Microsoft plans midnight launch for Surface

[bbgruff]

<quote>
*Who does they think they are* , - *JK Rowling* ?

Say what you like about Microsoft, but the company has never lacked
chutzpah.

According to invites sent out on Thursday, the company is to launch its
Surface tablet hybrid at midnight on October 26 from its pop-up stores. This
means Redmond is expecting punters to queue up through the night for a
chance to buy a system that has no firm pricing, limited specification data,
and that hasn't been properly reviewed by independent third parties.

As El Reg has pointed out, Microsoft has a mountain to climb with Surface,
although the tablet could inspire OEMs to be a bit more creative with
Windows 8 systems. The Surface certainly looks good, but the devil is in the
details – and there have been precious few of those.

Sure, Microsoft has released some specifications for the systems – one for
an x86-powered Surface and one running Windows RT – but even at the launch
event this June there was little chance to try the units out. No one is sure
what processors Surface units will be running, how much RAM has been packed
in, or if there's a battery in there that'll last a useful amount of time.

It's a brave plan, since midnight launches are more common with staggeringly
popular things such as the latest Harry Potter tome. True, Apple fanbois and
girlz are renowned for waiting through the night to be the first with a
shiny new toy, but this is Microsoft we're talking about. With a few notable
exceptions (some nice peripherals, later Xbox models) the company hasn't
covered itself with glory on the hardware-design front.

Steve Ballmer may be convinced that the Surface systems will fly off the
shelves, and Redmond will be issuing around 93,000 to full-time employees,
but a midnight launch could be overdoing it, in The Reg's opinion.
</quote>
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/05/microsoft_surface_launch/

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, bbgruff belched this bit o' wisdom:

>
> <quote>

> It's a brave plan, since midnight launches are more common with staggeringly
> popular things such as the latest Harry Potter tome. True, Apple fanbois and
> girlz are renowned for waiting through the night to be the first with a
> shiny new toy, but this is Microsoft we're talking about. With a few notable
> exceptions (some nice peripherals, later Xbox models) the company hasn't
> covered itself with glory on the hardware-design front.

> </quote>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/05/microsoft_surface_launch/

I'm sure Microsoft will pack the gallery with willing shills who will,
aided by the unwitting press, convince the "marks" that this things
is a "must have".

--
EOS as far as these lightweights go. Not ONE of them posting here
contributes back to OSS: Not one. The only poster here who have seen
attempting to help others in help groups is Liarnut. And then he was off
the mark as those links I posted proved.
-- "Hadron". Copied from Google Groups.

[DFS]

On 10/5/2012 11:28 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> After swilling some grog, bbgruff belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>
>> <quote>
>> It's a brave plan, since midnight launches are more common with staggeringly
>> popular things such as the latest Harry Potter tome. True, Apple fanbois and
>> girlz are renowned for waiting through the night to be the first with a
>> shiny new toy, but this is Microsoft we're talking about. With a few notable
>> exceptions (some nice peripherals, later Xbox models) the company hasn't
>> covered itself with glory on the hardware-design front.
>> </quote>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/05/microsoft_surface_launch/
>
> I'm sure Microsoft will pack the gallery with willing shills who will,
> aided by the unwitting press, convince the "marks" that this things
> is a "must have".

What do you care, Creepy?

You've been selling out to Microsoft for years.

[7]

If the way the stock price is been overtaken by google is anything to
go by, their launch will be as floppy as an appil failed launch.

All the queues will be fake. Anyone joining the fake queues be sure
to take a mug shot! And a few videos of the queuees - its likely to be
micorshaft employees and rent a crowd paid employee crowds.

None of the trolls will be going.
While they are all fools, they are not suckers for micoshaft marketing.

[Tattoo Vampire]

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> I'm sure Microsoft will pack the gallery with willing shills who will,
> aided by the unwitting press, convince the "marks" that this things
> is a "must have".

I hate to say it but I find the device interesting. I don't need another
tablet but it will be interesting to see how this thing pans out.

--
[tv]

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance...
baffle them with bullshit!

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, Tattoo Vampire belched this bit o' wisdom:

> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> I'm sure Microsoft will pack the gallery with willing shills who will,
>> aided by the unwitting press, convince the "marks" that this things
>> is a "must have".
>
> I hate to say it but I find the device interesting. I don't need another
> tablet but it will be interesting to see how this thing pans out.

Will the public pan it?

Humor aside, what is interesting about it?

--
We have no intention of shipping another bloated OS and shoving it down the
throats of our users.
-- Paul Maritz, Microsoft group vice president

[DFS]

On 10/5/2012 7:32 PM, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> I'm sure Microsoft will pack the gallery with willing shills who will,
>> aided by the unwitting press, convince the "marks" that this things
>> is a "must have".
>
> I hate to say it but I find the device interesting. I don't need another
> tablet but it will be interesting to see how this thing pans out.

What kind of beatdown, brainwashed sadsack are you that you have to
whine "I hate to say it" to a group of Linux idiots just because the
device is made by MS?

[Tattoo Vampire]

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Humor aside, what is interesting about it?

The remote possibility that MS will come out with a successful tablet? :-D

[Snit]

On 10/5/12 4:54 PM, in article k4ns0u$qrn$1...@dont-email.me, "DFS"

The same type who insists on using only open source products and then says
they are focusing just as much on productivity and efficiency as those of us
who use whatever works best, open source or not (and, at least in my case,
giving preferential treatment to open source products).

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

[Marti Van Lin]

On 06-10-12 01:47, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> After swilling some grog, Tattoo Vampire belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> I'm sure Microsoft will pack the gallery with willing shills who will,
>>> aided by the unwitting press, convince the "marks" that this things
>>> is a "must have".
>>
>> I hate to say it but I find the device interesting. I don't need another
>> tablet but it will be interesting to see how this thing pans out.
>
> Will the public pan it?
>
> Humor aside, what is interesting about it?

Hmmm. Looks like a perfect educational device for 1'st and 2'nd graders,
albeit a bit expensive.

Unfortunately for Vole, Toys'R'us already ships its own cheap Android
Tablets.

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/09/toys-r-us-tabeo-android-tablet-ice-cream-sandwich-150/

--
|_|0|_| Marti T. Van Lin, alias ML2MST
|_|_|0| https://linuxcounter.net/user/513040.html
|0|0|0| http://osg33x.blogspot.com

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, Tattoo Vampire belched this bit o' wisdom:

> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Humor aside, what is interesting about it?
>
> The remote possibility that MS will come out with a successful tablet? :-D

Oh, I get it! Microsoft: "Google, *we* are the leaders! Wait for us!"

--
Despite oodles of evidence to the contrary you refuse to see the
faults in Linux.
-- "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, Marti Van Lin belched this bit o' wisdom:

> On 06-10-12 01:47, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> After swilling some grog, Tattoo Vampire belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm sure Microsoft will pack the gallery with willing shills who will,
>>>> aided by the unwitting press, convince the "marks" that this things
>>>> is a "must have".
>>>
>>> I hate to say it but I find the device interesting. I don't need another
>>> tablet but it will be interesting to see how this thing pans out.
>>
>> Will the public pan it?
>>
>> Humor aside, what is interesting about it?
>
> Hmmm. Looks like a perfect educational device for 1'st and 2'nd graders,
> albeit a bit expensive.
>
> Unfortunately for Vole, Toys'R'us already ships its own cheap Android
> Tablets.
>
> http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/09/toys-r-us-tabeo-android-tablet-ice-cream-sandwich-150/

But, but... it doesn't have Tiles!

This does (free advertising for Windoze from Linonut!)

http://www.microsoft.com/surface/en/us/default.aspx

Note the new Windows logo in the "Gallery".

The keyboard looks interesting, not that iPads and Androids haven't have
nice ones for awhile already. Is this the model that can't do Office?

--
The whole point is of cause that Phil or whoever it was claimed it
was perfect and 100 compatible.
-- Hadron Quark, lying shamelessly

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, Tattoo Vampire belched this bit o' wisdom:

> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Humor aside, what is interesting about it?
>
> The remote possibility that MS will come out with a successful tablet? :-D

Rumor:

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/gadgetbox/microsoft-surface-tablet-may-cost-599-have-wi-fi-only-841079

Sources cited by TheNextWeb say that the base price for a Surface
tablet will be $599 — and the Intel-powered "Pro" version will start
at $999. Meanwhile, Bloomberg is reporting that the initial models
will be Wi-Fi-only, rather than connecting to a wireless 3G or 4G
network.

If that's the case... *yawn*.

--
A serious public debate about the validity of astrology? A serious believer
in the White House? Two of them? Give me a break. What stifled my laughter
is that the image fits. Reagan has always exhibited a fey indifference toward
science. Facts, like numbers, roll off his back. And we've all come to
accept it. This time it was stargazing that became a serious issue....Not
that long ago, it was Reagan's support of Creationism....Creationists actually
got equal time with evolutionists. The public was supposed to be open-minded
to the claims of paleontologists and fundamentalists, as if the two were
scientific colleagues....It has been clear for a long time that the president
is averse to science...In general, these attitudes fall onto friendly American
turf....But at the outer edges, this skepticism about science easily turns
into a kind of naive acceptance of nonscience, or even nonsense. The same
people who doubt experts can also believe any quackery, from the benefits of
laetrile to eye of newt to the movment of planets. We lose the capacity to
make rational -- scientific -- judgments. It's all the same.
-- Ellen Goodman, The Boston Globe Newspaper Company-Washington Post Writers
Group

[chrisv]

Tattoo Vampire wrote:

>Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Humor aside, what is interesting about it?
>
>The remote possibility that MS will come out with a successful tablet? :-D

Those purveyors of mediocre software are welcome to compete, as long
as they do it fairly.

That will be tough to do, with their culture.

"Well, let's make it tough for customers to leave us, once they've
tried us."

Evil bastards.

--
"What monopoly?" - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark

[Homer]

Verily I say unto thee that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:

> After swilling some grog, Tattoo Vampire belched this bit o' wisdom:
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> I'm sure Microsoft will pack the gallery with willing shills who
>>> will, aided by the unwitting press, convince the "marks" that this
>>> things is a "must have".
>>
>> I hate to say it but I find the device interesting. I don't need
>> another tablet but it will be interesting to see how this thing pans
>> out.
>
> Will the public pan it?
>
> Humor aside, what is interesting about it?

Probably the fact that it's just a "PC", and thus useless without a
keyboard (which is why Microsoft ships one with it). IOW it's just
another Windows laptop, except the "RT" variants, which aren't anything
at all, since they can't run any software that anyone actually wants ...
unless you switch the OS for something useful, that is, like Android or
GNU/Linux. That'll be why Vole is so insistent on its "secure boot"
policy (the "secure" in this case is their lock-in, not the customers,
who will end up with systems riddled with viruses just like every other
Windows system).

--
K. | "You see? You cannot kill me. There is no flesh
http://slated.org | and blood within this cloak to kill. There is
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | only an idea. And ideas are bulletproof."
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 42 days | ~ V for Vendetta.

[RonB]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 17:56:09 +0100, Homer wrote:

> Probably the fact that it's just a "PC", and thus useless without a
> keyboard (which is why Microsoft ships one with it). IOW it's just
> another Windows laptop, except the "RT" variants, which aren't anything
> at all, since they can't run any software that anyone actually wants ...
> unless you switch the OS for something useful, that is, like Android or
> GNU/Linux. That'll be why Vole is so insistent on its "secure boot"
> policy (the "secure" in this case is their lock-in, not the customers,
> who will end up with systems riddled with viruses just like every other
> Windows system).

Oh, let the WinTrolls savor their anticipation. That's about all they're
going to get out of this. Well, that and flaky alpha software that they'll
be paying for the "privilege" of testing.

--
RonB
Using Linux Mint Mate 13

[Ezekiel]

"RonB" <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:k4v567$jbu$1...@dont-email.me...

Not nearly as the alpha kwalitie software called Android that's the swiss
cheese malware magnet of the mobile world that can destroy your hardware and
destroy all your data.

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

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

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

[Snit]

On 10/8/12 11:16 AM, in article k4v5a8$n8k$1...@dont-email.me, "Ezekiel"

<ze...@nosuchemail.com> wrote:

>
> "RonB" <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:k4v567$jbu$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 17:56:09 +0100, Homer wrote:
>>
>>> Probably the fact that it's just a "PC", and thus useless without a
>>> keyboard (which is why Microsoft ships one with it). IOW it's just
>>> another Windows laptop, except the "RT" variants, which aren't anything
>>> at all, since they can't run any software that anyone actually wants ...
>>> unless you switch the OS for something useful, that is, like Android or
>>> GNU/Linux. That'll be why Vole is so insistent on its "secure boot"
>>> policy (the "secure" in this case is their lock-in, not the customers,
>>> who will end up with systems riddled with viruses just like every other
>>> Windows system).
>>
>> Oh, let the WinTrolls savor their anticipation. That's about all they're
>> going to get out of this. Well, that and flaky alpha software that they'll
>> be paying for the "privilege" of testing.
>>
>
> Not nearly as the alpha kwalitie software called Android that's the swiss
> cheese malware magnet of the mobile world that can destroy your hardware and
> destroy all your data.

And meanwhile Apple sells as many devices as they can make - with the herd
claiming that Android is hurting Apple.

It might. But not so much yet.

[Snit]

On 10/8/12 11:14 AM, in article k4v567$jbu$1...@dont-email.me, "RonB"

Applications? Who needs'm.

LOL!

[Goblin]

On 08/10/12 19:40, Snit wrote:
> with the herd
> claiming that Android is hurting Apple.

Of course its hurting Apple. Whilst I don't profess to know the exact
figures of sales, its safe to say that the massive amounts of Android
devices being sold would have, in many cases been Apple purchases had
they not been Android, afterall I don't see any others having a major
slice of the market share cake.

If you look at it that way, then whatever the total number of Android
users who would otherwise choose Apple is certainly a loss to Apple and
lessens their share of the market ergo their profits.

If we had the market divided into three between say Android Apple and
Blackberry, then you could argue that Android wasn't hurting Apple
because in the absence of Android people would choose Blackberry.....
Since this is not a reflection of the market, I think that its more than
reasonable to suggest that if Android disappeared, then a significant
number of those users would choose (with the current choices available)
Apple.

So yes. Android, in my view does hurt Apple. It also hurts any other
competitor trying to get a foothold on smartphone market. Just ask WP7....

Conversely you could also say Apple hurts Android, because of the above
reasons in reverse...

One thing that isn't hurting anyone in this market seems to be Microsoft
and sadly (because I did like their tech) Blackberry.

Regards

Tim.

[Snit]

On 10/8/12 1:14 PM, in article BuGcs.273546$2%5.8...@fx05.am4, "Goblin"

<bytes...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 08/10/12 19:40, Snit wrote:
>> with the herd
>> claiming that Android is hurting Apple.
>
> Of course its hurting Apple.

How so?

> Whilst I don't profess to know the exact figures of sales, its safe to say
> that the massive amounts of Android devices being sold would have, in many
> cases been Apple purchases had they not been Android, afterall I don't see any
> others having a major slice of the market share cake.

From what I have read Apple continues to sell them as fast as they can make
them. Apple has never had a majority of the market.

> If you look at it that way, then whatever the total number of Android users
> who would otherwise choose Apple is certainly a loss to Apple and lessens
> their share of the market ergo their profits.

Only if Apple could have sold more units, which has not been shown.

> If we had the market divided into three between say Android Apple and
> Blackberry, then you could argue that Android wasn't hurting Apple because in
> the absence of Android people would choose Blackberry..... Since this is not a
> reflection of the market, I think that its more than reasonable to suggest
> that if Android disappeared, then a significant number of those users would
> choose (with the current choices available) Apple.

If Apple could make products fast enough.

> So yes. Android, in my view does hurt Apple. It also hurts any other
> competitor trying to get a foothold on smartphone market. Just ask WP7....
>
> Conversely you could also say Apple hurts Android, because of the above
> reasons in reverse...
>
> One thing that isn't hurting anyone in this market seems to be Microsoft and
> sadly (because I did like their tech) Blackberry.
>
> Regards
>
> Tim.

[RonB]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 21:14:23 +0100, Goblin wrote:

> So yes. Android, in my view does hurt Apple. It also hurts any other
> competitor trying to get a foothold on smartphone market. Just ask
> WP7....

The high-end Android phones (like the Galaxy S3) definitely hurt Apple.
It's doubtful that those who get free Android phones (or cheap ones) would
have bought Apple. They would probably have bought a feature phone.

That's the cool thing about Android (and Linux) -- it scales to whatever
it needs to be.

[Goblin]

On 08/10/12 21:58, Snit wrote:
> From what I have read Apple continues to sell them as fast as they can make
> them. Apple has never had a majority of the market.

Please I haven't much time to make this into a back and forth. I think
I've made my view clear. The point was....of course Apple sells many
many units, thats not in dispute, what I am saying is that the only
other big smartphone player in the game is Android devices, so its fair
to say that should Android disappear overnight, a considerable amount of
those Android users would go to Apple. What other choice do they have?
Do you think they seriously would consider WP7? or what about the
waning Blackberry?

Even if only 10% of Android users went to Apple, that would be worth a
hell of a lot to Apple considering how many Android devices there are
out there - regardless of who has the bigger market share of the two.

So yes, it does hurt Apple. If Android was not here, Apple would have
more users, more customers in its store spending money.

>
> Only if Apple could have sold more units, which has not been shown.

No, but in light of their being only two big players, that of Apple and
those providing Android devices, I would suggest its more than
reasonable to suggest that if one went away the other would further
increase its massive share of the market.

As I said before you can argue the reverse for Apple harming Android,
but then Android is not limited to one "company" is it? I expect Samsung
are quite happy with their sales and unlike Apple Android is an option
to other manufacturers such as HTC.

>
> If Apple could make products fast enough.

Im sure it could. And certainly in the UK Apple doesn't seem to be
running out of products in any of the shops I've seen locally. Thats
not suggesting they are not popular, thats suggesting that in at least
my part of the UK, supply has successfully matched demand and nobody is
left without the product of their choice.

A question that doesn't need answering.... Can anyone honestly say Apple
is happy to share the market with Android and can they honestly say, if
given the choice, Apple would want a competing product like Android
around? Of course they wouldn't. They want to make money. They want as
many people as possible buying their items and they want as many people
as possible spending money in their stores both on and offline.

And before you read an argument in the making in the above statement,
that is no bad reflection on Apple itself nor is it making any
suggestion towards the products. If people want to buy Apple they can.
My wife does. I do not. Freedom of choice, no problems there.

But to suggest anything other than Apple does infact lose out to Android
(whatever the figure) seems rather strange since the big two are the
only real players in the game at the moment.

--
Openbytes the Linux/FOSS Blogazine! - http://www.openbytes.wordpress.com
"Cave quid dicis, quando, et cui."
Catch me in #techrights on freenode.net

BytesMedia: www.bytesmedia.co.uk

Email: bytes...@googlemail.com
Google+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/114824920343832764896/posts
Identi.ca: identi.ca/openbytes
Twitter: twitter.com/_goblin

Skype: tim.openbytes

[Goblin]

On 08/10/12 22:28, RonB wrote:
> The high-end Android phones (like the Galaxy S3) definitely hurt Apple.
> It's doubtful that those who get free Android phones (or cheap ones) would
> have bought Apple. They would probably have bought a feature phone.

Completely agree and that was the point I was making. Even if only a
small percent of these device customers would have bought Apple, that
still represents a massive amount of custom for Apple if we look at the
shear number of Android devices out there.

[Snit]

On 10/8/12 2:49 PM, in article rTHcs.273631$2%5.10...@fx05.am4, "Goblin"

<bytes...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 08/10/12 21:58, Snit wrote:
>> From what I have read Apple continues to sell them as fast as they can make
>> them. Apple has never had a majority of the market.
>
> Please I haven't much time to make this into a back and forth. I think
> I've made my view clear.

You have - but your claims fall apart if Apple is selling product as fast as
they can make them (unless you think they would have enough additional sales
so that they would find a way to increase capacity).

> The point was....of course Apple sells many many units, thats not in dispute,
> what I am saying is that the only other big smartphone player in the game is
> Android devices, so its fair to say that should Android disappear overnight, a
> considerable amount of those Android users would go to Apple.

And that is the claim that is in question. Now if all other makers were to
magically leave, sure, Apple would increase production capabilities. This
would take time.

> What other choice do they have? Do you think they seriously would consider
> WP7? or what about the waning Blackberry?

From the little I know of the WP7 product, it gets good reviews. I have
never used one (and have used fairly modern iOS and Android products only
slightly)

> Even if only 10% of Android users went to Apple, that would be worth a
> hell of a lot to Apple considering how many Android devices there are
> out there - regardless of who has the bigger market share of the two.
>
> So yes, it does hurt Apple. If Android was not here, Apple would have
> more users, more customers in its store spending money.

Assuming they could keep up with demand. That seems to be a challenge for
them.

>> Only if Apple could have sold more units, which has not been shown.
>
> No, but in light of their being only two big players, that of Apple and
> those providing Android devices, I would suggest its more than
> reasonable to suggest that if one went away the other would further
> increase its massive share of the market.

Over time - sure: Apple would increase production. Now has Android made
Apple increase production slower than they would in an alternate world where
Android did not exist? I do not know - chances are in that alternate world
there would be someone else filling the niche (perhaps MS would have gotten
into the market more quickly, I do not know).

> As I said before you can argue the reverse for Apple harming Android,
> but then Android is not limited to one "company" is it? I expect Samsung
> are quite happy with their sales and unlike Apple Android is an option
> to other manufacturers such as HTC.

Apple, I am sure, is quite happy with their sales - they make more money
than the rest of the smart phone makers combined (or at least that is what I
recall).

>> If Apple could make products fast enough.
>
> Im sure it could. And certainly in the UK Apple doesn't seem to be
> running out of products in any of the shops I've seen locally. Thats
> not suggesting they are not popular, thats suggesting that in at least
> my part of the UK, supply has successfully matched demand and nobody is
> left without the product of their choice.

I would have to look up the articles again, but I am pretty sure Apple has
maxed out their production capabilities. If they could *make* more they
would be selling more, even with Android being there.

Of course, they might be keeping their production at a level with what they
predict they *will* be selling in a few years, and they might fear that
Android will reduce their sales below their production capabilities. I do
not know the back-story on that.

> A question that doesn't need answering.... Can anyone honestly say Apple
> is happy to share the market with Android and can they honestly say, if
> given the choice, Apple would want a competing product like Android
> around? Of course they wouldn't. They want to make money. They want as
> many people as possible buying their items and they want as many people
> as possible spending money in their stores both on and offline.

Sure: Apple has concerns of Android hurting their sales. It might have done
so already... but it might not have. Doing research right now:
<http://onforb.es/STp8SK>

Forbes:
------
Google�s Android made significant strides over the past year when
43.1% of mobile devices sold in Q2 2011 operated on Android. Apple
remained about the same. Should investors care about these
statistics?

While Google gained 20.7% market share over the same period a year
ago, Nokia and Research in Motion, together, lost 21.7%. Google�s
gain may have more to do with Nokia�s and Research in Motion�s
losses than a win against Apple.

Does Google�s lead with Android over Apple iOS matter?
...
So, what is the impact of Google Android�s greater market share?
This is one business where market share leadership doesn�t seem to
matter.
-----

Does not matter much for investors (nor, one can assume, the company
itself).

> And before you read an argument in the making in the above statement,
> that is no bad reflection on Apple itself nor is it making any
> suggestion towards the products. If people want to buy Apple they can.
> My wife does. I do not. Freedom of choice, no problems there.

Absolutely agreed. Just got off the phone with a friend who is rabidly
anti-Apple and will never own an Apple product. So be it. He likes his
Samsung phone. Again, I have no problem with that. He does buy into the idea
that it is fine for Samsung to copy Apple all they want - and that I
disagree with, but it is a different topic. :)

> But to suggest anything other than Apple does infact lose out to Android
> (whatever the figure) seems rather strange since the big two are the
> only real players in the game at the moment.



--

[Snit]

On 10/8/12 2:50 PM, in article UUHcs.273632$2%5.1...@fx05.am4, "Goblin"

<bytes...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 08/10/12 22:28, RonB wrote:
>> The high-end Android phones (like the Galaxy S3) definitely hurt Apple.
>> It's doubtful that those who get free Android phones (or cheap ones) would
>> have bought Apple. They would probably have bought a feature phone.
>
> Completely agree and that was the point I was making. Even if only a
> small percent of these device customers would have bought Apple, that
> still represents a massive amount of custom for Apple if we look at the
> shear number of Android devices out there.

For it to have any significant impact on Apple it would have to be shown
that without Android phones Apple would be selling more. That has not been
shown. It may or may not be the case.

[Snit]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 15:28:41 -0700, Snit wrote:

> For it to have any significant impact on Apple it would have to be shown
> that without Android phones Apple would be selling more. That has not been
> shown. It may or may not be the case.

I am Snit and I am always right! LOL!!!

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, Snit belched this bit o' wisdom:

You're frickin' newsgroup kudzu! :-)

--
Arsestrop can not tell the difference between truth and lies anymore. He
will do anything to suck up to his master Roy. Once he used to be a
reasonable poster but now its just shilling and replying to articles he
almost never reads to defend those he sees as COLA "advocates" regardless of
the content of their posts. He was even driven to insult OSS developers and
luminaries even calling one a "Fuckhead" even though he was not here to
defend himself. Heel Liarnut! Heel! <flips Liarnut a doggy drop>
-- "Hadron". Copied from Google Groups.

[RonB]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 22:49:08 +0100, Goblin wrote:

> Please I haven't much time to make this into a back and forth.

Unfortunately for you, Snit *does* have time to go back and forth -- and
he's a crank without a life.

[RonB]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 22:50:42 +0100, Goblin wrote:

> On 08/10/12 22:28, RonB wrote:
>> The high-end Android phones (like the Galaxy S3) definitely hurt Apple.
>> It's doubtful that those who get free Android phones (or cheap ones)
>> would have bought Apple. They would probably have bought a feature
>> phone.
>
> Completely agree and that was the point I was making. Even if only a
> small percent of these device customers would have bought Apple, that
> still represents a massive amount of custom for Apple if we look at the
> shear number of Android devices out there.

Last year Samsung had 18.3% of the smartphone market, Apple had 18.4%.
This year Samsung has 34.6% to Apple's 17.8%. Last quarter, a single model
of one vendor's Android phone collection (their high-end model) outsold
Apple's iPhone. So, only an idiot (take a bow, Snit) would say that
Android hasn't hurt Apple.

http://snipurl.com/258v1ko

[TomB]

On 2012-10-09, the following emerged from the brain of RonB:

> On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 22:49:08 +0100, Goblin wrote:
>
>> Please I haven't much time to make this into a back and forth.
>
> Unfortunately for you, Snit *does* have time to go back and forth -- and
> he's a crank without a life.

Nah, he's using Apple hardware and OSX, and we all know how consistent
that stuff is, and thus how it boosts productivity beyond what what we
can even think of being possible. Long story short: when you're using
Apple hardware and OSX, you can troll usenet 24/7 and *still* have
time left to have a life.

True story!

[Snit]

On 10/9/12 2:21 PM, in article 201210092...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"

Wow... and you deny you are a part of the herd. Amazing.

[Goblin]

On 09/10/12 22:32, Snit wrote:
> Wow... and you deny you are a part of the herd. Amazing.

I thought the "herd" was a mindset which favoured Linux to the expense
of everything else, not a sarcastic (and obvious bait) aimed at you?

Is the herd now Anti-Snit? Because if so, then you've had issues with
the Microsoft advocates here like Foster, so he must be part of the herd
as well (I'm sure he'll love that one)

I said to you before Michael, I have no issues with your views or indeed
you, but you fall into the same holes every time with posts like these
and your "herd" remarks don't help.

[Snit]

On 10/9/12 12:43 PM, in article k51upd$8vb$4...@dont-email.me, "RonB"

Your stats do not show that they did. Look at *sales* numbers.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IPhone_sales_per_quarter_simple.svg>

Where is the slow down in sales caused by Android? Can you show it was
caused by Android? Can you show there has been a slow down at all? Keep in
mind, each model of iPhone has outsold all models before it - COMBINED.

[Snit]

On 10/9/12 12:36 PM, in article k51ubq$8vb$3...@dont-email.me, "RonB"

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

> On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 22:49:08 +0100, Goblin wrote:
>
>> Please I haven't much time to make this into a back and forth.
>
> Unfortunately for you, Snit *does* have time to go back and forth -- and
> he's a crank without a life.

And you deny you are a part of the herd, right RonB. You are just in idiotic
attack mode, to please the herd.

[Goblin]

On 09/10/12 22:43, Snit wrote:
> And you deny you are a part of the herd, right RonB. You are just in idiotic
> attack mode, to please the herd.

I think at this point Michael he's more likely to fall out of favour
with what you regard as the "herd" by responding to you at all.

I can't remember how many times someone has KF'd me, merely for
responding to you.

Now I don't know if thats on the basis of your posts or the fact that
you cause mayhem when you do (with the amount of bad feeling flowing)
but suffice to say, if we were to go with your "herd" theory, then he
would please them more if he didn't respond to you at all.

[Snit]

On 10/9/12 2:36 PM, in article PN0ds.235330$AT4.1...@fx19.am4, "Goblin"

<bytes...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 09/10/12 22:32, Snit wrote:
>> Wow... and you deny you are a part of the herd. Amazing.
>
> I thought the "herd" was a mindset which favoured Linux to the expense
> of everything else, not a sarcastic (and obvious bait) aimed at you?

Here are the characteristics I have noted about the herd:

* They attack outsiders - to the point that the term "troll" is
(essentially) used to mean anyone outside of the herd. If an outsider comes
in and sucks up to the herd they might be able to escape being called this
for a short time... but it is rare. More often than not that are attacked
or accused of being a "sock" of a "troll"... merely because they do not buy
the irrational worldview of the herd. Look at you, TomB, who has already
started targeting Onion Knight in this way. Carroll also targeted Kaba in
such a way, though I did not see the herd glom on to that attack she he let
it go.

* They seek to avoid outside information: look at how often the herd speaks
of who they are kill filtering and encourage each other to also kill filter
those outside of their group. They *want* to be closed off to other ideas.
Just earlier today, TomB, you were encouraged to KF those who are not of the
herd.

* They blame the problems of desktop Linux adoption on one simple (and
incorrect) explanation - the boogieman (generally MS though sometimes others
are included in this made up conspiracy).

* They offer almost completely unconditional "love" to each other - no
matter how extreme the lie they are loath to call each other out. For
example, not a single herd member has called TomB out on his outrageous
behavior of contacting my Usenet provider simply because I quoted Stallman
and noted how repulsive his comments are.

* They share the same irrational beliefs: such as their irrational denial of
Stallman's comments, even though they come directly from his own site, the
aforementioned obsession with the boogieman, the attacks against those who
are not of the herd, the claim that they support choice as they attack those
who do not chose as they do... all irrational. All very cultish.

> Is the herd now Anti-Snit?

I am not of the herd, so yes. This does not mean they are necessarily any
more anti-Snit than anti-anyone-who-is-not-a-part-of-the-herd. Then again, I
have proved the herd wrong on many things... and they fear me (hence the
reason they place me on the level of their whole group and call me a "herd
of one").

> Because if so, then you've had issues with the Microsoft advocates here like
> Foster, so he must be part of the herd as well (I'm sure he'll love that one)

I do not follow. Just because the herd does not like me does not mean that
trolls like Foster should like me.

> I said to you before Michael, I have no issues with your views or indeed
> you, but you fall into the same holes every time with posts like these
> and your "herd" remarks don't help.

I respect your views, but in this case you are not using logic: just because
group A has attribute X does not mean that all who have attribute X are a
part of group A. For example, dogs have four feet but that does not mean all
animals with 4 feet are dogs! And yet you tried to push the idea that if the
herd is anti-Snit then all who are anti-Snit are a part of the herd. Do you
see the error in logic in your claim?

[TomB]

On 2012-10-09, the following emerged from the brain of Goblin:

> On 09/10/12 22:32, Snit wrote:
>> Wow... and you deny you are a part of the herd. Amazing.
>
> I thought the "herd" was a mindset which favoured Linux to the
> expense of everything else, not a sarcastic (and obvious bait) aimed
> at you?

Whoops, was it /that/ obvious :-p

No, seriously, I was *defending* him!

[Snit]

On 10/9/12 2:51 PM, in article 201210092...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"

TomB, making idiotic claims to please the herd:
-----

Nah, he's using Apple hardware and OSX, and we all know how
consistent that stuff is, and thus how it boosts productivity beyond
what what we can even think of being possible. Long story short:
when you're using Apple hardware and OSX, you can troll usenet 24/7
and *still* have time left to have a life.

True story!

-----

TomB, when called on his BS:
-----

No, seriously, I was *defending* him!

-----

[Snit]

On 10/9/12 2:48 PM, in article WY0ds.235359$AT4.1...@fx19.am4, "Goblin"

<bytes...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 09/10/12 22:43, Snit wrote:
>> And you deny you are a part of the herd, right RonB. You are just in idiotic
>> attack mode, to please the herd.
>
> I think at this point Michael he's more likely to fall out of favour
> with what you regard as the "herd" by responding to you at all.

He ran away from me long ago when I proved him wrong about his favored
distro (I do not even recall which one). He has has been sulking ever since,
spewing digs at me but not actually responding. He knows he was proved
wrong.

> I can't remember how many times someone has KF'd me, merely for
> responding to you.

The herd members likely have done so many times (or claimed to, anyway).

> Now I don't know if thats on the basis of your posts or the fact that
> you cause mayhem when you do (with the amount of bad feeling flowing)
> but suffice to say, if we were to go with your "herd" theory, then he
> would please them more if he didn't respond to you at all.

He did not respond to me directly. He was spewing insults and attacks
*about* me in response to others.

As you noted, by not responding to me directly he pleases the herd.

[Goblin]

No. I was just making the point that you highlighted his sarcastic post
aimed at you as further proof of being a herd member.

Your words:

> Wow... and you deny you are a part of the herd. Amazing.

(in respect of his sarcastic remark about you)

He was not talking about Linux, not talking about FOSS, he was not
even engaging in some direct point you made. You were baited with a
sarcastic post which to me was an obvious tongue in cheek bait, which
you then highlighted to further show/imply he was part of the herd.

Your list here is what was already known about your definition of the
herd. I was asking if that definition had been extended (in light of
his post) to include an anti-snit position. A position I hasten to add
which could be applied to Foster who does love "work" here.

If an anti-snit posting is not necessarily an indicator of the herd
membership, then I suggest you should have made that clear and instead
of the above which you put, put something on the lines of:

"another indicator to prove you are part of the herd"

See what I did? I've differentiated an indicator from a conclusive piece
of evidence in itself.

> I respect your views, but in this case you are not using logic: just because
>> group A has attribute X does not mean that all who have attribute X are a
>> part of group A. For example, dogs have four feet but that does not mean all
>> animals with 4 feet are dogs!

Disagree? Fine, no problem from me. Its not as if the post was even
aimed at me in the first place.

[Goblin]

On 09/10/12 22:57, Snit wrote:
> He ran away from me long ago when I proved him wrong about his favored
> distro (I do not even recall which one). He has has been sulking ever since,
> spewing digs at me but not actually responding. He knows he was proved
> wrong.

Michael I hope you will forgive the snipping and if I've missed anything
you consider unfair you mention it, but this above statement is exactly
what I highlighted to you time and again. Remember what I said about
digs and cheap shots?

The point I made was about what you regard as the herd wanting, in my
opinion for him to ignore you. You quote that then go off on some
allegation which was in no way related to what I was talking about and
used it as an opportunity to make claims about TomB. Now who was in the
right in that case I don't care, but it had nothing to do with what I
was talking to you about. Nothing at all.

>
> He did not respond to me directly. He was spewing insults and attacks
> *about* me in response to others.

It was an obvious bait Michael. I could see that, everyone with a
monitor could see that. It was sarcasm, it was aimed at you and
regardless of how offended or not you were, that was not the point I was
making. I was clarifying your position on an anti-snit post being proof
of membership to the herd.

>
> As you noted, by not responding to me directly he pleases the herd.

Michael, I've been KF'd by what others regarded as encouragement and I
believe on occasion not even for responding directly. Personally it
matters not to me, but when I consider how much effort you are putting
into posting and falling into holes and places you need not go, I would
be remiss not to give my opinion.

Think I'm wrong? Fine.... I take no offense.
Want to continue on? You are perfectly within your rights and can do as
you please. But what would you suggest I do when I am sitting here with
an honest held belief that you are being played (and falling foul of
that playing)....Would you want me not to say anything? or would you
indeed want me to present my view to you and let you decide after that?

[Snit]

On 10/9/12 2:58 PM, in article 461ds.368054$t45.1...@fx02.am4, "Goblin"

Yes. He has been spewing all sorts of idiotic insults and attacks to please
the herd. His most recent is claiming that the "top 20 contributors" (for a
given year) to Linux are not "top contributors" (for that year). Just
idiotic nonsense... but, and you can be sure this will happen, the herd will
come in to back him.

> Your words:
>> Wow... and you deny you are a part of the herd. Amazing.
>
> (in respect of his sarcastic remark about you)
>
> He was not talking about Linux, not talking about FOSS, he was not
> even engaging in some direct point you made. You were baited with a
> sarcastic post which to me was an obvious tongue in cheek bait, which
> you then highlighted to further show/imply he was part of the herd.

He was trolling me, as he is in multiple threads.

> Your list here is what was already known about your definition of the
> herd. I was asking if that definition had been extended (in light of
> his post) to include an anti-snit position. A position I hasten to add
> which could be applied to Foster who does love "work" here.

I am not of the herd so, sure, being against me is seen in herd members
(and, as I noted, I have proved them wrong many times so they are especially
hateful and angry and fearful of me).

This does not mean all who do not like me are a part of the herd - as you
note, Foster does not (nor does DFS). They are not a part of the herd.

> If an anti-snit posting is not necessarily an indicator of the herd
> membership, then I suggest you should have made that clear and instead
> of the above which you put, put something on the lines of:
>
> "another indicator to prove you are part of the herd"
>
> See what I did? I've differentiated an indicator from a conclusive piece
> of evidence in itself.

In isolation you are right - his one anti-Snit comment would not show he is
a part of the herd. But he is. Clearly.

>>> I respect your views, but in this case you are not using logic: just because
>>> group A has attribute X does not mean that all who have attribute X are a
>>> part of group A. For example, dogs have four feet but that does not mean all
>>> animals with 4 feet are dogs!
>
> Disagree? Fine, no problem from me.

Fair enough. And for what it is worth I now see your point - you were noting
where TomB was showing a characteristic of the herd and noting that this one
characteristic is not unique to the herd. That is a fair claim.

> Its not as if the post was even
> aimed at me in the first place.


--

[TomB]

On 2012-10-09, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:

> On 10/9/12 2:51 PM, in article
> 201210092...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
><tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-10-09, the following emerged from the brain of Goblin:
>>> On 09/10/12 22:32, Snit wrote:
>>>> Wow... and you deny you are a part of the herd. Amazing.
>>>
>>> I thought the "herd" was a mindset which favoured Linux to the
>>> expense of everything else, not a sarcastic (and obvious bait)
>>> aimed at you?
>>
>> Whoops, was it /that/ obvious :-p
>>
>> No, seriously, I was *defending* him!
>
> TomB, making idiotic claims to please the herd:
> -----
> Nah, he's using Apple hardware and OSX, and we all know how
> consistent that stuff is, and thus how it boosts productivity
> beyond what what we can even think of being possible. Long story
> short: when you're using Apple hardware and OSX, you can troll
> usenet 24/7 and *still* have time left to have a life.
>
> True story!
> -----
>
> TomB, when called on his BS:
> -----
> No, seriously, I was *defending* him!
> -----

You got to be kidding me! :-D

[Snit]

On 10/9/12 3:08 PM, in article af1ds.235408$AT4.2...@fx19.am4, "Goblin"

<bytes...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 09/10/12 22:57, Snit wrote:
>> He ran away from me long ago when I proved him wrong about his favored
>> distro (I do not even recall which one). He has has been sulking ever since,
>> spewing digs at me but not actually responding. He knows he was proved
>> wrong.
>
> Michael I hope you will forgive the snipping and if I've missed anything
> you consider unfair you mention it, but this above statement is exactly
> what I highlighted to you time and again. Remember what I said about
> digs and cheap shots?
>
> The point I made was about what you regard as the herd wanting, in my
> opinion for him to ignore you. You quote that then go off on some
> allegation which was in no way related to what I was talking about and
> used it as an opportunity to make claims about TomB. Now who was in the
> right in that case I don't care, but it had nothing to do with what I
> was talking to you about. Nothing at all.

I thought you were in reference to RonB, not TomB... which was based on you
referencing this quote of mine:

And you deny you are a part of the herd, right RonB. You are just
in idiotic attack mode, to please the herd.

>> He did not respond to me directly. He was spewing insults and attacks
>> *about* me in response to others.
>
> It was an obvious bait Michael. I could see that, everyone with a
> monitor could see that. It was sarcasm, it was aimed at you and
> regardless of how offended or not you were, that was not the point I was
> making. I was clarifying your position on an anti-snit post being proof
> of membership to the herd.

I am not offended by the baiting of the herd... but it is enjoyable for me
to often note what it is saying of the person posting it.

And, again, someone being against me is not in itself evidence of herd
membership.

>> As you noted, by not responding to me directly he pleases the herd.
>
> Michael, I've been KF'd by what others regarded as encouragement and I
> believe on occasion not even for responding directly. Personally it
> matters not to me, but when I consider how much effort you are putting
> into posting and falling into holes and places you need not go, I would
> be remiss not to give my opinion.

I have no problem with that - and I do not consider you to be a part of the
herd (even if you tend to lean toward defending them or at least focusing on
what you see as wrongs of those outside the herd and ignoring the wrongs of
the herd). TomB is also not as tied to it as some others - but he clearly
bows to their demands and wants (he does this far more than you do).

> Think I'm wrong? Fine.... I take no offense.
> Want to continue on? You are perfectly within your rights and can do as
> you please. But what would you suggest I do when I am sitting here with
> an honest held belief that you are being played (and falling foul of
> that playing)....Would you want me not to say anything? or would you
> indeed want me to present my view to you and let you decide after that?

I have no problem with you expressing your beliefs even when they are
contrary to mine (or perhaps especially when they are - while I do not
always agree with you I do respect you).

[Snit]

On 10/9/12 3:04 PM, in article 201210100...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"

Your claims... but, sure, they are idiotic.

[Goblin]

I may have got the Ron and the Tom around the wrong way, but I wish (and
I sincerely mean this) you would consider being less anti-social in your
posts. I'm not saying change your views, I'm not saying agree with
people to be popular, I'm suggesting that maybe instead of engaging in
the tit for tat and rising to baits, you maybe turn the other cheek.

I would bet that if you were less confrontational all the time, you may
get better responses and not spend your time here arguing over things
that go nowhere, probably not read and end up forgotten in a day or so.

[Steve Carroll]

LOL!

[Snit]

On 10/9/12 3:21 PM, in article yr1ds.211477$It6.1...@fx11.am4, "Goblin"

<bytes...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>>> Think I'm wrong? Fine.... I take no offense.
>>> Want to continue on? You are perfectly within your rights and can do as
>>> you please. But what would you suggest I do when I am sitting here with
>>> an honest held belief that you are being played (and falling foul of
>>> that playing)....Would you want me not to say anything? or would you
>>> indeed want me to present my view to you and let you decide after that?
>>
>> I have no problem with you expressing your beliefs even when they are
>> contrary to mine (or perhaps especially when they are - while I do not
>> always agree with you I do respect you).
>>
>
> I may have got the Ron and the Tom around the wrong way, but I wish (and
> I sincerely mean this) you would consider being less anti-social in your
> posts.

I respond to attacks by noting them. I do not attempt to start "flame wars"
as TomB and RonB do.

> I'm not saying change your views, I'm not saying agree with people to be
> popular, I'm suggesting that maybe instead of engaging in the tit for tat and
> rising to baits, you maybe turn the other cheek.

I often do. I respond to maybe 1/10th of the attacks against me (and, no, I
have not counted, that is just a number pulled from thin air).

> I would bet that if you were less confrontational all the time, you may
> get better responses and not spend your time here arguing over things
> that go nowhere, probably not read and end up forgotten in a day or so.

The herd will continue to attack me no matter what... but let's give it a
try. No response to any herd attacks for, say, the end of the month. I will
not even refer to them as the "herd" from now until then - I will use their
preferred, but dishonest, term of "advocates". I will continue to put that
into quotes though as it is a dishonest use of that word and I will not
actively support it. If they offer a better word than "advocate" or herd I
will be open to it.

Fair enough?

[Steve Carroll]

On Oct 9, 3:21 pm, Goblin <bytes4f...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 09/10/12 23:15, Snit wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On 10/9/12 3:08 PM, in article af1ds.235408$AT4.206...@fx19.am4, "Goblin"

Snit can not stop being aggressive and nasty. That is why hundreds of
people have called him a troll and a liar. It is who he is.

[Steve Carroll]

Present your view and Snit will attack it. It is what he does to get
attention. He would eat dog shit if he thought it would make people
respond to him.

[RonB]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 23:21:14 +0100, Goblin wrote:

> I may have got the Ron and the Tom around the wrong way, but I wish (and
> I sincerely mean this) you would consider being less anti-social in your
> posts. I'm not saying change your views, I'm not saying agree with
> people to be popular, I'm suggesting that maybe instead of engaging in
> the tit for tat and rising to baits, you maybe turn the other cheek.
>
> I would bet that if you were less confrontational all the time, you may
> get better responses and not spend your time here arguing over things
> that go nowhere, probably not read and end up forgotten in a day or so.

Thanks, but forget it. I've gone the round and round and round route with
Snit. He's shown himself to be dishonest liar who twists words so he can
battle a straw man. Not interested in going back to that asininity.

[RonB]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 23:21:14 +0100, Goblin wrote:

> I may have got the Ron and the Tom around the wrong way, but I wish (and
> I sincerely mean this) you would consider being less anti-social in your
> posts. I'm not saying change your views, I'm not saying agree with
> people to be popular, I'm suggesting that maybe instead of engaging in
> the tit for tat and rising to baits, you maybe turn the other cheek.
>
> I would bet that if you were less confrontational all the time, you may
> get better responses and not spend your time here arguing over things
> that go nowhere, probably not read and end up forgotten in a day or so.

Thanks, but forget it. I've gone the round and round and round route with
Snit. He's shown himself to be dishonest liar who twists words so he can
battle a straw man. Not interested in going back to that asininity.

[Goblin]

On 09/10/12 23:26, Snit wrote:
> I respond to attacks by noting them. I do not attempt to start "flame wars"
> as TomB and RonB do.

Ok..Michael.. But then if you know them to be attacks then why bother
at all. In the context of our discussion, who are you trying to prove
your innocence to, me? As I repeatedly have said, these things are here
to bait you, there's no need to have to defend yourself against anything.

> The herd will continue to attack me no matter what... but let's give it a
> try. No response to any herd attacks for, say, the end of the month. I will
> not even refer to them as the "herd" from now until then - I will use their
> preferred, but dishonest, term of "advocates". I will continue to put that
> into quotes though as it is a dishonest use of that word and I will not
> actively support it. If they offer a better word than "advocate" or herd I
> will be open to it.

I hope this decision is as a result of your choice and not because you
feel you have to after my points were given. The idea is sound however
I have to ask the question. If you are now in a position where you feel
the above is required (due to the level of bad feeling against you here)
why on earth would you want to come to such a venue in the first place.

Lets consider, on one side you have the Linux "herd" who to be fair you
don't get on with and on the other side you have the "farm" who have
their pro-microsoft agenda whom you don't get on with either. Infact it
appears the only people who talk to you who don't give you issues are
Big Steel with his one line posts usually attacking another poster here
(both Farm and Herd) and myself, who at best posts infrequently. And
this is a place you like coming to?

Thats not me saying you shouldn't, because the more the merrier in COLA
I say but speaking personally, if I was in your shoes resorting to the
above I would at the very least ask myself the question "why on earth do
I come here at all?"

Thats for you to justify to yourself, not to me nor anyone else.

[Steve Carroll]

On Oct 9, 3:49 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 10/9/12 2:36 PM, in article PN0ds.235330$AT4.178...@fx19.am4, "Goblin"

>
> <bytes4f...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On 09/10/12 22:32, Snit wrote:
> >> Wow... and you deny you are a part of the herd.  Amazing.
>
> > I thought the "herd" was a mindset which favoured Linux to the expense
> > of everything else, not a sarcastic (and obvious bait) aimed at you?
>
> Here are the characteristics I have noted about the herd:

Here's a minuscule sampling of the "characteristics" virtually
everyone has "noted" about you:

fucked in the head

a hideous troll

a dick

a fool

an intellectually dwarfed turd-burglar

universally hated

obviously mentally ill

never-ending puerile blather about trivialities

ignominiously birthed into a toilet

too stupid

dishonest

a liar and loser

a dishonest fool

biggest liar in Usenet history

worst troll this group has ever seen

a liar and a forger

sick need for attention

you need psychiatric help

deep-rooted need to be ALWAYS right

like a constantly running toilet that won't stop

I have Snit killfiled

a deeply troubled individual who has a fragile ego

constant complaints, whines, rages, etc.

you attempt to maliciously debase against anyone who disagrees with
you

Maybe he just missed his 'meds' today (again, I mean that sincerely).

a waste of time

just an attention seeker who'll keep stringing you along

Snit will *never* back down or stop

you're a super troll, or you're a super mess

You're simply full of shit

This is a Macintosh Advocacy newsgroup. Not a 12-step recovery plan.

nearly every thread you're involved in seems like it turns into some
tit-for-tat

I'm not sure "troll" does it justice- more like a black hole!

take it back and lock it up? Please??

He's just plain loony

He says the crazy stuff just to get a reaction.

You're a liar and a hypocrite and you always have been.

an annoying little fuckwit

every bit the troll

Any time Snit is cornered, he changes the subject and will never admit
he's wrong

a sore loser who has resorted to fifth grade tactics

the most cretinous

A pathetic waste of life

Fact: There are many hundreds, if not thousands, more... Google is
overflowing with this stuff.

[WeenerLongus.]

There is no such thing as the herd.
It's just another delusion of snit's.
It's like a 3 year old who makes up imaginary friends to comfort him when his mommy tucks him into bed at night.

Snit does the same thing when his wife leaves for work each day and he sits down to a life of leisure trolling cola 24x7.
Only snit's imaginary friend is the herd.

[Steve Carroll]

On Oct 9, 3:58 pm, Goblin <bytes4f...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 09/10/12 22:49, Snit wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On 10/9/12 2:36 PM, in article PN0ds.235330$AT4.178...@fx19.am4, "Goblin"

So what? He's been doing this very thing for a decade, what makes this
application of it so special?

> Your list here is what was already known about your definition of the
> herd.  I was asking if that definition had been extended (in light of
> his post) to include an anti-snit position.

I just included a tiny sampling of how Snit has been defined by a
number of people... this, as opposed to the ramblings of a med-head
who, in order to deny reality feels he must turn it on its head and
call entire newsgroups of people "liars".

(snip rambling)

[Steve Carroll]

On Oct 9, 4:21 pm, Goblin <bytes4f...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 09/10/12 23:15, Snit wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On 10/9/12 3:08 PM, in article af1ds.235408$AT4.206...@fx19.am4, "Goblin"

LOL! You're as brain dead as Snit is if you believe he'll follow this
advice (that has been given time and again).

> I would bet that if you were less confrontational all the time, you may
> get better responses and not spend your time here arguing over things
> that go nowhere, probably not read and end up forgotten in a day or so.

Incredible. I can't believe that any sane individual would read Snit's
garbage and *not* realize what he is *obviously* here to do.

[WeenerLongus]

If he hasn't done so already, snit will say something like:
You made that up.
You are lying.
You are running away.
Among other snit droppings.

You can answer his questions 10 different times and he will continue along with the scam in order to get replies to his nonsense.
He uses attrition to wear his opponents down because nobody spends 24x7 in COLA like snit does. Of course snit doesn't have to go out and earn a living. That's what his wife does.

What a wimp.

[Steve Carroll]

On Oct 9, 4:26 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 10/9/12 3:21 PM, in article yr1ds.211477$It6.107...@fx11.am4, "Goblin"

Why are you putting a time limit on acting honorably, Snit? That'a all
hypocrite Tim is asking you to do.

[WeenerLongus]

Trolls can't act honorably. It's not part of their psyche.

[Steve Carroll]

On Oct 9, 4:44 pm, Goblin <bytes4f...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 09/10/12 23:26, Snit wrote:
>
> > I respond to attacks by noting them. I do not attempt to start "flame wars"
> > as TomB and RonB do.
>
> Ok..Michael..  But then if you know them to be attacks then why bother
> at all.  In the context of our discussion, who are you trying to prove
> your innocence to, me?

Simple... it's because he believes you're as stupid as he needs you to
be. Up to this point he's been right about that from his perspective.

> As I repeatedly have said, these things are here
> to bait you, there's no need to have to defend yourself against anything.
>
> > The herd will continue to attack me no matter what... but let's give it a
> > try. No response to any herd attacks for, say, the end of the month. I will
> > not even refer to them as the "herd" from now until then - I will use their
> > preferred, but dishonest, term of "advocates".  I will continue to put that
> > into quotes though as it is a dishonest use of that word and I will not
> > actively support it. If they offer a better word than "advocate" or herd I
> > will be open to it.
>
> I hope this decision is as a result of your choice and not because you
> feel you have to after my points were given.  The idea is sound however
> I have to ask the question.  If you are now in a position where you feel
> the above is required (due to the level of bad feeling against you here)
> why on earth would you want to come to such a venue in the first place.
>
> Lets consider, on one side you have the Linux "herd" who to be fair you
> don't get on with and on the other side you have the "farm" who have
> their pro-microsoft agenda whom you don't get on with either.  Infact it
> appears the only people who talk to you who don't give you issues are
> Big Steel with his one line posts usually attacking another poster here
> (both Farm and Herd) and myself, who at best posts infrequently.  And
> this is a place you like coming to?

Grow the necessary clue. He obviously has a motive for coming here,
doesn't he? Now read my assessment of his problems with his mother
and tell me how far off the track I am. I'm open to any other analysis
out there.

[Steve Carroll]

On Oct 9, 5:04 pm, WeenerLongus <weenerlon...@yahoo.com> wrote:


> If he hasn't done so already, snit will say something like:
> You made that up.
> You are lying.
> You are running away.
> Among other snit droppings.

Snit has little creativity when it comes to his trolling... it's
basically the same wording over and over,

[weener...@yahoo.com]

He's a narcissistic gluehead who went completely over the edge due to his anxiety problems. It's a classic case of a lonely, low self esteemed person who needs to feel superior to others. Since in real life, ie: in person, he comes across as a nerdy little shit, he plays keyboard commando and this is what feeds his need for praise which comes in the form of him actually believing he is bettering others in these online debates.

Diseased people like snit never understand that others look upon him as a fool or a freak. He truly believes he is superior much like a serial killer believes his "work" will be appreciated and admired by average people.

Snit has a very serious problem and his lying is just the tip of the iceberg.
He needs to spend time in therapy so he can get to the root of his disease and manage it either through drugs, behavioral modification or a combination of both.
I am not a psychologist btw but one doesn't have to be to see what a sick person snit is.

[Goblin]

On 10/10/12 00:11, Steve Carroll wrote:
> I'm open to any other analysis
> out there.

You are not open to anything. I have discussed points with Michael. We
have disagreed and stayed civil. Others have not. Thats fine with me
and I'm the first to say to Michael that I think he brings many problems
on himself.

You on the other hand post many more times a month than I have the time
for - with the same anti-snit posts. Maybe you feel hard done by, thats
your business but when you are placed into the spam filters of a group
that in anycase doesn't like Snit as a whole. I'd say the analysis that
needs to be done in addition to your request - why on earth do you
subject everyone to your works?

Whats wrong with you? Bringing up points about Snits mother in an
attempt to play Sigmund freud to an audience that doesn't on the whole
get on with Snit and has you blacklisted in the spam filters?

The mind boggles. And the brain dead one seems to carry on this issue
with Snit.

[WeenerLongus]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 7:21:29 PM UTC-4, Goblin wrote:
> On 10/10/12 00:11, Steve Carroll wrote:
>
> > I'm open to any other analysis
>
> > out there.
>
>
>
> You are not open to anything. I have discussed points with Michael. We
>
> have disagreed and stayed civil. Others have not. Thats fine with me
>
> and I'm the first to say to Michael that I think he brings many problems
>
> on himself.
>
>
>
> You on the other hand post many more times a month than I have the time
>
> for - with the same anti-snit posts. Maybe you feel hard done by, thats
>
> your business but when you are placed into the spam filters of a group
>
> that in anycase doesn't like Snit as a whole. I'd say the analysis that
>
> needs to be done in addition to your request - why on earth do you
>
> subject everyone to your works?
>
>
>
> Whats wrong with you? Bringing up points about Snits mother in an
>
> attempt to play Sigmund freud to an audience that doesn't on the whole
>
> get on with Snit and has you blacklisted in the spam filters?
>
>
>
> The mind boggles. And the brain dead one seems to carry on this issue
>
> with Snit.

That's a great little act you have going on there Goblin. However you are quiote transparent and any idiot, even you, can see exactly what you are doing. In effect you and snit both feed off of each other for the sole purpose of causing a war of words among the Wintrolls in COLA.
You aren't as smart as you think you are Goblin.
You need to spend more time out on the road, away from home and in the big wide world, plying your trade and learning that people aren't as ignorant as you perceive them to be.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, Goblin belched this bit o' wisdom:

> On 09/10/12 22:49, Snit wrote:
>>> On 09/10/12 22:32, Snit wrote:
>>>

>> herd
>> herd
>> herd
>> herd

For the love of God, bin the insane broken-record troll!

--
I'm sure we are all very impressed with who you do and do not
killfile. Your posts shine like a heavenly star amongst the dripping
faeces of poasts which plaster the COLA sky. Not.
-- "Hadron" <gi6i3h$fkj$2...@edwardhall.motzarella.org>

[Goblin]

On 10/10/12 00:27, WeenerLongus wrote:
> In effect you and snit both feed off of each other for the sole purpose of causing a war of words among the Wintrolls in COLA.

Really? By my infrequent posts and staying civil? And you with a dubious
"new" handle.

>
> You aren't as smart as you think you are Goblin.

You've got no clue how smart I "think I am". The one thing I am though
is polite and the one thing I don't do is waste my time with pointless
insults if I don't like or want to talk to the person.

> You need to spend more time out on the road, away from home and in the big wide world,

I do. Thats why I get very little time on COLA. I wonder how many other
nyms you have under your belt?

> plying your trade and learning that people aren't as ignorant as you perceive them to be.

And I'm not sure about this ignorant part. If you mean by trying to say
"if you don't like someone why doesn't EVERYONE stop posting to the
people you don't like" is ignorant then so be it.

In respect of your "effort" I am quite smart. You love the bad feeling
don't you? You love the disruption. You want this little battles to go
on to disrupt the room.

I wonder, to the casual reader looking at this. Who is smarter? me for
thinking it better that EVERYONE refuses to rise to baits and unproven
accusations or you.....you for your little effort here?

[weener...@yahoo.com]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 7:41:02 PM UTC-4, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> After swilling some grog, Goblin belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>
>
> > On 09/10/12 22:49, Snit wrote:
>
> >>> On 09/10/12 22:32, Snit wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >> herd
>
> >> herd
>
> >> herd
>
> >> herd
>
>
>
> For the love of God, bin the insane broken-record troll!

+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

[weener...@yahoo.com]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 7:44:45 PM UTC-4, Goblin wrote:

> I wonder, to the casual reader looking at this. Who is smarter? me for
>
> thinking it better that EVERYONE refuses to rise to baits and unproven
>
> accusations or you.....you for your little effort here?

You mean like you are doing right now?
LOL.

Like I said Goblin, you need to spend more time out on the road plying your trade and educating yourself. You sound quite like snit in fact. Each of you is so full of himself that it's coming out your ears.
What you and snit need to do is shut up and listen rather than speaking, pontificating and leaving no doubt among your listeners that you are indeed an idiot.

[Snit]

On 10/9/12 3:44 PM, in article VM1ds.436644$1R2.2...@fx07.am4, "Goblin"

<bytes...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 09/10/12 23:26, Snit wrote:
>> I respond to attacks by noting them. I do not attempt to start "flame wars"
>> as TomB and RonB do.
>
> Ok..Michael.. But then if you know them to be attacks then why bother
> at all. In the context of our discussion, who are you trying to prove
> your innocence to, me? As I repeatedly have said, these things are here
> to bait you, there's no need to have to defend yourself against anything.

I am responding to your comments - as I respond to theirs. But you are right
that much of what they write about me is likely to bait me. I have told you
I will be nice so I will not theorize as to why they do this. :)

>> The herd will continue to attack me no matter what... but let's give it a
>> try. No response to any herd attacks for, say, the end of the month. I will
>> not even refer to them as the "herd" from now until then - I will use their
>> preferred, but dishonest, term of "advocates". I will continue to put that
>> into quotes though as it is a dishonest use of that word and I will not
>> actively support it. If they offer a better word than "advocate" or herd I
>> will be open to it.
>
> I hope this decision is as a result of your choice and not because you
> feel you have to after my points were given.

It is my choice. It is an interesting experiment. My view is that they will
continue to attack me no matter how pleasant I am. As it is I am far more
pleasant than they are, but I will not even note their attacks. Even a post
like this will not happen for the rest of the month (other, perhaps, in this
thread for a couple more posts with you).

> The idea is sound however I have to ask the question. If you are now in a
> position where you feel the above is required (due to the level of bad feeling
> against you here) why on earth would you want to come to such a venue in the
> first place.

I am doing it as an experiment... my choice. it is not "required".

> Lets consider, on one side you have the Linux "herd" who to be fair you
> don't get on with and on the other side you have the "farm" who have
> their pro-microsoft agenda whom you don't get on with either. Infact it
> appears the only people who talk to you who don't give you issues are
> Big Steel with his one line posts usually attacking another poster here
> (both Farm and Herd) and myself, who at best posts infrequently. And
> this is a place you like coming to?

I like being the voice of sanity. I also enjoy the psychological study of
many of the people here.

> Thats not me saying you shouldn't, because the more the merrier in COLA
> I say but speaking personally, if I was in your shoes resorting to the
> above I would at the very least ask myself the question "why on earth do
> I come here at all?"
>
> Thats for you to justify to yourself, not to me nor anyone else.

Ok.

[Snit]

On 10/9/12 4:21 PM, in article Yj2ds.368508$t45....@fx02.am4, "Goblin"

<bytes...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> The mind boggles. And the brain dead one seems to carry on this issue
> with Snit.

You asked me before if I enjoyed COLA. I do... though not discussions with
the one you responded to. He is consumed with hatred and completely
irrational, to the point of being dangerous (threatening to contact my
employer and try to have me fired, etc.). I do not enjoy his presence here
and set his messages - and those of his socks (or apparent socks, I do not
try to figure out for sure any more) - to be auto-read. I can and do
sometimes look at them or just look at the count, but I am back to generally
not reading them.

[Snit]

On 10/9/12 4:44 PM, in article NF2ds.269293$EC1....@fx12.am4, "Goblin"

<bytes...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 10/10/12 00:27, WeenerLongus wrote:
>> In effect you and snit both feed off of each other for the sole purpose of
>> causing a war of words among the Wintrolls in COLA.
>
> Really? By my infrequent posts and staying civil? And you with a dubious
> "new" handle.

But he denies using socks, even when they are this obvious.

...

[Snit]

On 10/9/12 3:36 PM, in article k528tu$bs0$2...@dont-email.me, "RonB"

These are the types of unsupportable attacks you will see, even if I do not
respond to the baiting.

[Steve Carroll]

On Oct 9, 5:21 pm, Goblin <bytes4f...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 10/10/12 00:11, Steve Carroll wrote:
>
> > I'm open to any other analysis
> > out there.
>
> You are not open to anything.

I'm open to the fact that you are now pointing out what numerous
people already have about Snit... which makes my point. See how this
reality thing doesn't *really* go away, Tim?

> I have discussed points with Michael.  We
> have disagreed and stayed civil.  Others have not.  Thats fine with me
> and I'm the first to say to Michael that I think he brings many problems
> on himself.

Correction: You're the last to say. It's that nasty ol' reality
rearing it's head again.

> You on the other hand post many more times a month than I have the time
> for - with the same anti-snit posts.  Maybe you feel hard done by, thats
> your business but when you are placed into the spam filters of a group
> that in anycase doesn't like Snit as a whole.  I'd say the analysis that
> needs to be done in addition to your request - why on earth do you
> subject everyone to your works?

Snit knows why... that's all I'm concerned with. I couldn't care less
about most of the silly COLA arguments, really. Of course, unlike
Snit, I've never said anything to the contrary. I'm not pretending to
be a linux advocate, either.

> Whats wrong with you?

The same thing that is "wrong" with 165+ posters who have all labeled
Snit a liar, troll or worse. I'm already pointing out what's wrong
with you so I won't bother asking... not that I'd get an honest answer
from you.

> Bringing up points about Snits mother

Snit brought them up to usenet, I merely point to them as one
potential (likely) source of his anger... after all, no denying that
he's the guy who is always talking about "hatred".

> in an
> attempt to play Sigmund freud to an audience that doesn't on the whole
> get on with Snit and has you blacklisted in the spam filters?

LOL! All the people who have *claimed* to have killfiled me have
proven not to have done so.

> The mind boggles.  And the brain dead one seems to carry on this issue
> with Snit.

Whatever. Snit knows what he needs to do if he wants me to stop
'carrying on'.

[Steve Carroll]

On Oct 9, 4:44 pm, Goblin <bytes4f...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 10/10/12 00:27, WeenerLongus wrote:
>
> > In effect you and snit both feed off of each other for the sole purpose of causing a war of words among the Wintrolls in COLA.
>
> Really? By my infrequent posts and staying civil? And you with a dubious
> "new" handle.

It is not me posting as WeenerLongus.

> > You aren't as smart as you think you are Goblin.
>
> You've got no clue how smart I "think I am".  The one thing I am though
> is polite and the one thing I don't do is waste my time with pointless
> insults if I don't like or want to talk to the person.

I do not make pointless insults I make insults based on knowledge. You
and Snit are ignorant SWAGs. I say this with complete confidence.

> > You need to spend more time out on the road, away from home and in the big wide world,
>
> I do. Thats why I get very little time on COLA.  I wonder how many other
> nyms you have under your belt?

I post with my Steve Carroll name and no other. Your claim I am
WeenerLongus is bullshit and you know it.

> > plying your trade and learning that people aren't as ignorant as you perceive them to be.
>
> And I'm not sure about this ignorant part.  If you mean by trying to say
> "if you don't like someone why doesn't EVERYONE stop posting to the
> people you don't like" is ignorant then so be it.

You are an ignorant SWAG. You and Snit need to learn how lost you are.
I am here to help you. Show some appreciation toward someone who is
better than you.

> In respect of your "effort" I am quite smart.  You love the bad feeling
> don't you? You love the disruption.  You want this little battles to go
> on to disrupt the room.

You think you are "quite smart". That is funny. Who are you to judge
how smart you are?

> I wonder, to the casual reader looking at this.  Who is smarter? me for
> thinking it better that EVERYONE refuses to rise to baits and unproven
> accusations or you.....you for your little effort here?

Look at Snit who you defend to the end. He has more people speaking
poorly of him than anyone I have ever seen. Even his own mother made
him think he was screwed up from her drinking habits while she was
pregnant for him. How sick is that?

[Steve Carroll]

On Oct 9, 6:10 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

(snip crap)

> I like being the voice of sanity.

LOL!

ROFL!

ROFLMAO!

> I also enjoy the psychological study of
> many of the people here.

LOL!

Ah... Snit, you're a riot when you're over-medicated ;)

[Steve Carroll]

On Oct 9, 4:21 pm, Goblin <bytes4f...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 10/10/12 00:11, Steve Carroll wrote:
>
> > I'm open to any other analysis
> > out there.
>
> You are not open to anything.

Now you think you can be like Snit and speak for me. You two are
exactly the same.

> I have discussed points with Michael.  We
> have disagreed and stayed civil.  Others have not.  Thats fine with me
> and I'm the first to say to Michael that I think he brings many problems
> on himself.

Except his mother brought to him by drinking when she was pregnant for
him. He really posted that to Usenet!

> You on the other hand post many more times a month than I have the time
> for - with the same anti-snit posts.  Maybe you feel hard done by, thats
> your business but when you are placed into the spam filters of a group
> that in anycase doesn't like Snit as a whole.  I'd say the analysis that
> needs to be done in addition to your request - why on earth do you
> subject everyone to your works?

I am helping Snit to see reality. He claims to not read my posts but
he is obsessed and reads every one. That is how he can forge me and
know what I am saying. You do know your buddy forges my name all the
time to try to make me look bad.

Are you the one person stupid enough to believe the crap he posts
under my name?

> Whats wrong with you? Bringing up points about Snits mother in an
> attempt to play Sigmund freud to an audience that doesn't on the whole
> get on with Snit and has you blacklisted in the spam filters?

Snit is the one who brought the discussion of his mother to Usenet. He
is the one who said she drank when pregnant for him. He is the one who
posted about incest on the day she died. Snit is the one who hates his
mother and blames all of his actions on her. Do not accuse me of
bringing this to the table, Snit did.

Add to that it is Snit who first started talking about my family,
saying my kids learned to pick fights from me. If he does not want
families talked about he should not talk about my family. Did you know
he used to email my wife until I blocked him from her account. I got
tired of her asking me about his shit. She does not even know I
blocked him, she simply does not see his emails which I have set to
forward to me.

> The mind boggles.  And the brain dead one seems to carry on this issue
> with Snit.

You are the brain dead one - the only one as stupid as Snit needs
people to be.

[Steve Carroll]

The above post is a forgery by Snit. Do not be taken in by his crap.

Snit, this is enough. Stop forging me.

[Steve Carroll]

Snit is forging me again.

Stop it, Snit, or I can make life very hard on you. You have only seen
the tip of the iceberg on what I can do to you.

[Goblin]

On 10/10/12 01:24, Steve Carroll wrote:
> I'm open to the fact that you are now pointing out what numerous
> people already have about Snit... which makes my point. See how this
> reality thing doesn't*really* go away, Tim?

Pay attention Steve or don't bother responding. I have always said to
Micheal that I don't want to be dragged into his arguments with others
and that I think he does bring some of his issues on himself. I've
always said that and I've always said that directly to him. Not to a
3rd party only. I have also done this without being vulgar or insulting
him. I've even said this to him in the last couple of posts.

> Correction: You're the last to say. It's that nasty ol' reality
> rearing it's head again.

As above Steve and I think you will find before you started your little
campaign here in earnest I was saying exactly the same things to Michael.

> Whatever. Snit knows what he needs to do if he wants me to stop
> 'carrying on'.

And I think, in regards to my involvement in discourse with you, that
line ends it.

[chrisv]

Goblin wrote:

>Lets consider, on one side you have the Linux "herd" who to be fair you

Let's consider that prick that you are playing with is impervious to
reason, that it will continue to insult and attack to get the
attention it craves, "Goblin".

My filter on you just expired, and here you are again, playing with
that piece of shit, as if it hasn't heard your arguments before (no, I
didn't read them).

*plonk* 6 months.

[chrisv]

WeenerLongus wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 7:06:05 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote:

*plonk*