Snit, I deliberately chose that one because I knew you could not resist
supplying a nice fresh one!
As I have told you Snit ... You are *that* predictable!
Do you remember this exchange Snit?...
Steve Carroll wrote...
"With enough glue... anything is possible:)"
Snit then responded...
"Great quote... just added it to my sigs.
"With enough glue... anything is possible" -- Steve Carroll"-Snit
I then asked Snit...
"And you don't find removing the smiley dishonest? ...Shame on you!"-Wally
To which Snit replied...
"I can see the concern... while it is *undoubtedly* far, far more honest
than Steve repeatedly attributing his own quotes to me (as he has done) it
is not a full complete quote. I will correct it."-Snit
Snit admits that there *was* a concern with the way he was portraying the
quote that he supplied and attributed to Steve Carroll .. the exact same one
that I posted in this later post and that Snit had again attributed to Steve
Carroll!
And just for good measure it can be plainly seen that Snit lied when he
said..
"I will correct it."-Snit
As can be seen by this latest reply from him ... He hasnšt, he is *still*
posting....
"With enough glue... anything is possible"
And attributing it to Steve Carroll!
Contradictions and lies .... Snit's calling cards!
> Later:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/aa93eae84730a761>
> Freaks out completely, posting a bunch of quotes taken completely out of
> context and attributing Steve Carroll's quotes to *me*. Specifically:
> "With enough glue... anything is possible".
>
> Also posts quotes he has
> completely fabricated, as far as I can tell. They do not appear to be in
> the Google archive, but the search is being flakey there again.
But that doesnšt stop you jumping to the conclusion that they are fabricated
does it Snit?
Point out the quotes in question.
Don Zeigler
> Theblahblahblahblahblahblahblaaaaaaah
Are you this boring around friends and family? No wonder they avoid you.
--
Reading taglines makes you stupid.
Hadron
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't waste a drip from my running nose on scum like you.
>
> Sir, you cut me to the quick. Woe is me.
>
> You jellyfish.
I decided it was better to talk in your own language.
--
"Well we know Quack is an inveterate liar & troll with no credibility, so
you cannot take *anything* he says as being true."
-- William Poaster showing his love for Hadron despite claiming never to read his posts in comp.os.linux.advocacy
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> This might surprise you Willy "boring, me too" Poaster, but you and
>> High Plains Hypocrite and Don Zeigler are not "normal posters". You are
>> quite insane and your constant harassment and bringing of personal
>> details into COLA is simply disgusting.
>
> Cry me a river, you fatheaded loser.
I love it when Hadron displays his faux Victorian sensibilities.
It's like watching a crocodile cry.
--
All models over 18 years of age.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't waste a drip from my running nose on scum like you.
>
> Sir, you cut me to the quick. Woe is me.
>
> You jellyfish.
Indeed. He did, just now, "waste a drip" from his running nose.
Sounds like love to me.
Apt for Hadron? :
--
My brother sent me a postcard the other day with this big satellite photo
of the entire earth on it. On the back it said: "Wish you were here".
-- Steven Wright
Steve Carroll
> On 4/1/09 12:17 PM, in article C585783C.E8255%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
(snip Snit getting his head bashed in by reality)
> "I live a fairly conservative life style - one wife... no drugs...
> heterosexual... would never support my wife having an abortion..."-Snit
>
> Ever considered keeping some information to yourself Snit?
Notice how Snit lied and says "no drugs". The fact of the matter is
that I've pointed to numerous posts of Snit's where he's talked about
having taken extremely powerful medications that left him feeling
drugged. Here's a post of Snit's where he makes it clear that he has
tried "a lot of meds"... (apparently Snit doesn't think "meds" are
"drugs"). LOL!
"I used to have a very high tolerance. Now a lot of meds seems to
react oddly with me. Seems I can add alcohol to that list. Damn that
was frightening".
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.anxiety-panic/msg/046fceb5eccc0f22?hl=en&dmode=source
I dunno about you, but I believe Snit doesn't have a "very high
tolerance" for drugs and alcohol... as evidenced by the crap he
posts;)
Fact: There are plenty of Snit "drug" posts in the google archive.
I've pointed to many... to Snit's repeated denials.
My prediction: Snit will claim that he is not currently taking any
drugs... which could mean he is not putting a pill in his mouth during
the period of time it took him to type such a statement out. Anyone
who knows Snit knows this is the manner in which he tells the
"truth" ;)
> > For examples of trolls who have focused on this, look at Tim Adams, William
> > "Geoff M. Fitton" Poaster, Sandman, and others.
>
> "It should be illegal to point guns at (and therefore threaten) innocent
> people."-Snit
>
> "To give everyone a nuke (with the ability to USE it) would be a huge
> danger."-Snit
>
> Gee! there's no pulling the wool over Snits eyes, such amazing insight!
>
>
>
> > 4) While I make mistakes, as we all do, I am knowledgeable about computer
> > topics, especially in the areas I generally talk about. My views do not go
> > with the "party line": I think the best form of advocacy is to be honest
> > about a product - warts and all. Both OS X and Linux are well worth
> > advocating, and I do, but both also have problems I have discussed in some
> > depth in the respective forums. The die-hard "advocates" who see advocacy
> > as lying about the product they like do not like my honest and honorable
> > approach to advocacy.
>
> Honest and honorable approach to advocacy.?
Weird how Snit still calls his lies "mistakes", isn't it? I keep
telling him, people just aren't as stupid as he needs them to be...
(snip more funny stuff where reality lands on Snit's head)
Hadron
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Theblahblahblahblahblahblahblaaaaaaah
>
> Are you this boring around friends and family? No wonder they avoid
> you.
More personal "business, family and friends" attacks from the wire
haired property magnate.
--
"Off the top of my head, I can't tell you which sites. They are ones that
throw up some kind of dialog, I change the user agent and look at them
again, then move on."
-- Rick <no...@nomail.com> telling lies in comp.os.linux.advocacy
Snit
C585783C.E8255%use...@gallopinginsanity.com on 1/3/09 8:17 PM:
> The question of why I am a mark for the trolls has come up recently. Why do
> Steve Carroll, Tim Adams, Wally, Sandman, Steve Mackay, Alan Baker, Peter
> Köhlmann, High Plains Thumper, Tattoo Vampire and other trolls target me?
> Certainly there are other marks for their bullying.
>
> A number of reasons.
>
> 1) I post a lot. That puts me in their targets.
>
>
> 2) When they post even outrageous accusations and lies about me I often take
> the time to give the greatest benefit of doubt that they might actually
> *believe* what they are saying... and I defend myself by showing the truth.
> Over and over I will do this. It becomes annoying, and others associate me
> with the trolls. It is self-defeating but I am also someone who believes in
> people, so I give them chance after chance after chance to do the right
> thing. While this *has* occasionally worked - some people who used to troll
> Usenet now post much more reasonably - it is rare that this actually works.
>
> For an example of trolls who target me on this, look at Wally and Tim Adams
> and Steve Carroll... even though the have lost the arguments they have with
> me *years* ago they cannot let go and spew the same absurd accusations over
> and over and over and over. I generally respond and point to the facts that
> show they are wrong. In many cases the facts are as clear as noting the
> empty set is written as {} and not as {0}. It is not like most of these are
> debates with gray areas!
>
>
> 3) My personal information is not hard to find. Bullies know they can use
> that against me. And they do.
>
> For examples of trolls who have focused on this, look at Tim Adams, William
> "Geoff M. Fitton" Poaster, Sandman, and others.
>
>
> 4) While I make mistakes, as we all do, I am knowledgeable about computer
> topics, especially in the areas I generally talk about. My views do not go
> with the "party line": I think the best form of advocacy is to be honest
> about a product - warts and all. Both OS X and Linux are well worth
> advocating, and I do, but both also have problems I have discussed in some
> depth in the respective forums. The die-hard "advocates" who see advocacy
> as lying about the product they like do not like my honest and honorable
> approach to advocacy.
>
As predicted: snipped my post, gave unsupported accusations, and sank to
name calling. He made no effort to even *hint* at support for his
accusations. He later quoted me from *years* ago posting to another forum
where he found a reference to my noting I do not do drugs or alcohol,
clearly a reference to illegal drugs. He then tried to equate recreational
drug use (of the type he has made clear he engages in) with using
medications as they are intended to be used... and pretended to know what
medications, if any, I am on now. Utter rubbish. He will go on and on and
on... and expect me to read and reply to his every BS post. He has even
admitted his goal is to overwhelm me by posting too much BS for anyone to
respond to. I have bitten in the past, but I shan't this time. I have
posted plenty of evidence about Steve's repulsive behavior... if anyone
wants to see links to it just ask. He is not worth my time.
Score: Snit 1, Trolls 0
Reply 2: High Plains Thumper
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c6519b6fde775082>
As predicted: snipped my post, gave unsupported accusations, and sank to
name calling. He made no effort to even *hint* at support for his
accusations. He did post Steve Carroll's list of scavenged and forged
"quotes", but *none* from me. Not one.
Score: Snit 2, Trolls 0
Reply 3: William Geoff M. Fitton Poaster
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/70ef35e0d0ad8656>
As predicted: snipped my post, gave unsupported accusations (of blackmail!),
and sank to trying to tie his BS to my business name to pull Google
searchers of people looking for me to *his* BS. He did post a message ID,
but it did not in any way, shape, or form support his bizarre and delusional
accusation of *blackmail*. Where did he even come up with that? Just a
plea for attention?
Score: Snit 3, Trolls 0
Reply 4: Wally - responding to Poaster
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/70ef35e0d0ad8656>
As predicted: Made am accusation of "contradictions" but did not even try to
support his claim. Later:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/aa93eae84730a761>
Freaks out completely, posting a bunch of quotes taken completely out of
context and attributing Steve Carroll's quotes to *me*. Specifically:
"With enough glue... anything is possible", a quote he later admits, in this
thread, that Steve Carroll authored. Also posts quotes he has completely
fabricated, as far as I can tell. They do not appear to be in the Google
archive, but the search is being flakey there again.
Score: Snit 4, Trolls 0
Reply 5: Don Zeigler
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/ab7e2357a484c45b>
As predicted: snipped my post, gave an unsupported accusation, and even
changed the name of the the subject line in his response (hey, I forgot to
predict that one!)
Score: Snit 5, Trolls 0
Reply 6: 7
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/b43100a0f694946a>
As predicted: snipped my post, gave unsupported personal attacks (about my
voice in videos... what???), and then posted information on things other
than the topic. Not sure he even understood what he read. Just weird.
Score: Snit 6, Trolls 0
Reply 7: Peter Köhlmann
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/c045b74425f860aa>
Makes accusations against me, namely that I do not prove claims... yet,
ironically, he posts no proof of his claim. Does he intend to be so absurd?
Score: Snit 7, Trolls 0
I wonder how many more will go out of their way to prove me correct? In any
case, please note I predicted they would... they are very, very predictable.
I will not be adding comments from those who have already proved me
correct... even if they post more. I will update this list if other trolls
opt to jump in and prove me correct or, as if, refute my claims and actually
support their BS. LOL. *Not* going to happen, even with my taunting of
them.
Don Zeigler
> "I used to have a very high tolerance. Now a lot of meds seems to
> react oddly with me. Seems I can add alcohol to that list. Damn that
> was frightening".
LOL! Of course, it's always been obvious to anyone who's had a run-in with the
jerk.
--
Why experiment on animals with so many lawyers out there?
Don Zeigler
> More personal "business, family and friends" attacks from the wire
> haired property magnate.
Quack, why are you obsessed with my hair? Pervert.
--
Why is "abbreviation" such a long word?
Snit
20090104154906...@this.domain.or.that on 1/4/09 8:49 AM:
> Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>> "I used to have a very high tolerance. Now a lot of meds seems to
>> react oddly with me. Seems I can add alcohol to that list. Damn that
>> was frightening".
>
> LOL! Of course, it's always been obvious to anyone who's had a run-in with the
> jerk.
You sure name call a lot.
--
But what if the answer is in the box?
Snit
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't waste a drip from my running nose on scum like you.
>
> Sir, you cut me to the quick. Woe is me.
>
> You jellyfish.
You sure name call a lot.
--
BU__SH__
Snit
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> This might surprise you Willy "boring, me too" Poaster, but you and
>> High Plains Hypocrite and Don Zeigler are not "normal posters". You are
>> quite insane and your constant harassment and bringing of personal
>> details into COLA is simply disgusting.
>
> Cry me a river, you fatheaded loser.
You sure name call a lot.
--
Steve Carroll
(snip Snit's delusions)
Hadron... this is yet another classic example of Snit's delusional
lying. Why no comments by you on these lies I'm exposing?
> Reply 1: Steve Carroll.
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/ca4a215831c0...>
>
> As predicted: snipped my post,
Of course... and anyone with a working brain will snip away all your
BS (which, btw, doesn't leave much to respond to;)
> gave unsupported accusations
Any accusation that gets proven in concrete fashion gets denied by
you. I've learned that it's much more fun to watch you try to pretend
that a large and growing group of people are all wrong about you;)
> He later quoted me from *years* ago posting to another forum
> where he found a reference to my noting I do not do drugs or alcohol,
A new Snit lie... I love it! Actually, as anyone that can comprehend
what they read can see, I quoted you saying you have taken "a lot of
meds" and alcohol.
"I used to have a very high tolerance. Now a lot of meds seems to
react oddly with me. Seems I can add alcohol to that list. Damn
that
was frightening".
Only you would try to pass this off as a "reference" to you "noting"
that you "do not do drugs or alcohol";) Below is this post in its
entirety... feel free to show how it "supports" your obvious LIE that
this post is a reference to your "noting" that you "do not do drugs or
alcohol" any time you'd like. LOL! Hadron should read it, too, though
I fully don't expect him to comment on it;)
[begin quoted material of Snit in thread entitled:
"AAAAAGGGHHHthpuuy!"]
Subject says it all...sorta. Having my first pretty major attack in
over a month. have felt faint on and off for the past couple of
days... didn't do my breathing exercises (IDIOT!!!!!)
managed to go shopping today - had to run to nasty supermarket
bathroom and breath into my paperbag and regain my composure. Also
had a bit of IBS... I'll spare the details :)
Got the brilliant idea that that a glass of wine with dinner might
help
me to relax. Came home. Felt a bit better, even was able to take a
10
minute bike ride. Returned home, turned on the tube. Started to
feel
faint and could not catch my breath fully even after 40 min or so.
Decided to hell with it, why wait for dinner, I'll have my glass of
wine
now. Had it. 10 minutes went by and it hit me. Could not catch my
breath. Heart pounding. Great desire to call 911. Calling out to
my
girlfriend who is not even home. Telling our stuffed animals to make
sure they tell her I love her. Realizing they probably won't do it.
Getting ready to run outside. Callapsing on the bed. Trying to
breath
right. Trying to NOT focus on rapid heart beat. Palpatations won't
let
me focus on anything else. Cry a little. Breath in. Breath out.
In.
Out. IN. OUT. In. Out. I am not going to die. NOT GOING TO
DIE.
NOT GOING TO DIE.
Well, I am quite a bit better now.
There has been some debate as to the effects of alcohol on people. I
still do not think that a glass of wine or a beer is a problem.
Certainly an alcolhol addiction or other problem is a problem for
anybody, AD or not...
I used to have a very high tolerance. Now a lot of meds seems to
react
oddly with me. Seems I can add alcohol to that list. Damn that was
frightening.
[end quoted material]
Funny how you used the word "Now" in this old post in reference to "a
lot of meds"... you know, a post you're "now" (as in today) claiming
is a "reference" to your "noting" how you "do not do drugs or
alcohol". Also funny is how you talk about "my glass of wine now"
while you are currently trying to sell the idea that it is a reference
that 'notes' your abstinence from drugs and alcohol.
People just aren't as stupid as you need them to be, Snit... they just
aren't.
Hadron
Steve Carroll <fret...@comcast.net> writes:
> On Jan 4, 8:43 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> (snip Snit's delusions)
>
>
> Hadron... this is yet another classic example of Snit's delusional
> lying. Why no comments by you on these lies I'm exposing?
You're quite mad. I don't know what Snit has done to you but you haven't
posted evidence of any lies whatsoever.
Enough of this lunacy.
Steve Carroll
> Steve Carroll <fretw...@comcast.net> writes:
> > On Jan 4, 8:43 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> > (snip Snit's delusions)
>
> > Hadron... this is yet another classic example of Snit's delusional
> > lying. Why no comments by you on these lies I'm exposing?
>
> You're quite mad.
Which is why you snipped the proof that Snit lied, right?
LOL!
Snit
Steve Carroll cannot point to any wrong doing on my part, so he point to the
fact that I have posted to a support group for people who suffer from a
specific health disorder. He then uses those posts - from years ago to a
*support* forum - as a part of his trolling.
I have had health concerns in my life.
I have used prescription medications.
Steve has me on that! Oh no!
Steve Carroll has made it clear, in public, that he is obsessed with glue
huffing and other recreational drug use. He wants people to think I am a
drug abuser like he undoubtedly is, so he dredges up comments where I talk
about using prescription meds. For what it is worth, it his (ex?)girlfriend
who pulled up those quotes (years ago) and I was able to find that she had
similar health concerns that she had posted about!
But Steve thinks it is fair and reasonable to act this way. He has no
problem with cross-posting his BS to the support forum. Here are just some
of his posts to that forum:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.anxiety-panic/search?hl=en&group
=alt.support.anxiety-panic&q=author%3Acarroll>
or <http://snipurl.com/carroll-trolls-asap>
Holy cow! Right now Google is showing 232 posts of his to that forum. And
that is just under his "Steve Carroll" name. Do a search for his other
names and you will surely find more.
Click on *any* of his post there and see if you can find any examples of him
talking about any health related support issue. I bet not. You will find
him making such statements as these:
Snit is the biggest liar in Usenet history. He sexually
harasses women and is a rapist. He accuses me of cheating on
my wife when I talk about just visiting them. He trolled
anxiety newsgroups under the name Brock McNuggets. It is to
the point where you are either with those of us who are
reasonable or you are against us and there is no middle
ground. Take a stand and side against Snit and show you are
not as much of an asshole as he is.
I have noticed someone named "Michael Glasser" is posting a
lot of Dreamweaver videos all over the web. Are they any
good?
Who remembers when the lying druggie known as Snit was
posting as "Brock McNuggets" as he showed he was enough of an
asshole to troll an anxiety news group? I know I do. Snit
denies it. Let's let him know how people are not stupid
enough to beleieve his shit.
... also believes you are a lying shitsack (as does virtually
every poster that has come into contact with you in the last
5 years)? Yes, I do. (snip Snit's lies)
Steve Carroll posted those comments to a *health support* forum! It is that
behavior from him that lead me to not responding directly to him... but, I
admit, I have been reading some of his posts recently and have responded
indirectly... and that is just encouraging him.
Steve Carroll is consumed with his hatred. This is has been well
documented. Here is an example of Steve's bigoted attacks:
and where I point out many of the errors and lies in his attack:
<http://snipurl.com/dqek>
<http://snipurl.com/dqen>
Steve Carroll truly is despicable.
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
Steve Carroll
> "Hadron" <hadronqu...@gmail.com> stated in post
> gjqnqg$jp...@edwardhall.motzarella.org on 1/4/09 9:23 AM:
>
>
>
> > Steve Carroll <fretw...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> >> On Jan 4, 8:43 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >> (snip Snit's delusions)
>
> >> Hadron... this is yet another classic example of Snit's delusional
> >> lying. Why no comments by you on these lies I'm exposing?
>
> > You're quite mad. I don't know what Snit has done to you but you haven't
> > posted evidence of any lies whatsoever.
>
> > Enough of this lunacy.
>
> Steve Carroll cannot point to any wrong doing on my part
This is proof that you do not consider lying to be "wrong doing".
Thanks for making this so clear.
Steve Carroll
> "Hadron" <hadronqu...@gmail.com> stated in post
>
>
>
> > Steve Carroll <fretw...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> >> On Jan 4, 8:43 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >> (snip Snit's delusions)
>
> >> Hadron... this is yet another classic example of Snit's delusional
> >> lying. Why no comments by you on these lies I'm exposing?
>
> > You're quite mad. I don't know what Snit has done to you but you haven't
> > posted evidence of any lies whatsoever.
>
> > Enough of this lunacy.
>
> Steve Carroll cannot point to any wrong doing on my part, so he point to the
> fact that I have posted to a support group for people who suffer from a
> specific health disorder. He then uses those posts - from years ago to a
> *support* forum - as a part of his trolling.
>
> I have had health concerns in my life.
> I have used prescription medications.
>
> Steve has me on that! Oh no!
>
> Steve Carroll has made it clear, in public, that he is obsessed with glue
> huffing and other recreational drug use. He wants people to think I am a
> drug abuser like he undoubtedly is, so he dredges up comments where I talk
> about using prescription meds. For what it is worth, it his (ex?)girlfriend
> who pulled up those quotes (years ago) and I was able to find that she had
> similar health concerns that she had posted about!
>
> But Steve thinks it is fair and reasonable to act this way. He has no
> problem with cross-posting his BS to the support forum. Here are just some
> of his posts to that forum:
>
> =alt.support.anxiety-panic&q=author%3Acarroll>
>
> or <http://snipurl.com/carroll-trolls-asap>
>
> Holy cow! Right now Google is showing 232 posts of his to that forum.
Poor Snit... still, trying to pretend his obvious forgeries of me (as
shown here
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/d3b2b785988ca20f?hl=en&dmode=source)
... are posts from me.
Snit
The closest Steve Carroll can get to "evidence" is to use my posts from a
health forum against me... the same forum he trolled repeatedly:
<http://snipurl.com/carroll_spams_asap>
Wait. Steve had that link blocked. Well, this is what it pointed to:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.anxiety-panic/search?hl=en&group
=alt.support.anxiety-panic&q=author%3Acarroll&qt_g=Search+this+group>
A listing of 232 posts by Steve Carroll to a health related support group...
*all* of them trolling and spamming the group. For some reason *nobody* in
that group joined in with him in his BS and he never was able to get his
posts to the moderated version of the group.
In other words, Steve's "best" evidence shows him to be one of the worst
examples of a troll I have ever seen on Usenet. And that is just based on
his own "evidence" and what it naturally leads to - a clear admission from
him that he trolls health related forums for material for his trolling in
CSMA and COLA.
--
It usually takes me more than three weeks to prepare a good impromptu
speech. -- Mark Twain
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Enough of this lunacy.
And yet, you're still here.
--
"I'll carry your books, I'll carry a tune, I'll carry on, carry over,
carry forward, Cary Grant, cash & carry, Carry Me Back To Old Virginia,
I'll even Hara Kari if you show me how, but I will *not* carry a gun."
-- Hawkeye, M*A*S*H
Hadron
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Hadron belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Enough of this lunacy.
>
> And yet, you're still here.
And still awaiting your list of features that you claim DDD has which
Visual Studio does not have.
Still waiting ............
ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz..............
Oh yes. You were bullshitting again.
--
o how do we destroy Microsoft?"
-- An unknown author in unknown
Steve de Mena
> On Jan 4, 8:43 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> (snip Snit's delusions)
STOP THE OFF TOPIC POSTS
Snit
C586FF17.F18F%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/4/09 8:04 AM:
> On 4/1/09 11:04 PM, in article C5860FE4.E830A%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>
>> As predicted: Made am accusation of "contradictions" but did not even try to
>> support his claim.
>
> Why do you think that I used the quote below Snit? LOL
>
> Because I knew that I would not need to dredge up an old contradiction from
> you Snit, I deliberately chose that one because I knew you could not resist
> supplying a nice fresh one!
> As I have told you Snit ... You are *that* predictable!
>
> Do you remember this exchange Snit?...
>
> Steve Carroll wrote...
>
> "With enough glue... anything is possible:)"
...
> "With enough glue... anything is possible"
>
> And attributing it to Steve Carroll!
Ok, so we agree that Steve Carroll wrote what you attributed to me. Then
you whined about how I presented it, but you, not I, provided the quote from
Steve Carroll... but you falsely attributed it to me. Now you blame *me*
for "using" the quote *you* brought up.
You also "quoted" me saying this:
Ok, do you or do you not partially agree with it. You did
state that you did not agree with it "at all". Please
remember I pointed out a a partial part of it, and you
claimed you did not agree with that... so you have shown that
when you say you do not agree with something "at all" you
might agree with parts of it.
Yet I have repeatedly asked you for when you think *I* authored that quote.
You have yet to show where. Nor will you.
You also accused me of using sock puppets... but provided *no* support.
You quoted me talking about living a conservative life style and then
claimed there was a contradiction because I have used prescription meds!
On and on... you are just spewing BS and bizarre accusations... you know you
have no leg to stand on.
>> Later:
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/aa93eae84730a761>
>> Freaks out completely, posting a bunch of quotes taken completely out of
>> context and attributing Steve Carroll's quotes to *me*. Specifically:
>> "With enough glue... anything is possible".
>>
>> Also posts quotes he has
>> completely fabricated, as far as I can tell. They do not appear to be in
>> the Google archive, but the search is being flakey there again.
>
> But that doesnšt stop you jumping to the conclusion that they are fabricated
> does it Snit?
>
> Point out the quotes in question.
Look for the ones from Steve Carroll's known other names:
"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
Any from those names are Steve's fabrications. The names with asterisks, by
the way, are ones Steve has directly admitted to at some time in the past...
as if he thinks the others are not well known. Then again, Steve also back
pedals and then later denies the ones he has admitted to... and other times
blames his news reader and OS for *making* him use sock puppets. He is,
literally, insane, or at least portrays himself that way in public.
--
One who makes no mistakes, never makes anything.
Don Zeigler
> Poor Snit... still, trying to pretend his obvious forgeries of me (as
> shown here
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/d3b2b785988ca20f?hl=en&dmode=source)
>
> ... are posts from me.
Such is The Way Of The Snit. All he does is lie, distort, misrepresent and
exaggerate.
Oh, and he likes to forge other users and hide behind multiple sock puppets.
--
Why is the person who invests all your money called a broker?
Snit
> Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>> Poor Snit... still, trying to pretend his obvious forgeries of me (as
>> shown here
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/d3b2b785988ca20f?hl=en&dmode=
>> source)
>>
>> ... are posts from me.
>
> Such is The Way Of The Snit. All he does is lie, distort, misrepresent and
> exaggerate.
>
> Oh, and he likes to forge other users and hide behind multiple sock puppets.
The funny thing is, though, with me doing all of that is I am so subtle you
cannot find a single example.
Oh, wait. Maybe you are just completely incompetent.
Or a liar.
--
"In order to discover who you are, first learn who everybody else is. You're
what's left." - Skip Hansen
High Plains Thumper
> Snit wrote:
>> Hadron stated:
>>> Steve Carroll writes:
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (snip Snit's delusions)
>>>>
>>>> Hadron... this is yet another classic example of Snit's
>>>> delusional lying. Why no comments by you on these lies
>>>> I'm exposing?
>>>
>>> You're quite mad. I don't know what Snit has done to you
>>> but you haven't posted evidence of any lies whatsoever.
>>> Enough of this lunacy.
>>
>> Steve Carroll cannot point to any wrong doing on my part
>
> This is proof that you do not consider lying to be "wrong
> doing". Thanks for making this so clear.
Greatest lie of all:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/a6db39aca51fa31d
Snit: "I am, of course, honest and honorable... something which
some people appreciate but others fear. And loath."
--
HPT
Hadron
> "Don Zeigler" <sit...@this.computer> stated in post
> 20090104190055....@this.domain.or.that on 1/4/09 12:00 PM:
>
>> Steve Carroll wrote:
>>
>>> Poor Snit... still, trying to pretend his obvious forgeries of me (as
>>> shown here
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/d3b2b785988ca20f?hl=en&dmode=
>>> source)
>>>
>>> ... are posts from me.
>>
>> Such is The Way Of The Snit. All he does is lie, distort, misrepresent and
>> exaggerate.
>>
>> Oh, and he likes to forge other users and hide behind multiple sock puppets.
>
> The funny thing is, though, with me doing all of that is I am so subtle you
> cannot find a single example.
>
> Oh, wait. Maybe you are just completely incompetent.
>
> Or a liar.
Don't worry about him and his little band. He is a liar. As is well
known. And a vicious little runt to boot. You are better off ignoring
him IMO.
High Plains Thumper
>
> Reply 2: High Plains Thumper
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c6519b6fde775082>
>
> As predicted: snipped my post, gave unsupported accusations,
> and sank to name calling. He made no effort to even *hint* at
> support for his accusations. He did post Steve Carroll's list
> of scavenged and forged "quotes", but *none* from me. Not
> one.
>
> Score: Snit 2, Trolls 0
Rather, Snit & Trolls 0, Advocates 2
From quoted link:
[quote]
There is no targeting. People get tired of Michael Glasser's
continuous Snit Circus gross cut and pasting, denials even with
evidence shown, off-topic rants, redirecting a discussion that
originated as an on topic post into a post about him. These 121
posters have captured in all their glory their disdain for him.
List was originated by CSMA Moderator and continued by others:
[...] 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
[...] 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
[...] 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
[...] 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
[...] 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
[...] 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
[/quote]
--
HPT
Don Zeigler
> You are better off ignoring him IMO.
Your buddy Snot can't ignore me. He follows me around like a puppy, begging
for a bit of attention.
--
... The trouble with apathy these days is nobody cares.
Hadron
Don Zeigler <sit...@this.computer> writes:
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> You are better off ignoring him IMO.
>
> Your buddy Snot can't ignore me. He follows me around like a puppy, begging
> for a bit of attention.
You're thinking of Chris "get-orf-a-mah-leg" Arsestrom who can't get
enough of humping "advocates" legs.
Has he posted those things that DDD does that Visual Studio doesn't that
he was gloating about recently? I guess not. I think he got carried away
posting technical things" and forgot people have started to question his
honesty when he switches into "sage, know all, super techy" mode. But
fair play to him if he can list all these wonderful features of DDD
which VS does not support that he was showing off about because I must
have missed them.
--
- "Actually XP *is* getting press, but most of it is along the lines of
"we're going to wait and see", in other words not very good."
comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy
chrisv
>
>> This might surprise you Willy "boring, me too" Poaster, but you and
>> High Plains Hypocrite and Don Zeigler are not "normal posters". You are
>> quite insane and your constant harassment and bringing of personal
>> details into COLA is simply disgusting.
Sure, Quack, your lying troll gang are the "normal" ones, here. Guffaw.
You're a POS, "Hadron".
Snit
He and High Plains Thumper are freaking out... though not as much as Steve
Carroll from CSMA. None of them can stand the fact that I have now shoved
in their faces their complete and utter inability to find *any* reasonable
support for the accusations they are spewing. Suddenly it has become clear
to them - if it was not before - that their clearly emotional responses are
*not* based on the accusations they have made against me... the accusations
are clearly not true!
--
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please
everyone. -- Bill Cosby
Snit
gjr4dm$sle$1...@news.motzarella.org on 1/4/09 12:58 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>>
>> Reply 2: High Plains Thumper
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c6519b6fde775082>
>>
>> As predicted: snipped my post, gave unsupported accusations,
>> and sank to name calling. He made no effort to even *hint* at
>> support for his accusations. He did post Steve Carroll's list
>> of scavenged and forged "quotes", but *none* from me. Not
>> one.
>>
>> Score: Snit 2, Trolls 0
>
> Rather, Snit & Trolls 0, Advocates 2
>
> From quoted link:
You "forgot" to quote me! You "accidently" quoted about a dozen other
people... but did not quote *me*... you know the one you are trying to show
lied.
Man, you really suck at this whole supporting your accusations thing. Don't
you get the simple *fact* that to show me lying you have to *quote* the lie.
But you can't.
If it took ripping your left leg off to just find those alleged lies from me
you know you would do so... face it, HPT, you have placed yourself in a
position where the fact your accusations are dishonest is just glowingly
obvious.
--
I think we [the folks who make Linux desktops] don't yet deliver a good
enough user experience.
- Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)
Hadron
> "High Plains Thumper" <h...@invalid.invalid> stated in post
> gjr4dm$sle$1...@news.motzarella.org on 1/4/09 12:58 PM:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>> Reply 2: High Plains Thumper
>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c6519b6fde775082>
>>>
>>> As predicted: snipped my post, gave unsupported accusations,
>>> and sank to name calling. He made no effort to even *hint* at
>>> support for his accusations. He did post Steve Carroll's list
>>> of scavenged and forged "quotes", but *none* from me. Not
>>> one.
>>>
>>> Score: Snit 2, Trolls 0
>>
>> Rather, Snit & Trolls 0, Advocates 2
>>
>> From quoted link:
>
> You "forgot" to quote me! You "accidently" quoted about a dozen other
> people... but did not quote *me*... you know the one you are trying to show
> lied.
>
> Man, you really suck at this whole supporting your accusations thing. Don't
> you get the simple *fact* that to show me lying you have to *quote* the lie.
>
> But you can't.
>
> If it took ripping your left leg off to just find those alleged lies from me
> you know you would do so... face it, HPT, you have placed yourself in a
> position where the fact your accusations are dishonest is just glowingly
> obvious.
Not even COLA "advocates" pay any attention to High Plains
Hypocrite. They all think he's a bit of a loony and as thick as pig
shit. Don Diggler, the wire haired gigolo, only throws him a bone once
in a while because he needs another suckup to show him some attention.
--
"Are Linux systems perfect. Uh, no."
-- Rick <no...@nomail.com> in comp.os.linux.advocacy
Don Zeigler
> the accusations are clearly not true!
And there is Snit's latest lie of the day.
--
Cross the river THEN insult the alligators.
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>
>> the accusations are clearly not true!
>
> And there is Snit's latest lie of the day.
But for some reason Don Zeigler is simply too incompetent to show it. No
wonder he has such a poor self image! He believes in things that if true
would be easy to show... but he cannot!
--
Projects should really look to the whole Linux desktop and see how they can
appeal to both sides.
Snit
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> You are better off ignoring him IMO.
>
> Your buddy Snot can't ignore me. He follows me around like a puppy, begging
> for a bit of attention.
You sure beg for my attention a lot.
William Poaster
I suppose the "honest and honorable" bit includes attempted blackmail in
Michael Snit Glasser's world.
--
No room for the horrors
of Micro$oft here!
-- Stephen Fry - Room 101 --
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
I'll do better than that Snit, I'll show you agreeing that you said it and
even explaining why you said it....
Wally wrote...
"Ok, do you or do you not partially agree with it. You did state that you
did not agree with it "at all". Please remember I pointed out a a partial
part of it, and you claimed you did not agree with that... so you have shown
that when you say you do not agree with something "at all" you might agree
with parts of it. Your logic is faulty". --Snit
Snit replied...
"I do not see how it is possible to partially agree with something that you
do not agree with "at all". That was the claim I was arguing against... and
one you clearly need help with understanding."-Snit
Note that in your reply you are again suggesting that there had been partial
agreement whereas your quote clearly indicates that there had not!
It is no wonder you are so confused Snit, you should at the very least be
able to understand what *you* said .... but you can't!
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> You are better off ignoring him IMO.
>
> Your buddy Snot can't ignore me. He follows me around like a puppy, begging
> for a bit of attention.
I know the feeling!
--
You cannot kill time without injuring eternity.
High Plains Thumper
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>> Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> Hadron stated:
>>>>> Steve Carroll writes:
>>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (snip Snit's delusions)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hadron... this is yet another classic example of
>>>>>> Snit's delusional lying. Why no comments by you on
>>>>>> these lies I'm exposing?
>>>>>
>>>>> You're quite mad. I don't know what Snit has done to
>>>>> you but you haven't posted evidence of any lies
>>>>> whatsoever. Enough of this lunacy.
>>>>
>>>> Steve Carroll cannot point to any wrong doing on my part
>>>
>>> This is proof that you do not consider lying to be "wrong
>>> doing". Thanks for making this so clear.
>>
>> Greatest lie of all:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/a6db39aca51fa31d
>>
>> Snit: "I am, of course, honest and honorable... something
>> which some people appreciate but others fear. And loath."
>
> I suppose the "honest and honorable" bit includes attempted
> blackmail in Michael Snit Glasser's world.
If you notice how the trolls work, they work in teams. Currently
Michael is working with Hadron. DFS and Gary shared a bed along
with Hadron. Ezekiel works along side all of them. Older trolls
such as Tim Smith and Erik Funkenbusch put in their occasional barbs.
Hadron and Ezekiel also work from motzarella.org, thinking to
have immunity to do their dirty work of trashing this newsgroup.
All use ad hominem attacks to advocating posters, to tire them of
posting in this newsgroup. Roy Culley was correct in his
statement made a couple years ago:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/d521a80051e24d08
They also use psychology, creating personality profiles on
individuals, based on what can be gleened by posting styles and
content. It appears that there is more to the picture than is
presented on the surface.
Similar to a criminal who denies they did anything wrong after a
crime was committed, they accuse Roy of his comments regarding
flatfish's admittance of renumeration for trolling COLA.
Their lack of respect for the charter of this newsgroup, the FAQ
that was approved by the advocating community and posting
community itself is demonstration of a criminal mind.
Come to think of it, there are no "quality" wintrolls herein who
would have been able to give sound, non-offensive rhetoric. COLA
is now in the mop-up phase.
Comes Versus Microsoft Lawsuit, Evangelism document
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Comes-3096.pdf
PDF page 45: [quote] During the mopping-up phase, ensure that the
enemy technology is routed. Use the press, the Internet, etc. to
heighten the impression that the enemy is desperate, demoralized,
defeated, deceased. [/quote]
PDF page 55: [quote] In the Mopping Up phase, Evangelism's goal
is to put the final nail into the competing technology's coffin,
and bury it in the burning depths of the earth.
Ideally, use of the competing technology becomes associated with
mental deficiency, as in, "he believes in Santa Claus, the Easter
Bunny, and OS/2." Just keep rubbing it in, via the press,
analysts, newsgroups, whatever.
^^^^^^^^^^
make the complete failure of the competition's technology part of
the mythology of the computer industry. [/quote]
--
HPT
Quando omni flunkus moritati
(If all else fails, play dead)
- "Red" Green
Snit
...
>>> Steve Carroll wrote...
>>>
>>> "With enough glue... anything is possible:)"
>>
>> ...
>>> "With enough glue... anything is possible"
>>>
>>> And attributing it to Steve Carroll!
>>
>> Ok, so we agree that Steve Carroll wrote what you attributed to me. Then
>> you whined about how I presented it, but you, not I, provided the quote from
>> Steve Carroll... but you falsely attributed it to me. Now you blame *me*
>> for "using" the quote *you* brought up.
Hey, no comment on my catching you on your lie about *me* having been the
one author of the quote you have now admitted was authored by Steve Carroll.
As far as I can find in any archive, I never wrote:
Please remember I pointed out a a partial part of it, and
you claimed you did not agree with that
But, yup, I missed calling you on that in the above exchange. But I called
you on it later.
And you have been running ever since. Come on, Wally... what is the Message
ID of the post you think I said that?
My guess: you made it up... but at *best*, for you, I made a typo and you
caught it... how many years past the time I even supposedly made this error?
But, wait... how did you catch an error if you cannot even find the message
it came from? That makes very little sense... so, most likely, you are just
fabricating BS again. And your "defense" is I did not catch in the above
exchange... I only caught you later.
How pathetic.
--
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
Snit
4961723a$0$17068$6e1e...@read.cnntp.org on 1/4/09 7:36 PM:
> If you notice how the trolls work, they work in teams. Currently
> Michael is working with Hadron.
Working with him?
Trolls?
Wow... didn't you say you were going to post about Linux and not your
paranoid delusions.
...
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
High Plains Thumper
> High Plains Thumper stated:
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Reply 2: High Plains Thumper
>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c6519b6fde775082>
>>>
>>> As predicted: snipped my post, gave unsupported
>>> accusations, and sank to name calling. He made no effort
>>> to even *hint* at support for his accusations. He did
>>> post Steve Carroll's list of scavenged and forged
>>> "quotes", but *none* from me. Not one.
>>>
>>> Score: Snit 2, Trolls 0
>>
>> Rather, Snit & Trolls 0, Advocates 2
>>
>> From quoted link:
>>
>> Glasser's continuous Snit Circus gross cut and pasting,
>> denials even with evidence shown, off-topic rants,
>> redirecting a discussion that originated as an on topic post
>> into a post about him. These 121 posters have captured in
>> all their glory their disdain for him. List was originated
>> by CSMA Moderator and continued by others:
>>
>> 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
>>
>> 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
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> 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
>> [/quote]
>
> dozen other people... but did not quote *me*... you know the
> one you are trying to show lied.
Lie. In order to spot a counterfeit, the US Treasury agents
spend hours studying the real dollar bill, so that when they see
a phony, they can spot it right away.
Similarly, since there is no authentic and worthwhile content to
your messages (one only need to read your inflated ego inspired
rubbish herein), there is no need to quote a phony such as you.
[snip rest of troll rant]
--
HPT
Snit
>> You "forgot" to quote me! You "accidently" quoted about a
>> dozen other people... but did not quote *me*... you know the
>> one you are trying to show lied.
>
> Lie. In order to spot a counterfeit, the US Treasury agents
> spend hours studying the real dollar bill, so that when they see
> a phony, they can spot it right away.
>
> Similarly, since there is no authentic and worthwhile content to
> your messages (one only need to read your inflated ego inspired
> rubbish herein), there is no need to quote a phony such as you.
So point to one of these "phony" messages where I allegedly lied.
But you won't.
You can't.
You have backed yourself in to a corner - made it all too clear that your
accusations are utter rubbish. Oh well.
Not like anyone believed you in the first place, eh?
--
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?
Don Zeigler
> Not like anyone believed you in the first place, eh?
HPT is a hell of a lot more credible than you or any of your trolling friends.
--
98% of all statistics are useless
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Not like anyone believed you in the first place, eh?
>
> HPT is a hell of a lot more credible than you or any of your trolling friends.
Ah, credible to *you*... is that because he cannot support his accusations
or because he makes outlandish ones in the first place?
LOL!
Seriously, if you find someone who has been shown to do that - as you do for
the record - to be at all "credible" then you need to re-examine the way you
evaluate people.
As if that was not already common knowledge. :)
--
The answer to the water shortage is to dilute it.
Hadron
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Not like anyone believed you in the first place, eh?
>
> HPT is a hell of a lot more credible than you or any of your trolling
> friends.
Don't be silly. That' going way to far.
--
"I've heard "Linux is the future!" for, let me see now, must about 17 years. For how long do I need to listen to that clap trap?"
-- Ruby Murray <Vind...@curryhouse.co.uk> in comp.os.linux.advocacy
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C5878CE6.F1DA%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/4/09 6:09 PM:
>
> ...
>>>> Steve Carroll wrote...
>>>>
>>>> "With enough glue... anything is possible:)"
>>>
>>> ...
>>>> "With enough glue... anything is possible"
>>>>
>>>> And attributing it to Steve Carroll!
>>>
>>> Ok, so we agree that Steve Carroll wrote what you attributed to me. Then
>>> you whined about how I presented it, but you, not I, provided the quote from
>>> Steve Carroll... but you falsely attributed it to me. Now you blame *me*
>>> for "using" the quote *you* brought up.
>
> Hey, no comment on my catching you on your lie about *me* having been the
> one author of the quote you have now admitted was authored by Steve Carroll.
What do you think that was Snit?...
That says all that is needed to be said about that particular lie from you
Snit!
So you admit that you are so inept as not to be able to find a msg authored
by you that clearly shows you stating those words Snit?
Yes or no? (as I have no trouble at all finding such a msg!)
And even though you can clearly be shown explaining 'why' you used those
words you still cant except the fact that you did in fact use those words?
Yes or no?
The implication of a yes being that you must believe that you were stupid
enough to explain why you used a phrase that you didnšt actually use!
Do you believe you are *that* stupid Snit?
Yes or no?
>
> But, yup, I missed calling you on that in the above exchange. But I called
> you on it later.
Later? When later Snit? When did you ever before this thread question me
about *that* quote from you?
> And you have been running ever since.
"ever since" when Snit? When was I supposed to have started running from
giving you the link that you require, I have the link now as I have always
had and would have supplied it in a heartbeat had you asked, so when did you
previously ask Snit?
Is it the case that not only can you not remember what you did say but you
find yourself remembering things you said that you didnšt *actually* say
Snit? Is that about the size of it?
> Come on, Wally... what is the Message
> ID of the post you think I said that?
The msg ID of the post where I *think* you said that Snit is where all your
other delusions reside, I can't say exactly where that may be!
I only have a link to a post where you are clearly seen to say what I have
quoted!
> My guess: you made it up... but at *best*, for you, I made a typo and you
> caught it... how many years past the time I even supposedly made this error?
Make up your mind Snit ... Did I make it up, or are you falling back to your
'typo' defense?
But I should warn you that the quote came at the conclusion of a pretty long
thread that can be followed step for step which clearly shows how you
arrived at the quote you made Snit, and there was clearly no typo involved!
> But, wait... how did you catch an error if you cannot even find the message
> it came from?
Exactly! proving that there was no error as I have indeed got the link!
> That makes very little sense...
Then it would have something in common with your quote Snit! wouldnšt it?
> so, most likely, you are just fabricating BS again.
So because of your poor search skills you are once again back to guessing?
> And your "defense" is I did not catch in the above exchange... I only caught
> you later.
If you look closely .... (your poor as they are search skills should be able
to find this as it's in this post) ... You will see that *that* was your
defense Snit! LOL
> How pathetic.
Your defenses usually are!
RonB
> What do you think that was Snit?...
You used "Snit" and "think" in the same sentence.
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
Snit
gjsaoa$md8$1...@reader.motzarella.org on 1/4/09 11:50 PM:
> Wally wrote:
>
>> What do you think that was Snit?...
>
> You used "Snit" and "think" in the same sentence.
Your powers of perception are underwhelming.
Wally
<ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wally wrote:
>
>> What do you think that was Snit?...
>
> You used "Snit" and "think" in the same sentence.
Damn! my mistake, thank you :)
Snit
> On 5/1/09 11:48 AM, in article C586C322.E8671%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
>> C5878CE6.F1DA%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/4/09 6:09 PM:
>>
>> ...
>>>>> Steve Carroll wrote...
>>>>>
>>>>> "With enough glue... anything is possible:)"
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>> "With enough glue... anything is possible"
>>>>>
>>>>> And attributing it to Steve Carroll!
>>>>
>>>> Ok, so we agree that Steve Carroll wrote what you attributed to me. Then
>>>> you whined about how I presented it, but you, not I, provided the quote
>>>> from
>>>> Steve Carroll... but you falsely attributed it to me. Now you blame *me*
>>>> for "using" the quote *you* brought up.
>>
>> Hey, no comment on my catching you on your lie about *me* having been the
>> one author of the quote you have now admitted was authored by Steve Carroll.
>
> What do you think that was Snit?...
Because you are a coward and a liar. You knowingly and falsely attributed
a quote from Steve Carroll to. You have admitted to this. I, frankly, am
not interested in why you are dishonest... it is a fact that you are.
>>>> You also "quoted" me saying this:
>>>>
>>>> Ok, do you or do you not partially agree with it. You did
>>>> state that you did not agree with it "at all". Please
>>>> remember I pointed out a a partial part of it, and you
>>>> claimed you did not agree with that... so you have shown that
>>>> when you say you do not agree with something "at all" you
>>>> might agree with parts of it.
>>>>
>>>> Yet I have repeatedly asked you for when you think *I* authored that quote.
>>>> You have yet to show where. Nor will you.
...
>> As far as I can find in any archive, I never wrote:
>>
>> Please remember I pointed out a a partial part of it, and
>> you claimed you did not agree with that
>
> So you admit that you are so inept as not to be able to find a msg authored
> by you that clearly shows you stating those words Snit?
I have not been able to find any message where I authored such a quote.
Nope.
Nor, apparently, have you.
But if you have, well, you are making a big deal out of an obvious typo...
but I suppose that is a step up from just falsely attributing a quote to me,
as you admit you did with the quote from Steve Carroll.
...
>> But, yup, I missed calling you on that in the above exchange. But I called
>> you on it later.
>
> Later? When later Snit? When did you ever before this thread question me
> about *that* quote from you?
Repeatedly and recently, Wally. Just a few examples,
In response to your post: <C5815627.EED9%Wa...@wally.world.net>
-----
I see your game. You changed your claim to "quote" me saying
something that, as far as I can tell, I never did. Point to
the post.
But you won't.
My claim is that if someone does not agree with something "at
all" then they should not claim to agree with parts of it.
And you just want to argue. Oh well.
-----
And, hey, I was right!
In response to your post: <C5827B79.EF74%Wa...@wally.world.net>
-----
Quote the post it came from.
As if you could. As I have noted, I looked for the exact
text you "quoted" and did not find it in anything I authored.
I bet you will not find it either.
Seems you fabricated a quote of mine and then want me to
defend your creation. How clever of you, eh?
-----
In response to your post: <C582ACB3.EF92%Wa...@wally.world.net>
-----
Your first "quoting" of me:
-----
You did state that you did not agree with it "at all.....
.....when you say you do not agree with something "at
all" you might agree with parts of it.
-----
Your later expansion:
-----
You did state that you did not agree with it "at all".
Please remember I pointed out a a partial part of it, and
you claimed you did not agree with that... so you have
shown that when you say you do not agree with something
"at all" you might agree with parts of it.
-----
You could not provide a message ID nor a link to either of
your renditions of your "quotes" of me.
So when did I say what you said I did? Did you just make it
up? I cannot find any post where I said what you said I did.
-----
In response to your post: <C582F789.EFA2%Wa...@wally.world.net>
Much of the same as the above, but also:
-----
Neither of those comments you attribute to me were authored
by me in the last year, no less last 30 minutes.
And you have failed to show where I said those things "at
all." I have been asking you to show what post you think I
said what you attributed to me.
And you are failing. Miserably.
But you are doing a fine job running from the debate we were
having were you repeatedly ran to an irrelevant metaphorical
use of the word "synonymous" that *still* showed you to be a
pervert.
And you will get your co-trolls approval... watch as Steve
Carroll and Tim Adams slap you on your back for your lovely
trolling.
100% predictable.
-----
And also in this thread. How the heck could you miss all of those?
...
>> Come on, Wally... what is the Message ID of the post you think I said that?
>
> The msg ID of the post where I *think* you said that Snit is where all your
> other delusions reside, I can't say exactly where that may be!
I accept that you have no thoughts as to what the message ID is. OK.
So you lied. Not like *that* is a surprise. What is surprising is that you
just admitted to it. Thanks!
You have now admitted to attributing a quote from Steve Carroll to me and
you have admitted to attributing a quote to me where you do not even have
any thoughts on what message ID it could have come from.
Amazing.
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
--Albert Einstein
Snit
Ahhh... the trolls are cuddling again.
--
"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>
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C587D9C5.F205%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/4/09 11:37 PM:
>
>> On 5/1/09 11:48 AM, in article C586C322.E8671%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
>>> C5878CE6.F1DA%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/4/09 6:09 PM:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>>>> Steve Carroll wrote...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "With enough glue... anything is possible:)"
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> "With enough glue... anything is possible"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And attributing it to Steve Carroll!
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, so we agree that Steve Carroll wrote what you attributed to me. Then
>>>>> you whined about how I presented it, but you, not I, provided the quote
>>>>> from
>>>>> Steve Carroll... but you falsely attributed it to me. Now you blame *me*
>>>>> for "using" the quote *you* brought up.
>>>
>>> Hey, no comment on my catching you on your lie about *me* having been the
>>> one author of the quote you have now admitted was authored by Steve Carroll.
>>
>> What do you think that was Snit?...
>
> Because you are a coward and a liar. You knowingly and falsely attributed
> a quote from Steve Carroll to. You have admitted to this. I, frankly, am
> not interested in why you are dishonest... it is a fact that you are.
Should I wait for the coherent version of the above to appear Snit.... You
are working on one?
>
>>>>> You also "quoted" me saying this:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, do you or do you not partially agree with it. You did
>>>>> state that you did not agree with it "at all". Please
>>>>> remember I pointed out a a partial part of it, and you
>>>>> claimed you did not agree with that... so you have shown that
>>>>> when you say you do not agree with something "at all" you
>>>>> might agree with parts of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet I have repeatedly asked you for when you think *I* authored that
>>>>> quote.
>>>>> You have yet to show where. Nor will you.
>
> ...
>
>>> As far as I can find in any archive, I never wrote:
>>>
>>> Please remember I pointed out a a partial part of it, and
>>> you claimed you did not agree with that
>>
>> So you admit that you are so inept as not to be able to find a msg authored
>> by you that clearly shows you stating those words Snit?
>
> I have not been able to find any message where I authored such a quote.
> Nope.
At least you agree that you are inept, not that you could avoid admitting
that!
> Nor, apparently, have you.
Why apparently?
> But if you have,
Ah so it's not quite so apparent after all! LOL
> well, you are making a big deal out of an obvious typo...
An obvious typo in a post that you can't even find? LOL
> but I suppose that is a step up from just falsely attributing a quote to me,
> as you admit you did with the quote from Steve Carroll.
That would be the quote where you admit that your version of it offered
certain concerns? Gee I wonder what those concerns were! :-)
> ...
>>> But, yup, I missed calling you on that in the above exchange. But I called
>>> you on it later.
>>
>> Later? When later Snit? When did you ever before this thread question me
>> about *that* quote from you?
>
> Repeatedly and recently, Wally. Just a few examples,
>
> In response to your post: <C5815627.EED9%Wa...@wally.world.net>
> -----
> I see your game. You changed your claim to "quote" me saying
> something that, as far as I can tell, I never did. Point to
> the post.
> But you won't.
> My claim is that if someone does not agree with something "at
> all" then they should not claim to agree with parts of it.
> And you just want to argue. Oh well.
> -----
The quote originated in a post from you in 2004 toward the end of a fairly
long thread, and you are only now seeking it's origin? Gee Snit it's not as
though you have shown any urgency on the matter is it? ROTF
> And, hey, I was right!
Saying I *won't* will in the fullness of time be proven to be wrong!
> In response to your post: <C5827B79.EF74%Wa...@wally.world.net>
> -----
> Quote the post it came from.
> As if you could. As I have noted, I looked for the exact
> text you "quoted" and did not find it in anything I authored.
> I bet you will not find it either.
> Seems you fabricated a quote of mine and then want me to
> defend your creation. How clever of you, eh?
> -----
You've waited almost five years before wondering where you had authored that
quote Snit .... Why the rush now?
> In response to your post: <C582ACB3.EF92%Wa...@wally.world.net>
> -----
> Your first "quoting" of me:
> -----
> You did state that you did not agree with it "at all.....
> .....when you say you do not agree with something "at
> all" you might agree with parts of it.
> -----
Gee you really are pathetic at searching aren't you Snit? *that* was nowhere
near the first time that I quoted you!
> Your later expansion:
> -----
> You did state that you did not agree with it "at all".
> Please remember I pointed out a a partial part of it, and
> you claimed you did not agree with that... so you have
> shown that when you say you do not agree with something
> "at all" you might agree with parts of it.
> -----
> You could not provide a message ID nor a link to either of
> your renditions of your "quotes" of me.
Of course I could! I simply chose not to! by not doing so I have treated
myself to watching you do all sorts of flip flopping ....priceless!
> So when did I say what you said I did? Did you just make it
> up? I cannot find any post where I said what you said I did.
> -----
2004 nearly five years ago Snit!
> In response to your post: <C582F789.EFA2%Wa...@wally.world.net>
> Much of the same as the above, but also:
> -----
> Neither of those comments you attribute to me were authored
> by me in the last year, no less last 30 minutes.
Did I ever suggest that they were Snit? ... Of course not! nice bit of
attempted obfuscation you got going there!
> And you have failed to show where I said those things "at
> all." I have been asking you to show what post you think I
> said what you attributed to me.
And as I have told you, if you want to see a post where I only *think* that
you authored that quote Snit I cannot oblige!
I can only show a post that proves that you *did* author that quote!
> And you are failing. Miserably.
Laughing at you never makes me miserable Snit!
> But you are doing a fine job running from the debate we were
> having were you repeatedly ran to an irrelevant metaphorical
> use of the word "synonymous" that *still* showed you to be a
> pervert.
LOL!
> And you will get your co-trolls approval... watch as Steve
> Carroll and Tim Adams slap you on your back for your lovely
> trolling.
> 100% predictable.
> -----
>
> And also in this thread. How the heck could you miss all of those?
I didnšt!
> ...
>>> Come on, Wally... what is the Message ID of the post you think I said that?
>>
>> The msg ID of the post where I *think* you said that Snit is where all your
>> other delusions reside, I can't say exactly where that may be!
My reply proves that I missed nothing!
> I accept that you have no thoughts as to what the message ID is. OK.
Your acceptance and reality are again seen to be poles apart Snit!
> So you lied. Not like *that* is a surprise. What is surprising is that you
> just admitted to it. Thanks!
As the msg ID of you authoring that quote exists and I have it, there is no
question of me merely thinking that it exists Snit.
> You have now admitted to attributing a quote from Steve Carroll to me and
> you have admitted to attributing a quote to me where you do not even have
> any thoughts on what message ID it could have come from.
LOL
> Amazing.
Fascinating!
chrisv
>On 5/1/09 11:48 AM, in article C586C322.E8671%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
*plonk*
High Plains Thumper
>> part of the mythology of the computer industry. [/quote]
>
>
> Trolls?
>
> Wow... didn't you say you were going to post about Linux and
> not your paranoid delusions.
Bingo! No further questions, your honour.
Yup, the Michael Glasser Snit Circus of pathological lies
continues ....
--
HPT
Wally
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
Impressive!
Snit
...
>>>> Hey, no comment on my catching you on your lie about *me* having been the
>>>> one author of the quote you have now admitted was authored by Steve
>>>> Carroll.
>>>
>>> What do you think that was Snit?...
>>
>> Because you are a coward and a liar. You knowingly and falsely attributed
>> a quote from Steve Carroll to. You have admitted to this. I, frankly, am
>> not interested in why you are dishonest... it is a fact that you are.
>
> Should I wait for the coherent version of the above to appear Snit.... You
> are working on one?
Ask an adult in your life to read it to you. Or even a child past, say, the
third grade.
>
>>
>>>>>> You also "quoted" me saying this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok, do you or do you not partially agree with it. You did
>>>>>> state that you did not agree with it "at all". Please
>>>>>> remember I pointed out a a partial part of it, and you
>>>>>> claimed you did not agree with that... so you have shown that
>>>>>> when you say you do not agree with something "at all" you
>>>>>> might agree with parts of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet I have repeatedly asked you for when you think *I* authored that
>>>>>> quote. You have yet to show where. Nor will you.
...
>> well, you are making a big deal out of an obvious typo...
>
> An obvious typo in a post that you can't even find? LOL
I can see the "quote", above. Seriously, get someone who cares about you to
read things with you. They can explain things in person. It is not my job
to help you with basic reading comprehension.
...
>>>> But, yup, I missed calling you on that in the above exchange. But I called
>>>> you on it later.
>>>
>>> Later? When later Snit? When did you ever before this thread question me
>>> about *that* quote from you?
>>
>> Repeatedly and recently, Wally. Just a few examples,
>>
>> In response to your post: <C5815627.EED9%Wa...@wally.world.net>
>> -----
>> I see your game. You changed your claim to "quote" me saying
>> something that, as far as I can tell, I never did. Point to
>> the post.
>> But you won't.
>> My claim is that if someone does not agree with something "at
>> all" then they should not claim to agree with parts of it.
>> And you just want to argue. Oh well.
>> -----
>
> The quote originated in a post from you in 2004 toward the end of a fairly
> long thread, and you are only now seeking it's origin? Gee Snit it's not as
> though you have shown any urgency on the matter is it? ROTF
As suspected, you are pulling up debates from 2004. You and Carroll really
must have liked that year. Can you figure out why I am "seeking its origin"
now? Hint: it is "now" that you "quoted" it.
Assuming it is a quote.
You still have not provided the message ID. You did dodge, however,
commenting on your error:
Later? When later Snit? When did you ever before this
thread question me about *that* quote from you?
How the heck did you miss my asking you? It is not like I asked you merely
once and you somehow missed it. I asked you repeatedly. You replied. In
the last week.
And now you show no recollection. Or, more likely, no comprehension.
Seriously: have someone in your life read with you. They can help you to
understand these simple concepts.
...
>> In response to your post: <C5827B79.EF74%Wa...@wally.world.net>
>> -----
>> Quote the post it came from.
>> As if you could. As I have noted, I looked for the exact
>> text you "quoted" and did not find it in anything I authored.
>> I bet you will not find it either.
>> Seems you fabricated a quote of mine and then want me to
>> defend your creation. How clever of you, eh?
>> -----
>
> You've waited almost five years before wondering where you had authored that
> quote Snit .... Why the rush now?
Gee, you "quote" me and within less than 24 hours I question you. Who cares
when you say the quote is from. Do you not get your error, yet?
>> In response to your post: <C582ACB3.EF92%Wa...@wally.world.net>
>> -----
>> Your first "quoting" of me:
>> -----
>> You did state that you did not agree with it "at all.....
>> .....when you say you do not agree with something "at
>> all" you might agree with parts of it.
>> -----
...
>> Your later expansion:
>> -----
>> You did state that you did not agree with it "at all".
>> Please remember I pointed out a a partial part of it, and
>> you claimed you did not agree with that... so you have
>> shown that when you say you do not agree with something
>> "at all" you might agree with parts of it.
>> -----
>> You could not provide a message ID nor a link to either of
>> your renditions of your "quotes" of me.
...
>> So when did I say what you said I did? Did you just make it
>> up? I cannot find any post where I said what you said I did.
>> -----
>
> 2004 nearly five years ago Snit!
So why is this an issue to you, *now*? What the heck?
>> In response to your post: <C582F789.EFA2%Wa...@wally.world.net>
>> Much of the same as the above, but also:
>> -----
>> Neither of those comments you attribute to me were authored
>> by me in the last year, no less last 30 minutes.
>
> Did I ever suggest that they were Snit? ... Of course not! nice bit of
> attempted obfuscation you got going there!
Read your post. I provided the message ID. The only message ID I have asked
you for recently is the one to that alleged quote. And yet you stated:
We may be in for one hell of a wait Tim, especially if Snit
is doing his own research .... He recently asked me to
provide him with the Message ID to a post that he himself had
made just over 30 minutes earlier! LOL
You chastise me for not remembering the exact wording of some post from
2004, but you do not remember the general concepts of your posts from last
Thursday.
Seriously, Wally... have someone who cares about you explain to you why this
is funny... but a bit sad. I am sure you will not get it.
>> And you have failed to show where I said those things "at
>> all." I have been asking you to show what post you think I
>> said what you attributed to me.
>
> And as I have told you, if you want to see a post where I only *think* that
> you authored that quote Snit I cannot oblige!
"only *think*" ? What? Have an adult read my comments to you, Wally.
Seriously.
...
>> And you are failing. Miserably.
...
>> But you are doing a fine job running from the debate we were
>> having were you repeatedly ran to an irrelevant metaphorical
>> use of the word "synonymous" that *still* showed you to be a
>> pervert.
...
>> And you will get your co-trolls approval... watch as Steve
>> Carroll and Tim Adams slap you on your back for your lovely
>> trolling.
>> 100% predictable.
>> -----
>>
>> And also in this thread. How the heck could you miss all of those?
>
> I didnšt!
Later? When later Snit? When did you ever before this
thread question me about *that* quote from you?
You are lying.
Again.
You have now:
* Admitted you lied by attributing a quote from Steve Carroll to me.
* Admitted you lied by attributing a quote to me where not even you
have any thoughts as to what message ID it could have come from
(though you insist you dredged it up from 2004!)
* Admitted you lied by pretending to not recall posts from less than
a week prior when you denied my questioning you about the origin
of this "quote".
I am amazed at your signs of honesty, there, Wally. You usually deny your
lies... though I suspect you will flip flop and deny them soon!
--
"In order to discover who you are, first learn who everybody else is. You're
what's left." - Skip Hansen
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C587FAB2.F221%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/5/09 1:58 AM:
>
> ...
>>>>> Hey, no comment on my catching you on your lie about *me* having been the
>>>>> one author of the quote you have now admitted was authored by Steve
>>>>> Carroll.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think that was Snit?...
>>>
>>> Because you are a coward and a liar. You knowingly and falsely attributed
>>> a quote from Steve Carroll to. You have admitted to this. I, frankly, am
>>> not interested in why you are dishonest... it is a fact that you are.
>>
>> Should I wait for the coherent version of the above to appear Snit.... You
>> are working on one?
>
> Ask an adult in your life to read it to you. Or even a child past, say, the
> third grade.
You seem to have a thing about 3rd grade why is that? An unfulfilled
ambition to have gotten that far perhaps?
>>>
>>>>>>> You also "quoted" me saying this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ok, do you or do you not partially agree with it. You did
>>>>>>> state that you did not agree with it "at all". Please
>>>>>>> remember I pointed out a a partial part of it, and you
>>>>>>> claimed you did not agree with that... so you have shown that
>>>>>>> when you say you do not agree with something "at all" you
>>>>>>> might agree with parts of it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yet I have repeatedly asked you for when you think *I* authored that
>>>>>>> quote. You have yet to show where. Nor will you.
>
> ...
>>> well, you are making a big deal out of an obvious typo...
>>
>> An obvious typo in a post that you can't even find? LOL
>
> I can see the "quote", above.
Then you should stop lying and claiming that you cannot find it Snit!
But as far as the reproduction above is concerned where would you suggest
that the typo occurred?
> Seriously, get someone who cares about you to
> read things with you. They can explain things in person. It is not my job
> to help you with basic reading comprehension.
>
> ...
>>>>> But, yup, I missed calling you on that in the above exchange. But I
>>>>> called
>>>>> you on it later.
>>>>
>>>> Later? When later Snit? When did you ever before this thread question me
>>>> about *that* quote from you?
>>>
>>> Repeatedly and recently, Wally. Just a few examples,
>>>
>>> In response to your post: <C5815627.EED9%Wa...@wally.world.net>
>>> -----
>>> I see your game. You changed your claim to "quote" me saying
>>> something that, as far as I can tell, I never did. Point to
>>> the post.
>>> But you won't.
>>> My claim is that if someone does not agree with something "at
>>> all" then they should not claim to agree with parts of it.
>>> And you just want to argue. Oh well.
>>> -----
>>
>> The quote originated in a post from you in 2004 toward the end of a fairly
>> long thread, and you are only now seeking it's origin? Gee Snit it's not as
>> though you have shown any urgency on the matter is it? ROTF
>
> As suspected, you are pulling up debates from 2004.
And you'd never do that... Right? ROTFLMAO!
> You and Carroll really
> must have liked that year. Can you figure out why I am "seeking its origin"
> now? Hint: it is "now" that you "quoted" it.
>
> Assuming it is a quote.
Assuming Snit? Forgotten already that you claim to see the quote...
"I can see the "quote", above"-Snit
Do you doubt your own eyes Snit?
>
> You still have not provided the message ID.
Correct, and you are still unable to find it! LOL
> You did dodge, however,
> commenting on your error:
>
> Later? When later Snit? When did you ever before this
> thread question me about *that* quote from you?
>
> How the heck did you miss my asking you? It is not like I asked you merely
> once and you somehow missed it. I asked you repeatedly. You replied. In
> the last week.
As I have quoted you several times over nearly five years I am simply
wondering why you are so interested now?
> And now you show no recollection. Or, more likely, no comprehension.
>
> Seriously: have someone in your life read with you. They can help you to
> understand these simple concepts.
>
> ...
>>> In response to your post: <C5827B79.EF74%Wa...@wally.world.net>
>>> -----
>>> Quote the post it came from.
>>> As if you could. As I have noted, I looked for the exact
>>> text you "quoted" and did not find it in anything I authored.
>>> I bet you will not find it either.
>>> Seems you fabricated a quote of mine and then want me to
>>> defend your creation. How clever of you, eh?
>>> -----
>>
>> You've waited almost five years before wondering where you had authored that
>> quote Snit .... Why the rush now?
>
> Gee, you "quote" me and within less than 24 hours I question you. Who cares
> when you say the quote is from. Do you not get your error, yet?
Well you should if you ever expect to be able to search properly as your
method obviously leaves a lot to be desired!
I will at anytime take the opportunity to show how dysfunctional you are
Snit... But it's not really an 'issue' to me Snit ... It just seems to
happen so regularly is all!
>>> In response to your post: <C582F789.EFA2%Wa...@wally.world.net>
>>> Much of the same as the above, but also:
>>> -----
>>> Neither of those comments you attribute to me were authored
>>> by me in the last year, no less last 30 minutes.
>>
>> Did I ever suggest that they were Snit? ... Of course not! nice bit of
>> attempted obfuscation you got going there!
>
> Read your post. I provided the message ID. The only message ID I have asked
> you for recently is the one to that alleged quote. And yet you stated:
> We may be in for one hell of a wait Tim, especially if Snit
> is doing his own research .... He recently asked me to
> provide him with the Message ID to a post that he himself had
> made just over 30 minutes earlier! LOL
The original quote did not involve me Snit, so why would I direct you to it?
The example that I gave did involve me...
"For example in all of these exchanges you have only shown what I clearly
*disagreed* with......"-Wally
You then snipped everything above....
"Wow! Snit is suddenly mute on that particular subject! LOL"
..... Which included the example that I offered and your quotes, it was
those quote that I was referring to, as you well know!
>
> You chastise me for not remembering the exact wording of some post from
> 2004,
You claimed that I made it up Snit, so exact wording isn't the issue
claiming that you didnšt say it at all is the issue.
> but you do not remember the general concepts of your posts from last
> Thursday.
Better than you it seems!
> Seriously, Wally... have someone who cares about you explain to you why this
> is funny... but a bit sad. I am sure you will not get it.
>
>>> And you have failed to show where I said those things "at
>>> all." I have been asking you to show what post you think I
>>> said what you attributed to me.
>>
>> And as I have told you, if you want to see a post where I only *think* that
>> you authored that quote Snit I cannot oblige!
>
> "only *think*" ? What? Have an adult read my comments to you, Wally.
You have asked for the post that I think contains the quote that you are the
author of Snit ... I do not know of one that fits that description, but
there is a post that proves without doubt that you are the author, I would
only think it was you if there existed any doubt!
> Seriously.
Yes seriously!
> ...
>>> And you are failing. Miserably.
> ...
>>> But you are doing a fine job running from the debate we were
>>> having were you repeatedly ran to an irrelevant metaphorical
>>> use of the word "synonymous" that *still* showed you to be a
>>> pervert.
> ...
>>> And you will get your co-trolls approval... watch as Steve
>>> Carroll and Tim Adams slap you on your back for your lovely
>>> trolling.
>>> 100% predictable.
>>> -----
>>>
>>> And also in this thread. How the heck could you miss all of those?
>>
>> I didnšt!
>
> Later? When later Snit? When did you ever before this
> thread question me about *that* quote from you?
>
> You are lying.
>
> Again.
>
> You have now:
>
> * Admitted you lied by attributing a quote from Steve Carroll to me.
Wrong!
> * Admitted you lied by attributing a quote to me where not even you
> have any thoughts as to what message ID it could have come from
> (though you insist you dredged it up from 2004!)
Wrong!
> * Admitted you lied by pretending to not recall posts from less than
> a week prior when you denied my questioning you about the origin
> of this "quote".
Wrong!
> I am amazed at your signs of honesty, there, Wally. You usually deny your
> lies... though I suspect you will flip flop and deny them soon!
Yer think? LOL
Snit
> On 5/1/09 11:45 PM, in article C5876B27.E8787%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
>> C587FAB2.F221%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/5/09 1:58 AM:
>>
>> ...
>>>>>> Hey, no comment on my catching you on your lie about *me* having been the
>>>>>> one author of the quote you have now admitted was authored by Steve
>>>>>> Carroll.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think that was Snit?...
>>>>
>>>> Because you are a coward and a liar. You knowingly and falsely attributed
>>>> a quote from Steve Carroll to. You have admitted to this. I, frankly, am
>>>> not interested in why you are dishonest... it is a fact that you are.
>>>
>>> Should I wait for the coherent version of the above to appear Snit.... You
>>> are working on one?
>>
>> Ask an adult in your life to read it to you. Or even a child past, say, the
>> third grade.
>
> You seem to have a thing about 3rd grade why is that?
Because it is in the first and third grade when they cover the concepts you
have shown you do not understand.
The idea of what it means to be synonymous is generally covered in the first
grade, the idea of figurative language by at the latest the third. You have
shown you do not have a grasp of these concepts and you operate at below the
third grade level.
I am not saying this to be insulting, Wally. Get yourself tested. If you
really are not being grossly dishonest, then you have a severe learning
disability or are even borderline mentally retarded.
...
>> You have now:
>>
>> * Admitted you lied by attributing a quote from Steve Carroll to me.
>
> Wrong!
>
>> * Admitted you lied by attributing a quote to me where not even you
>> have any thoughts as to what message ID it could have come from
>> (though you insist you dredged it up from 2004!)
>
> Wrong!
>
>> * Admitted you lied by pretending to not recall posts from less than
>> a week prior when you denied my questioning you about the origin
>> of this "quote".
>
> Wrong!
>
>> I am amazed at your signs of honesty, there, Wally. You usually deny your
>> lies... though I suspect you will flip flop and deny them soon!
>
> Yer think? LOL
Yup. And you did. You admitted you lied... and now you are denying it. Oh
well.
--
Teachers open the door but you must walk through it yourself.
Steve Carroll
> "High Plains Thumper" <h...@invalid.invalid> stated in post
>
>
>
> > Snit wrote:
>
> >> Reply 2: High Plains Thumper
>
> >> As predicted: snipped my post, gave unsupported accusations,
> >> and sank to name calling. He made no effort to even *hint* at
> >> support for his accusations. He did post Steve Carroll's list
> >> of scavenged and forged "quotes", but *none* from me. Not
> >> one.
>
> >> Score: Snit 2, Trolls 0
>
> > Rather, Snit & Trolls 0, Advocates 2
>
> > From quoted link:
>
Whined the lying hypocrite that consistently tries to speak on behalf
of others by purposefully misrepresenting them.
Tim Adams
wrote:
> On 5/1/09 11:45 PM, in article C5876B27.E8787%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> > "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> > C587FAB2.F221%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/5/09 1:58 AM:
> >
> > ...
> >>>>> Hey, no comment on my catching you on your lie about *me* having been
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> one author of the quote you have now admitted was authored by Steve
> >>>>> Carroll.
> >>>>
> >>>> What do you think that was Snit?...
> >>>
> >>> Because you are a coward and a liar. You knowingly and falsely
> >>> attributed
> >>> a quote from Steve Carroll to. You have admitted to this. I, frankly,
> >>> am
> >>> not interested in why you are dishonest... it is a fact that you are.
> >>
> >> Should I wait for the coherent version of the above to appear Snit.... You
> >> are working on one?
> >
> > Ask an adult in your life to read it to you. Or even a child past, say,
> > the
> > third grade.
>
> You seem to have a thing about 3rd grade why is that? An unfulfilled
> ambition to have gotten that far perhaps?
>
Bingo Wally - you hit the nail squarely on the head. If michael, the prescott
computer pervert had 5 more years of schooling he'd be eligible to get into the
third grade. so sad...
~snip
--
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$3-94EF2E.17...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net on
1/5/09 3:43 PM:
...
>>> Ask an adult in your life to read it to you. Or even a child past, say, the
>>> third grade.
>>>
>> You seem to have a thing about 3rd grade why is that? An unfulfilled ambition
>> to have gotten that far perhaps?
>>
> Bingo Wally - you hit the nail squarely on the head.
...
Funny how you so often jump to bad conclusions. Then again, Tim, you are
the person other than Wally who has been struggling with the concepts that
are taught by the third grade:
Incest and sex are not synonymous, no matter what order
you list them in.
Incest is subset of sex... hopefully a very, very small
subset.
The logic is something a third grader would understand:
Squares and Rectangles are not synonymous, no matter what
order you list them in.
Squares are a subset of rectangles.
That is why I mention the third grade: because you and he have shown you are
not able to comprehend things at a third grade level.
And you just showed it again, above.
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
High Plains Thumper
> Don Zeigler writes:
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Not like anyone believed you in the first place, eh?
>>
>> HPT is a hell of a lot more credible than you or any of your
>> trolling friends.
>
> Don't be silly. That' going way to far.
Debian Stable is one of the most widely used distros for mission
critical applications and where one wants minimal impact to
production work. Very few require bleeding edge software to be
productive.
Yet Hadron insists that Debian Stable is full of bugs and too
backward for usage:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/3364e9f972538fd9
Subject: Re: [News] Sister OS to Linux, OS-X Has Better TCO than
Microsoft Windows
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2008 09:50:07 +0100
Message-ID: fr08c1$9e1$2...@registered.motzarella.org
[quote]
> Hadron has an apparent inability to recognise how more
> consistent usage of Debian Stable will only help his usage of
> the product, preferring unstable versions of Debian; if not
> for the only reason as an opportunity to attack Linux/OSS.
Once more for the hard of brain power : I use testing. Not
unstable. And I use it for a reason - Debian Stable is simply too
buggy and backward and I cant be arsed to manage pinning or
selectively monitoring backports.
[/quote]
--
HPT
Wally
1299fe76-4a50-4879...@d42g2000prb.googlegroups.com, "Steve
Carroll" <fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
Oh so true! And here is a very good example of that very thing .....
Ok first a bit of history the thread in question was ironically titled...
'Worst case of foot-in-mouth' It was started by Snit in Jan 2004.
The irony of that title is pure magic.
Ok where to Start? the whole thread can be read here...
But I'll start about 8 posts in where Elizabot states...
<quote>
Have a look at this exchange:
Snit: (It actually seems as though you, Steve, and I are in agreement here:
"with (the idea that while I appear to be right, and no clear accurate
refutations (have been made, there is the logical possibility that I am
wrong."
Elizabot:
I do not agree with that statement at all.
Snit:
Really? Why not? Do you think that Steve still disagrees? Ok, you and I
seem to agree to that statement.
Elizabot:
Can't you read? "I do not agree with that statement at all."
Snit:
So you do not agree with any part of it, even the part where I say "there is
the logical possibility that I am wrong."
Fair enough. While I do not accept your argument that there is no logical
chance I am wrong, I will not argue with it.
Elizabot:
Fallacy of Division: It consists of assuming that a property of some thing
must apply to its parts; or that a property of a collection of items is
shared by each item.
Snit:
Now, had you meant that you disagreed with a specific part, you would have
stated so.
Elizabot:
Nope.
Snit:
You did not say that you do not agree with some of its parts, but you did
not agree with the statement "at all".
Elizabot: Correct.
Snit:
You are now trying to claim that you agreed with some parts of it, but
disagreed with other.
Elizabot:
Nope.
Snit:
So which is it? Do you not agree with the statement "at all", or do you
agree with some parts of the statement but not others.
Elizabot:
I disagree with the statement as you have written it. I would have written
"I don't agree with any part of that statement" if that is what I had meant.
Snit:
She later tried to back pedal and claim that she did not agree with it "AS A
WHOLE", but that is not what she said originally. She seems to think that
when she states she does not agree with something "at all" that it makes
sense to later claim she partially agrees with it.
<end quote>
Obviously no where has Snit been able to show where she "later tried to back
pedal....."! In fact later you will see Snit actually states...
"She never hints, implies, or suggests she may agree with any part of
it"-Snit
Snit went on to say...
<quote>
Your not agreeing with the statement "at all" is not consistent with you
agreeing with it in part, as you now seem to imply (though you have not
stated). Simple as that.
You even went out of your way to shove it in my face when I pointed to
another part.... what else did you mean by:
Can't you read? "I do not agree with that statement at all."
<end quote>
It's worth noting that Snit is now admitting that Elizabot never stated that
she agreed with anything Snit had stated, and Snit has changed tack to say
that Elizabot implied agreement! (remember that point).
Again a Snit post...
<quote>
In the following, Elizabot clearly shows that when she claims she does not
agree with something "at all", that she may still agree with parts of it.
Where does that confuse you?
Snit:
It actually seems as though you, Steve, and I are in agreement here: "with
the idea that while I appear to be right, and no clear accurate refutations
have been made, there is the logical possibility that I am wrong."
Elizabot:
I do not agree with that statement at all.
Snit:
Really? Why not? Do you think that Steve still disagrees? Ok, you and I
seem to agree to that statement.
Elizabot:
Can't you read? "I do not agree with that statement at all."
<end quote>
Nowhere does Elizabot show agreement with any of Snits statement, and yet
Snit claims that it can be seen clearly in the quote above!..Where?
Steve Carroll then posts...
<quote>
LOL! No where in there does she show where she *may* agree with
anything. That's an assumption on your part. Apparently, you leapt to
the conclusion that you received an answer for your questions and that
seems to really have you confused... but the fact that you used the word
*may* while leaping should be the big clue for you:) It essentially
tells you there is insufficient data to leap to such a conclusion with
anything remotely resembling a solid foundation.
<end quote>
And Steve was exactly right!
Snit then does as is normal for him, he snips Steve's post leaving just the
first sentence ......
"LOL! No where in there does she show where she *may* agree with
anything."-Steve Carroll
.... To which Snit added......
<quote>
She does not. She makes it clear, she does not agree "at all". She never
hints, implies, or suggests she may agree with any part of it - in fact, she
clearly states the opposite. She does not agree with it "at all". When I
point out a part she *may* agree with, she vehemently *disagreed* (she
stated:
Can't you read? "I do not agree with that statement at all."
What makes you think there is the slightest chance she would agree with any
part of my statement?
Then again, she has flip flopped from her original position and *she* has
decided that she does agree with part of my statement (the part where I say
"there is the logical possibility that I am wrong.")
Do we now both agree that when she said she does not agree with the
statement "at all" that that is not consistent with her later claims that
she does agree with parts if it?
Don't you find it funny that in your inability to read or reason and your
strong desire to blindly attack me, you just ended up supporting *my* point
that there is nowhere in there that she shows where she *might* agree with
anything.
<end quote>
That post alone shows just how disturbed Snit was at that time...
He makes it perfectly clear that Elizabot *did not* imply agreement, which
contradicts *every* claim that he made to the contrary! He contradicts his
own claim of Elizabot doing a back pedal, He simply could not get his story
straight!
Note the last two paragraphs from the quote above...
First he states that Elizabot later changed her mind, yet can never show
where that happened, then he admits that he knows full well that Elizabot
had said that she did not agree with anything that Snit had written.
Now moving on down the thread a mind *was* changed ... but it was as
expected Snit that did it.....
<quote>
You still are claiming that when you say you do not agree with something "at
all" you may partially agree with it.
<end quote>
That statement is useful for two reasons, first it shows Snit changing from
Elizabot agreeing, then to not agreeing then back to square one where he
says she is back to claiming agreement again! he simply changes his mind to
suit whatever argument he is trying to put forward, and secondly it proves
that when he made the next statement that I will quote it was written
exactly as he intended without any "typos" at all....
<quote>
Ok, do you or do you not partially agree with it. You did state that you
did not agree with it "at all". Please remember I pointed out a a partial
part of it, and you claimed you did not agree with that... so you have shown
that when you say you do not agree with something "at all" you might agree
with parts of it.
Your logic is faulty.
<end quote>
Snit claiming that someone else's logic is faulty is simply hilarious!
How anyone could make so many blunders on such a simple topic as Snit has
here is bewildering, until you consider the dishonesty that he employs on a
hourly basis! That'll get you every time!
Snit
> Hadron wrote:
>> Don Zeigler writes:
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not like anyone believed you in the first place, eh?
>>>
>>> HPT is a hell of a lot more credible than you or any of your
>>> trolling friends.
>>
>> Don't be silly. That' going way to far.
>
> Debian Stable is one of the most widely used distros for mission
> critical applications and where one wants minimal impact to
> production work. Very few require bleeding edge software to be
> productive.
>
> Yet Hadron insists that Debian Stable is full of bugs and too
> backward for usage:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/3364e9f972538fd9
I do not know much about Debian. In that post he spoke about some of his
*reasons* for his views. Do you agree or disagree with those reasons, and
why?
Hey... maybe you are ready to talk about Linux!
--
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Snit
Wow... you are obsessed with 2004.
In any case, note where I said (post 10 in that thread):
-----
Actually I am just playing the same semantic games you two
play; I just do it better. Do I *really* think that is what
Elizabot meant - decide for yourself. But, if you look at
the LOGIC of what she says, she is claiming that she does not
agree "at all". That is not consistent with agreeing with it
part way.
-----
So this was settled on Jan 12, 2004. That will be *five* years in just a
few days.
And you have not been able to let go of it.
That is funny.
Hey, since you are obsessing over that thread, can you find any place where
you or any of your co-trolling buddies were able to figure it if she
disagreed with only some parts of my statement or if she did not agree "at
all".
The answer, of course, is "no".
100% predictable.
Why do you bring up debates from 2004 where your buddies made complete fools
of themselves and then obsess over some alleged wrong doing on my part?
Hey, and speaking of that thread, I see that is where Steve Carroll admitted
it was *reality* that prevented him from refuting the very argument he has
been claiming he refuted, well, since before then and ever since:
Refute what? That Bush IS legally guilty of breaking the
laws that Snit claims? Sorry... reality prevents me from
doing so.
Even recently Steve has been claiming he, in his view, went against
*reality* and refuted my claims.
Whatever. Happy New Year. Welcome to 2009.
Hadron
> "High Plains Thumper" <h...@invalid.invalid> stated in post
> gjucfn$2h5$1...@news.motzarella.org on 1/5/09 6:34 PM:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>> Don Zeigler writes:
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Not like anyone believed you in the first place, eh?
>>>>
>>>> HPT is a hell of a lot more credible than you or any of your
>>>> trolling friends.
>>>
>>> Don't be silly. That' going way to far.
>>
>> Debian Stable is one of the most widely used distros for mission
>> critical applications and where one wants minimal impact to
>> production work. Very few require bleeding edge software to be
>> productive.
>>
>> Yet Hadron insists that Debian Stable is full of bugs and too
>> backward for usage:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/3364e9f972538fd9
>
> I do not know much about Debian. In that post he spoke about some of his
> *reasons* for his views. Do you agree or disagree with those reasons, and
> why?
>
> Hey... maybe you are ready to talk about Linux!
I doubt it. He clearly know fuck all about Debian.
--
"Every piece of evidence I've heard from developers inside Microsoft
supports my theory that the company has become completely tangled up in..."
-- William Poaster <w...@leafnode.amd64.eu> boring people again in comp.os.linux.advocacy
Snit
gjuhq9$fd2$2...@hadronquark.motzarella.org on 1/5/09 8:05 PM:
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>
>> "High Plains Thumper" <h...@invalid.invalid> stated in post
>> gjucfn$2h5$1...@news.motzarella.org on 1/5/09 6:34 PM:
>>
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>> Don Zeigler writes:
>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not like anyone believed you in the first place, eh?
>>>>>
>>>>> HPT is a hell of a lot more credible than you or any of your
>>>>> trolling friends.
>>>>
>>>> Don't be silly. That' going way to far.
>>>
>>> Debian Stable is one of the most widely used distros for mission
>>> critical applications and where one wants minimal impact to
>>> production work. Very few require bleeding edge software to be
>>> productive.
>>>
>>> Yet Hadron insists that Debian Stable is full of bugs and too
>>> backward for usage:
>>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/3364e9f972538fd9
>>
>> I do not know much about Debian. In that post he spoke about some of his
>> *reasons* for his views. Do you agree or disagree with those reasons, and
>> why?
>>
>> Hey... maybe you are ready to talk about Linux!
>
> I doubt it. He clearly know fuck all about Debian.
Hey, give him a chance to show why he agrees or disagrees with your
comments. He quoted them, he must thing they were important enough to do
so!