Microsoft is Smarter Then I
Justin
Think about it. I am simply too stupid to decide what software to install
on my PC. Things like the Ask.com toolbar. Despite unchecking that little
box, Microsoft was kind enough to override my decision and install the
Ask.com toolbar anyway.
Thank you Microsoft!
Thank you Ask!
Thank you Acro Software (makers of CutePDF)!
Grisoft? Here's a big virtual hug for you too. Maybe I should just let
Microsoft run my entire machine?
As proof of my severe lack of intelligence I am posting screenshots.
Here is the installation of CutePDF, as you can see the Ask.com checkbox is
unchecked.
http://www.imagebam.com/image/54b9c2116635395
Here is IE after the install.
http://www.imagebam.com/image/8dc6fa116635394
Isn't that great? Because Ask.com is so awesome it has to be installed
without users' consent.
Ezekiel
"Justin" <jus...@nobecauseeihatespam.org> wrote in message
news:ihlj0k$f9e$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> I just realized Microsoft is smarter than I.
From what you just posted my old pair of sneakers are smarter than you.
> Think about it. I am simply too stupid to decide what software to install
> on my PC. Things like the Ask.com toolbar. Despite unchecking that
> little box, Microsoft was kind enough to override my decision and install
> the Ask.com toolbar anyway.
> Thank you Microsoft!
I realize you're an idiot so I'll explain this in simple terms for you.
Microsoft had nothing to do with installing the Ask Toolbar.
Try whining to the people at "CutePDF" who wrote the installer.
It is *their* installer that put the Ask.com toolbar on your browser.
Microsoft did not write the installer. Microsoft did not put the toolbar on
your browser.
The people at CutePDF wrote the installer. It is their installer that added
the toolbar.
Ask somebody with a brain to explain this to you if you still can't figure
it out.
DFS
As they so completely prove each and every day, a slimy cola "advocate"
idiot doesn't care about the facts or the truth.
Also, his image shows all the checkboxes were checked. He's a moron.
Ezekiel
"DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote in message
news:ihlkfc$t7m$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
In a way I feel sorry for complete idiots like "Justin" because life is
tough enough as it is and anyone with such poor reasoning skills is going to
struggle to make it in this world. Then again - the world needs janitors
too.
DFS
The letter t is smarter than you, bozo.
Justin
"Ezekiel" wrote in message news:ihll09$vhm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I'll tell that to my iMac and MBA. w00t!
Marti Van Lin
[snip idiocy]
Pathetic!
Buh-Bye :-p
--
|_|0|_| Marti T. van Lin, alias ML2MST
|_|_|0| Registered GNU/Linux user 513040
|0|0|0| http://www.soundclick.com/martivanlin
Sandman
"Justin" <jus...@nobecauseeihatespam.org> wrote:
> I just realized Microsoft is smarter than I.
> Think about it. I am simply too stupid to decide what software to install
> on my PC. Things like the Ask.com toolbar. Despite unchecking that little
> box, Microsoft was kind enough to override my decision and install the
> Ask.com toolbar anyway.
> Thank you Microsoft!
> Thank you Ask!
> Thank you Acro Software (makers of CutePDF)!
> Grisoft? Here's a big virtual hug for you too. Maybe I should just let
> Microsoft run my entire machine?
>
> As proof of my severe lack of intelligence I am posting screenshots.
> Here is the installation of CutePDF, as you can see the Ask.com checkbox is
> unchecked.
> http://www.imagebam.com/image/54b9c2116635395
Eh, I see three checkboxes in that image, all of them checked. Hitting
next on that screen will obviously install this toolbar.
> Here is IE after the install.
> http://www.imagebam.com/image/8dc6fa116635394
>
> Isn't that great? Because Ask.com is so awesome it has to be installed
> without users' consent.
--
Sandman[.net]
owl
> In article <ihlj0k$f9e$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Justin" <jus...@nobecauseeihatespam.org> wrote:
> > I just realized Microsoft is smarter than I.
> > Think about it. I am simply too stupid to decide what software to install
> > on my PC. Things like the Ask.com toolbar. Despite unchecking that little
> > box, Microsoft was kind enough to override my decision and install the
> > Ask.com toolbar anyway.
> > Thank you Microsoft!
> > Thank you Ask!
> > Thank you Acro Software (makers of CutePDF)!
> > Grisoft? Here's a big virtual hug for you too. Maybe I should just let
> > Microsoft run my entire machine?
> >
> > As proof of my severe lack of intelligence I am posting screenshots.
> > Here is the installation of CutePDF, as you can see the Ask.com checkbox is
> > unchecked.
> > http://www.imagebam.com/image/54b9c2116635395
> Eh, I see three checkboxes in that image, all of them checked. Hitting
> next on that screen will obviously install this toolbar.
Another win for the GUI.
Justin
news:mr-9B3C7E.07...@News.Individual.NET...
--
Sandman[.net]
I use IE8, too!
and exFAT.
Justin
[snip idiocy]
Pathetic!
Buh-Bye :-p
I like exFAT as well! :-P w00t!
John Slade
First of all it's "Microsoft is smarter than I." Then you
should realize that Microsoft is not at fault here, it's you.
You see, all the boxes are checked in the picture.
John
Snit
9:21 PM:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/CutePDF.mov>
Odd... we see very different things as we install CutePDF. No toolbars
added to my main browser or to IE.
Oh, and MS did not install anything when you installed CutePDF.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Hadron
Justin is related to Gortard or WronG. I hope. Surely there cant be two
families with such clueleness. He is blaming MS for what a 3rd party app
installs AND he opted for. Can you believe it??!!!?!?!?!
No wonder WronG spent 90% of his day "fighting malware". He's the idiot
who said "yes" when prompted to install the ProN virus of the
day. Streuth. Just as I think "advocates" couldnt get any dumber.
Snit
AM:
I am curious why his screenshots look so different from the installation
from the software from the site.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Hadron
Try to learn how to configure your posting SW (Windows) to quote
properly.
CarpathiaMan
> I just realized Microsoft is smarter than I.
> Think about it. I am simply too stupid to decide what software to install
> on my PC. Things like the Ask.com toolbar. Despite unchecking that little
> box, Microsoft was kind enough to override my decision and install the
> Ask.com toolbar anyway.
> Thank you Microsoft!
> Thank you Ask!
> Thank you Acro Software (makers of CutePDF)!
> Grisoft? Here's a big virtual hug for you too. Maybe I should just let
> Microsoft run my entire machine?
>
> As proof of my severe lack of intelligence I am posting screenshots.
> Here is the installation of CutePDF, as you can see the Ask.com checkbox is
>
> Here is IE after the install.http://www.imagebam.com/image/8dc6fa116635394
>
> Isn't that great? Because Ask.com is so awesome it has to be installed
> without users' consent.
Hard drive space is plentiful these days. Better to have a s**tload
of toolbars than none at all. Personally I like having my screen
filled with cute, colorful little icons -- it's what we refer to as
being "user-friendly."
--
Erich K.
Justin
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
I must be modifying them in Photoshop for the express purpose of
discrediting Windows.
That’s the only logical answer!
Steve Carroll
> "Snit" wrote in messagenews:C9644366.8BB7F%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>
> Hadron stated in post ihmmjg$k...@news.eternal-september.org on 1/25/11 7:26
> AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>
> >> Justin stated in post ihlj0k$f9...@news.eternal-september.org on 1/24/11
That I've seen Snit is the only person in cola or csma that has forged
documents.
Big Crotch on a Small Fish
Didn't you bust him forging his identy and claiming to work at a college he
did not really work.
--
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch
Peter Köhlmann
< snip >
> I am curious why his screenshots look so different from the installation
> from the software from the site.
>
I haven't looked at any of them, but since you accessed Snit Michael Glassers
site, there is a fair bet that you encountered yet another one of his "forged
evidence".
*Nothing* on that site can be trusted. Snit Glasser routinely forges his
"examples" to provide for his trolling activities.
Killfile that twit and be done with it
--
Don't abandon hope: your Tom Mix decoder ring arrives tomorrow
Marti Van Lin
> Justin wrote:
>
> < snip>
>
>> I am curious why his screenshots look so different from the installation
>> from the software from the site.
>>
>
> I haven't looked at any of them, but since you accessed Snit Michael Glassers
> site, there is a fair bet that you encountered yet another one of his "forged
> evidence".
The "evidence" of the Tattoo Vampire Office Photo "EXIF DATA" comes to
mind...
Eeeek!
> *Nothing* on that site can be trusted. Snit Glasser routinely forges his
> "examples" to provide for his trolling activities.
>
> Killfile that twit and be done with it
I have the idea that "Justin" is a snotty sock puppet.
Snit
AM:
> On 26-01-11 10:35, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>
>> Justin wrote:
>>
>> < snip>
>>
>>> I am curious why his screenshots look so different from the installation
>>> from the software from the site.
>>>
>>
>> I haven't looked at any of them, but since you accessed Snit Michael Glassers
>> site, there is a fair bet that you encountered yet another one of his "forged
>> evidence".
>
> The "evidence" of the Tattoo Vampire Office Photo "EXIF DATA" comes to
> mind...
>
> Eeeek!
What was forged? Back your claim.
But you will not. I have never forged any data... but many a troll has
whined when proved wrong by evidence. The fact is, JPG files can and often
do have EXIF data.
>> *Nothing* on that site can be trusted. Snit Glasser routinely forges his
>> "examples" to provide for his trolling activities.
>>
>> Killfile that twit and be done with it
>
> I have the idea that "Justin" is a snotty sock puppet.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
2:35 AM:
> *Nothing* on that site can be trusted. Snit Glasser routinely forges his
> "examples" to provide for his trolling activities.
By all means, show support for this.
But you will not. You are - flat out - lying.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> Marti Van Lin stated in post ihpjkt$7c...@news.albasani.net on 1/26/11 9:54
> AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 26-01-11 10:35, Peter K hlmann wrote:
>
> >> Justin wrote:
>
> >> < snip>
>
> >>> I am curious why his screenshots look so different from the installation
> >>> from the software from the site.
>
> >> I haven't looked at any of them, but since you accessed Snit Michael Glassers
> >> site, there is a fair bet that you encountered yet another one of his "forged
> >> evidence".
>
> > The "evidence" of the Tattoo Vampire Office Photo "EXIF DATA" comes to
> > mind...
>
> > Eeeek!
>
> What was forged? Back your claim.
Who hasn't already seen evidence of your forgeries?
Backing it to *you* is pointless as you have shown you will deny all
evidence of any wrongdoing, including forgery. In csma Steve Mackay
proved you forged jpg data (beyond all "reasonable doubt" ) to anyone
who bothered to look. Sandman has a digest of it on his stie... as you
are well aware and keep bitching about.
Here's a fun exchange you'll try to spin but won't be able to:
Snit: "If you *really* think the Google record and I are in
disagreement - then show it."
Me: "The same "Google record" that shows most everyone who has ever
come into contact with you labels you as a troll?"
Poor Snit, poor clueless Snit...
(snip crap)
Clavicus Vile
"Marti Van Lin" <ml2...@dontevenbother.invalid> wrote in message
news:ihpjkt$7c7$1...@news.albasani.net...
> On 26-01-11 10:35, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>
>> Justin wrote:
>>
>> < snip>
>>
>>> I am curious why his screenshots look so different from the installation
>>> from the software from the site.
>>>
>>
>> I haven't looked at any of them, but since you accessed Snit Michael
>> Glassers
>> site, there is a fair bet that you encountered yet another one of his
>> "forged
>> evidence".
>
> The "evidence" of the Tattoo Vampire Office Photo "EXIF DATA" comes to
> mind...
>
> Eeeek!
>
>> *Nothing* on that site can be trusted. Snit Glasser routinely forges his
>> "examples" to provide for his trolling activities.
>>
>> Killfile that twit and be done with it
>
> I have the idea that "Justin" is a snotty sock puppet.
Justin Thyme?
Clavicus Vile
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C965B52B.8BD6D%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
Why are you still here? I thought you were moving to one of the
alt.homosexual groups.
Steve Carroll
wrote:
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
>
> news:C965B52B.8BD6D%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>
> > 2:35 AM:
>
> >> *Nothing* on that site can be trusted. Snit Glasser routinely forges his
> >> "examples" to provide for his trolling activities.
>
> > By all means, show support for this.
>
> > But you will not. You are - flat out - lying.
>
> Why are you still here?
Who else will have him?
He talks about these other forums he posts to where he *claims* he is
seen as "as honest, kind and honorable". He spoke of theses forums
earlier today:
"I have myself and my own knowledge and the knowledge of how people
see me in most forums and in the real world - as honest, kind and
honorable." - Snit
One thing is certain... if these forums exist they aren't usenet
forums.
Even more to the point: Where does he get the time to post to these
forums, post in csma and in cola (where he holds **5** all time
posting spots!) and still be this 'oh so wonderful' , hard working
teacher he also claims to be? The truth, of course, is that he's
lying... again... and he believes that people are as stupid as he
needs them to be... again
Tim Adams
Marti Van Lin <ml2...@dontevenbother.invalid> wrote:
> On 26-01-11 10:35, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>
> > Justin wrote:
> >
> > < snip>
> >
> >> I am curious why his screenshots look so different from the installation
> >> from the software from the site.
> >>
> >
> > I haven't looked at any of them, but since you accessed Snit Michael
> > Glassers
> > site, there is a fair bet that you encountered yet another one of his
> > "forged
> > evidence".
>
> The "evidence" of the Tattoo Vampire Office Photo "EXIF DATA" comes to
> mind...
>
> Eeeek!
That was funny wasn't it. snit copied a picture form the net and created a copy
on his system, then claimed the date the picture was taken with the date it got
created on his desktop because the "EXIF DATA" told him so. Except of course for
the simple fact that the file was posted without any EXIF DATA.
>
> > *Nothing* on that site can be trusted. Snit Glasser routinely forges his
> > "examples" to provide for his trolling activities.
> >
> > Killfile that twit and be done with it
>
> I have the idea that "Justin" is a snotty sock puppet.
--
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
Clavicus Vile
"Justin" <jus...@nobecauseeihatespam.org> wrote in message
news:ihlj0k$f9e$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>I just realized Microsoft is smarter than I.
> Think about it. I am simply too stupid
As Dirty Harry said "A man's got to know his limitations."
Steve Carroll
> In article <ihpjkt$7c...@news.albasani.net>,
> Marti Van Lin <ml2...@dontevenbother.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 26-01-11 10:35, Peter K hlmann wrote:
>
> > > Justin wrote:
>
> > > < snip>
>
> > >> I am curious why his screenshots look so different from the installation
> > >> from the software from the site.
>
> > > I haven't looked at any of them, but since you accessed Snit Michael
> > > Glassers
> > > site, there is a fair bet that you encountered yet another one of his
> > > "forged
> > > evidence".
>
> > The "evidence" of the Tattoo Vampire Office Photo "EXIF DATA" comes to
> > mind...
>
> > Eeeek!
>
> That was funny wasn't it. snit copied a picture form the net and created a copy
> on his system, then claimed the date the picture was taken with the date it got
> created on his desktop because the "EXIF DATA" told him so. Except of course for
> the simple fact that the file was posted without any EXIF DATA.
This is hilarious... the "computer teacher" gets busted again;)
High Plains Thumper
> Tim Adams wrote:
>> Marti Van Lin wrote:
>>> Peter Kohlmann wrote:
>>>> Justin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I am curious why his screenshots look so different from the
>>>>> installation from the software from the site.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't looked at any of them, but since you accessed Snit Michael
>>>> Glassers site, there is a fair bet that you encountered yet another
>>>> one of his "forged evidence".
>>>
>>> The "evidence" of the Tattoo Vampire Office Photo "EXIF DATA" comes to
>>> mind... Eeeek!
>>
>> That was funny wasn't it. snit copied a picture form the net and
>> created a copy on his system, then claimed the date the picture was
>> taken with the date it got created on his desktop because the "EXIF
>> DATA" told him so. Except of course for the simple fact that the file
>> was posted without any EXIF DATA.
>
> This is hilarious... the "computer teacher" gets busted again ;)
Yup.
133- TomB (COLA): "No Snit, you were flat out lying in an attempt to make
me look bad. Do you really have to sink to that level in order to 'be
right'? If so, you're pathetic. And I don't say this because I like to say
it." 07 Feb 2010
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/43263f575ac40353
Snit
8:50 PM:
> Steve Carroll wrote:
>> Tim Adams wrote:
>>> Marti Van Lin wrote:
>>>> Peter Kohlmann wrote:
>>>>> Justin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am curious why his screenshots look so different from the
>>>>>> installation from the software from the site.
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't looked at any of them, but since you accessed Snit Michael
>>>>> Glassers site, there is a fair bet that you encountered yet another
>>>>> one of his "forged evidence".
>>>>
>>>> The "evidence" of the Tattoo Vampire Office Photo "EXIF DATA" comes to
>>>> mind... Eeeek!
>>>
>>> That was funny wasn't it. snit copied a picture form the net and
>>> created a copy on his system, then claimed the date the picture was
>>> taken with the date it got created on his desktop because the "EXIF
>>> DATA" told him so. Except of course for the simple fact that the file
>>> was posted without any EXIF DATA.
>>
>> This is hilarious... the "computer teacher" gets busted again ;)
>
> Yup.
My claim was that JPG files *can* have EXIF data, not that all do.
And they can. The fact this is still being debated is absurd. And the fact
you three are still insisting that I am wrong to say this is just amazing...
of course JPGs can have EXIF data:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchangeable_image_file_format>
-----
Exchangeable image file format (Exif) is a specification for the
image file format used by digital cameras and scanners. The
specification uses the existing JPEG, TIFF Rev. 6.0, and RIFF WAV
file formats, with the addition of specific metadata tags. It is
not supported in JPEG 2000, PNG, or GIF.
-----
<http://www.digicamhelp.com/glossary/exif-data/>
-----
Almost all digital cameras save JPEG (.jpg) files with EXIF
(Exchangeable Image File) data.
-----
Tim Adams, Steve Carroll and High Plains Thumper... none can figure out what
these sites and I are saying... or they just blindly disagree even though
they have *no* counter evidence. None. Not a word.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
flatfish+++
> Tim Adams, Steve Carroll and High Plains Thumper... none can figure out what
> these sites and I are saying... or they just blindly disagree even though
> they have *no* counter evidence. None. Not a word.
High Plains Thumper just makes it up as he goes along.
It's all he can do because he realizes he lost the war a long time ago.
It's a common tactic the Linux community uses to attempt rewrite
history.
The one thing about George Hostler is that he is completely predictable
and always has been.
It's just so easy to pull his chains and make him dance like a court
jester.
Truly an idiot's idiot.
Snit
2/11/11 9:08 PM:
HPT panders to the lowest of the low. It really is that simple. Carroll,
by the way, is really not stupid enough to believe I am wrong to say JPG
files can have EXIF data, but he will say *anything* and make up *anything*
to try to get my attention. He is completely consumed with hatred and has
been for years.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
flatfish+++
I don't really know the others, but HPT is a classic example of a
frustrated "musician".
I've seen it 1000 times in my life.
When I used to work as an audition pianist, the person who accompanies
actors and actresses when they audition for shows, I used to see people
who were obviously not in the same league as a true professional.
They may have had years of vocal coaching and training and done amateur
shows in school, their church and so forth but they just didn't have the
chops to compete with the true professionals.
It's more than training, it's something you are born with and the
training just fine tunes the talent you already have.
I literally saw people under so much pressure to get a gig that they
broke down in tears when they didn't get a callback.
The saddest were the kids with their stage mothers yipping and yapping
at me.
I did auditions for Annie and it was probably the worst experience I
ever had.
Kids all over the place and 99 percent of them couldn't sing, couldn't
act and couldn't dance and just didn't even remotely fit the part.
HPT seems to fit the above category.
He just can't make it as a pro so he lashes out at those who have.
It fits well with Linux because sour grapes is what a lot of these
people have.
It paid for my college education so what can I say.
Snit
2/11/11 10:43 PM:
To not have the talent is fine - heck, if I had to make a living off my
singing abilities I would be in big trouble... but they react to their lack
of talent by trying to bring others down to their level instead of seeing if
they can work with their own strengths and find something they are good at.
HPT is a special class of broken... he does not even have a personal reason
for his targeting - he just gloms onto the most broken of people (such as
Carroll) and piggybacks on their obvious illness. He clearly is desperate
for some form of acceptance... any form. Carroll just blames the world for
his own anger and incompetence - he has one of the worst victim mentalities
I have ever seen.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
flatfish+++
That is very true.
Despite what you see on TV about audtions being cut throat and people
sabotaging other artists chances by stealing make up, sheet music etc, I
never saw anything like that in all my years.
People were under pressure for sure, but they were friendly toward each
other.
> HPT is a special class of broken... he does not even have a personal reason
> for his targeting - he just gloms onto the most broken of people (such as
> Carroll) and piggybacks on their obvious illness. He clearly is desperate
> for some form of acceptance... any form. Carroll just blames the world for
> his own anger and incompetence - he has one of the worst victim mentalities
> I have ever seen.
He is a sick person.
A very sick person.
To compile a database of COLA and track others utterings and posts is
just plain sicko IMHO.
What is the purpose of this?
Does he think people other than the gang here, read this group?
The current crop of kids don't even know what USENET is and even many of
us adults have moved on to twitter and social networking sites.
IMHO USENET is on life support.
HPT should spend more time working at the church and singing karaoke at
the local watering hole and less time stalking people and telling lies
on USENET.
Peter Köhlmann
And then the ensuing thread, which got wose from post to post. Ultimately Snit
Michael Glasser found that not only the "original" pictures he downloaded had
EXIF data, but that the pictures later to be found where manipulated to not
contain any in order to make him look bad. After all, hadn't he "lectured" and
"teached" us about the nature and use of EXIF?
That dishonest cretin knows absolutely no bounds when he has painted himself
into a corner with one of his many bullshit claims
--
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice which can be equally well
explained by stupidity
flatfish+++
You are hardly one to talk bout graphics Peter Kohlmann....
Remember your total incompetence regarding anti-aliasing and screen
shots?
I do.
It's not quite as humorous as you idiocy regarding Finale though.
Seems music is another topic you know little about.
Hey, if the protesting and anarchy that is transpiring in Egypt right
now spreads to Germany, you can fire up all the old toys you no doubt
still have laying around the barn.
You might have missed the 30's and the 40's but you'll be right in time
for the 2000's.
Maybe you might even win this time.
I doubt it though even with computers to tell you preciously where each
and every bullet went.
Peter Köhlmann
< snip irrelevant crap >
Dont try to distract from the fact that Snit Michael Glasser has shown himself
to be utterly incompetent and lying has ass off in order to "somehow" be
"right" and not so incredibly stupid
He *has* shown himself to be completely dishonest.
He could have made an error and simply have mistaken the date his infallible
OSX had dowloaded the pictures from the net as "EXIF date". He simply could
have said so and everything would have been OK, because everyone makes an
error now and then.
But since Snit Michael Glasser by the very definition of that lying cretin
never can be "wrong", not even in the smallest matter, he had to somehow
construe a scenario whre he magically was "right".
Even if he still was completely wrong and lying constantly
So, just stop these so extremely obvious attempts at distracting from a
description of a "comrade troll". Snit Michael Glasser will stay the most
dishonest poster on usenet of all time, no matter how much you try to defend
that swine. He will also stay that parasitic leech, who lets his wife put food
on the table in order to troll usenet 24/7, instead of doing some "real work"
himself.
--
Microsoft's Product Strategy: "It compiles, let's ship it!"
flatfish+++
I didn't say anything about snit.
I'm not even familiar with that thread as I have been out of the COLA
loop for a while.
> He *has* shown himself to be completely dishonest.
> He could have made an error and simply have mistaken the date his infallible
> OSX had dowloaded the pictures from the net as "EXIF date". He simply could
> have said so and everything would have been OK, because everyone makes an
> error now and then.
And you could have admitted you screwed up with Finale.
Instead you dug yourself a deeper hole by trying to save face.
> But since Snit Michael Glasser by the very definition of that lying cretin
> never can be "wrong", not even in the smallest matter, he had to somehow
> construe a scenario whre he magically was "right".
I have no idea.
Just the fact that the Linux loons attack him leads me to believe he is
presenting facts they don't like.
The quickest way to aggravate a Linux zealot is to present facts.
> Even if he still was completely wrong and lying constantly
The same could be said of you.
Had you admitted you screwed up it would have been done with.
> So, just stop these so extremely obvious attempts at distracting from a
> description of a "comrade troll". Snit Michael Glasser will stay the most
> dishonest poster on usenet of all time, no matter how much you try to defend
> that swine. He will also stay that parasitic leech, who lets his wife put food
> on the table in order to troll usenet 24/7, instead of doing some "real work"
> himself.
And you know this how?
How about a SPAMMER like Schestowitz who is sponging off public grants
and SPAMMING to the net when he should be coding?
Do you think that is right?
Peter Köhlmann
And yet you tried to distract from the description of that hilarious blunder
he made.
Why is that?
> I'm not even familiar with that thread as I have been out of the COLA
> loop for a while.
Stop those idiotic lies. We all know that you have never really been "away"
from cola for any lenght of time.
You simply used one of your many hundreds new nyms and kept on trolling and
lying, flatfish Gary Stewart
< snip flatfish crap >
--
"Against stupidity, the very gods themselves contend in vain."
Friedrich Schiller
flatfish+++
I didn't distract from anything.
I simply said based upon your obvious lack of knowledge on the topic
*you* are in no position to analyze this thread
>> I'm not even familiar with that thread as I have been out of the COLA
>> loop for a while.
>
> Stop those idiotic lies. We all know that you have never really been "away"
> from cola for any lenght of time.
> You simply used one of your many hundreds new nyms and kept on trolling and
> lying, flatfish Gary Stewart
>
> < snip flatfish crap >
And your proof is?????
Yea, I know, the same place it always is.
No place.
Redjak
"Clavicus Vile" wrote in message news:ij3ohb$2c2$1...@news.albasani.net...
Refreshing. Most of these Freaks think they're reincarnated Einstein's.
Snit
2/11/11 11:03 PM:
...
>> To not have the talent is fine - heck, if I had to make a living off my
>> singing abilities I would be in big trouble... but they react to their lack
>> of talent by trying to bring others down to their level instead of seeing if
>> they can work with their own strengths and find something they are good at.
>
> That is very true.
> Despite what you see on TV about audtions being cut throat and people
> sabotaging other artists chances by stealing make up, sheet music etc, I
> never saw anything like that in all my years.
>
> People were under pressure for sure, but they were friendly toward each
> other.
>
>
>> HPT is a special class of broken... he does not even have a personal reason
>> for his targeting - he just gloms onto the most broken of people (such as
>> Carroll) and piggybacks on their obvious illness. He clearly is desperate
>> for some form of acceptance... any form. Carroll just blames the world for
>> his own anger and incompetence - he has one of the worst victim mentalities
>> I have ever seen.
>
> He is a sick person.
> A very sick person.
>
> To compile a database of COLA and track others utterings and posts is
> just plain sicko IMHO.
He did not do this alone. Sandman and Carroll have been collecting quotes
for *years*... hence the large number. I showed that if I collected quotes
about Carroll for one *month* I could get dozens, but this means nothing to
these trolls.
What it really shows is that they are obsessed with me and have been for
years but cannot find examples of my doing as they do (or as they accuse).
> What is the purpose of this?
>
> Does he think people other than the gang here, read this group?
>
> The current crop of kids don't even know what USENET is and even many of
> us adults have moved on to twitter and social networking sites.
>
> IMHO USENET is on life support.
>
> HPT should spend more time working at the church and singing karaoke at
> the local watering hole and less time stalking people and telling lies
> on USENET.
Agreed.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
2/12/11 1:51 AM:
>>> 133- TomB (COLA): "No Snit, you were flat out lying in an attempt to make
>>> me look bad. Do you really have to sink to that level in order to 'be
>>> right'? If so, you're pathetic. And I don't say this because I like to say
>>> it." 07 Feb 2010
>>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/43263f575ac40353
>>
>> And then the ensuing thread, which got wose from post to post. Ultimately
>> Snit
>> Michael Glasser found that not only the "original" pictures he downloaded had
>> EXIF data,
>
> You are hardly one to talk bout graphics Peter Kohlmann....
> Remember your total incompetence regarding anti-aliasing and screen
> shots?
First, the thread referenced has nothing to do with the EXIF info. Nothing.
So Peter is flat out wrong in his claim there.
Second, my claim about EXIF data is that JPGs *can* have it... not that they
must.
And I am right.
> I do.
>
> It's not quite as humorous as you idiocy regarding Finale though.
> Seems music is another topic you know little about.
>
> Hey, if the protesting and anarchy that is transpiring in Egypt right
> now spreads to Germany, you can fire up all the old toys you no doubt
> still have laying around the barn.
>
> You might have missed the 30's and the 40's but you'll be right in time
> for the 2000's.
>
> Maybe you might even win this time.
> I doubt it though even with computers to tell you preciously where each
> and every bullet went.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
1:44 AM:
Please show where in that thread EXIF data was discussed.
> That dishonest cretin knows absolutely no bounds when he has painted himself
> into a corner with one of his many bullshit claims
JPG files can have EXIF data. How horrid for me to say so, eh?
LOL!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
2:09 AM:
...
>>>> 133- TomB (COLA): "No Snit, you were flat out lying in an attempt to make
>>>> me look bad. Do you really have to sink to that level in order to 'be
>>>> right'? If so, you're pathetic. And I don't say this because I like to say
>>>> it." 07 Feb 2010
>>>>
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/43263f575ac40353
>>>
>>> And then the ensuing thread, which got wose from post to post. Ultimately
>>> Snit Michael Glasser found that not only the "original" pictures he
>>> downloaded had EXIF data,
>>
>> You are hardly one to talk bout graphics Peter Kohlmann....
>
> < snip irrelevant crap >
>
> Dont try to distract from the fact that Snit Michael Glasser has shown himself
> to be utterly incompetent and lying has ass off in order to "somehow" be
> "right" and not so incredibly stupid
Keep my claim in mind: *some* JPG files have EXIF data. Some. Not all.
That is the claim. And what you say about it.
> He *has* shown himself to be completely dishonest.
> He could have made an error and simply have mistaken the date his infallible
> OSX had dowloaded the pictures from the net as "EXIF date". He simply could
> have said so and everything would have been OK, because everyone makes an
> error now and then.
>
> But since Snit Michael Glasser by the very definition of that lying cretin
> never can be "wrong", not even in the smallest matter, he had to somehow
> construe a scenario whre he magically was "right".
>
> Even if he still was completely wrong and lying constantly
>
> So, just stop these so extremely obvious attempts at distracting from a
> description of a "comrade troll". Snit Michael Glasser will stay the most
> dishonest poster on usenet of all time, no matter how much you try to defend
> that swine. He will also stay that parasitic leech, who lets his wife put food
> on the table in order to troll usenet 24/7, instead of doing some "real work"
> himself.
See: you are just an angry, dishonest little man. Oh well.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
2/12/11 2:24 AM:
Peter is mad because he knows I am right that JPG files can have EXIF data.
And he knows he is wrong about so many, many things. He is just one angry
little man.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> Peter K hlmann stated in post ij5ha4$vtm$0...@news.t-online.com on 2/12/11
> 1:44 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > High Plains Thumper wrote:
>
> >> Steve Carroll wrote:
> >>> Tim Adams wrote:
> >>>> Marti Van Lin wrote:
> >>>>> Peter Kohlmann wrote:
> >>>>>> Justin wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> I am curious why his screenshots look so different from the
> >>>>>>> installation from the software from the site.
>
> >>>>>> I haven't looked at any of them, but since you accessed Snit Michael
> >>>>>> Glassers site, there is a fair bet that you encountered yet another
> >>>>>> one of his "forged evidence".
>
> >>>>> mind... Eeeek!
>
> >>>> That was funny wasn't it. snit copied a picture form the net and
> >>>> created a copy on his system, then claimed the date the picture was
> >>>> taken with the date it got created on his desktop because the "EXIF
> >>>> DATA" told him so. Except of course for the simple fact that the file
> >>>> was posted without anyEXIFDATA.
>
> >>> This is hilarious... the "computer teacher" gets busted again ;)
>
> >> Yup.
>
> >> 133- TomB (COLA): "No Snit, you were flat out lying in an attempt to make
> >> me look bad. Do you really have to sink to that level in order to 'be
> >> right'? If so, you're pathetic. And I don't say this because I like to say
> >> it." 07 Feb 2010
>
>
> > And then the ensuing thread, which got wose from post to post. Ultimately Snit
> > Michael Glasser found that not only the "original" pictures he downloaded had
> > contain any in order to make him look bad. After all, hadn't he "lectured" and
> > "teached" us about the nature and use ofEXIF?
>
>
> > That dishonest cretin knows absolutely no bounds when he has painted himself
> > into a corner with one of his many bullshit claims
>
And, as to be expected, the ever dishonest Snit continues on with his
latest red herring. Yawn.
DFS
> The saddest were the kids with their stage mothers yipping and yapping
> at me.
> I did auditions for Annie and it was probably the worst experience I
> ever had.
> Kids all over the place and 99 percent of them couldn't sing, couldn't
> act and couldn't dance and just didn't even remotely fit the part.
I'm always impressed with good child actors, since they're called on to
express emotions and deliver dialogue they hardly understand.
Haley Joel Ozment was amazingly good.
Jodie Foster, of course.
Christian Bale was good as a young actor.
Will Smith's son Jaden was *terrible* in 'Day The Earth Stood Still'.
Just ridiculous.
I thought the kid who played Andy Sipowicz's son in NYPD Blue was really
bad.
flatfish+++
What always amazes me is watching a performer go into and out of
character during a show.
When they are not on stage, some performers stay in character for the
entire gig, others become themselves again and switch back when they go
back on stage.
It's quite interesting to watch.
When you've been in this business as long as I have, you can spot a
talented person a mile away.
It's truly amazing when you see it.
I agree with your list BTW.
I would add Natalie Portman and the "rat pack kids" of the 80's to the
list. Most of them were pretty good.
Peter Köhlmann
He has no other point to make.
And as if anyone ever had claimed otherwise!
But the 2 pictures in that very thread had *no* EXIF data, and no matter how
much Snit Michael Glasser tries to move the goalposts, that fact remains.
I guess that idiot will never again crow "EXIF!" into a thread, to somehow
"signify" that he actually knows something.
He does not, as he is the worst "IT-teacher" of all time. Slightly demented
cockroaches know more about computers that Snit Michael Glasser ever will
--
99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
High Plains Thumper
> Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>> That I've seen Snit is the only person in cola or csma that has forged
>> documents.
>
> Didn't you bust him forging his identy and claiming to work at a college
> he did not really work.
So, Snit couldn't leave enough alone that he must reply using socks, right
Michael? Adds credence to the saying, "Those who can do, those who can't
teach." Sad.
99- Peter Kohlmann (cola): "Snot Glasser is invading this group with his
inane drivel, so he has to bear what people think about that dishonest
retard. And just for the record: You *are* a Glasser sock" 30 Jan 2010
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/f3166f6fda92641b
43- High Plains Thumper: "Agreed except for Snit and socks (Joe Crump and
ad nauseum). I've got Snit kill binned, because he is the classic ad
hominem troll. At first he seems reasonable, but then it always degrades
into name calling bullying, the responder is a liar, etc. AKA the Snit
Circus of Pathological Lies. Perhaps the times he seems reasonable are
when he is properly controlled by medication." 21 Sep 2010
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/249a598ec5aafe85
--
HPT
Snit
4:48 PM:
> Big Crotch on a Small Fish wrote:
>> Steve Carroll wrote:
>>
>>> That I've seen Snit is the only person in cola or csma that has forged
>>> documents.
>>
>> Didn't you bust him forging his identy and claiming to work at a college
>> he did not really work.
>
> So, Snit couldn't leave enough alone that he must reply using socks, right
> Michael?
When people accuse you of using socks you claim it is an ad hominem attack,
but here you are making the same accusation against others.
You are a hypocrite.
By the way, as you well know, Big Crotch is one of Carroll's socks. I do
not use socks.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
flatfish+++
George Hostler's socks are scattered all over COLA at the moment.
They are really stinking up the place!
Snit
2/12/11 9:45 PM:
He whines whenever ever anyone says he is using a sock... and then in the
next breath accused me of having Steve Carroll as my sock... something
clearly not true.
HyPocriTe.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> High Plains Thumper stated in post ij768v$vi...@news.albasani.net on 2/12/11
Translation: Snit has gotten busted using sock by multiple people on
multiple occasions. Strangely, for some reason, Snit still seems to
believe that people are as stupid as he needs them to be... as shown
again here... where he is trying to pin one of his sock puppets on a
person for whom there is no evidence of having ever used sock puppets
(and there's a good reason for that).
Tim Adams
Steve Carroll <fretw...@gmail.com> wrote:
is snit's still posting that same old lie of his?
Funny how he has admitted using socks (Sigmund and Brock MacNugget come to mind).
--
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-D55E37.12...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net on
2/13/11 10:56 AM:
I do not use socks, Tim... but remember you were busted doing so and then
claimed it must have been someone else supporting your lies from the same
Internet caf�. That was funny.
--
"YOU were the person claiming that the ~ told people to go to
HardDrive/users/username/ while I stated the ~ indicated the name of the
hard drive only." -- Tim Adams
High Plains Thumper
> Steve Carroll wrote:
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> By the way, as you well know, Big Crotch is one of Carroll's socks. I
>>> do not use socks.
>>
>> Translation: Snit has gotten busted using sock by multiple people on
>> multiple occasions. Strangely, for some reason, Snit still seems to
>> believe that people are as stupid as he needs them to be... as shown
>> again here... where he is trying to pin one of his sock puppets on a
>> person for whom there is no evidence of having ever used sock puppets
>> (and there's a good reason for that).
>
> is snit's still posting that same old lie of his? Funny how he has
> admitted using socks (Sigmund and Brock MacNugget come to mind).
Yup. "Big Crotch on a Small Fish" is a Snit sock, which Snit vehemently
denies, follows in the footsteps of other Snit socks, i.e., Joel Crump,
Rhino Plastee, ceed, Omar Murad Asfour, Steve Carroll's Dog and ad
nauseum. Snit can't exist without sock puppets. They are the only ones who
console him.
Sandman did thorough research to prove Snit uses socks:
http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_New_Sock_Puppet
(If you look to the menu at the right of Sandman's webpage, it has other
articles of interest (or non-interest) of Snit's trolling methods.)
--
HPT
flatfish+++
> Yup. "Big Crotch on a Small Fish" is a Snit sock, which Snit vehemently
> denies,
1. Of course you can prove these claims?
2. Why are you setting the follow ups to all kinds of *.education
groups?
Looks like you are trying to harm snit's business, HPT = George Hostler
= Wendy Toiletwater and many more.
What a hypocrite you are HPT.
Peter Köhlmann
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 14:15:50 -0700, High Plains Thumper wrote:
>
>
>> Yup. "Big Crotch on a Small Fish" is a Snit sock, which Snit vehemently
>> denies,
>
> 1. Of course you can prove these claims?
Snits socks are well known
His worst one was "Brock McNuggets" which he tried to use on a group of people
in a self-helping group of ill people.
Imagine what kind of swine one needs to be to aggravate people who are sick.
Thats Snit Michael Glasser for you. And yes, that case is one of those where
Snit Glasser was not only found out, but where he had to admit it was him.
There is no weaseling out of that case.
> 2. Why are you setting the follow ups to all kinds of *.education
> groups?
He didn't. They were already in place, set up by a Snit sock
Your incredible incompetence is showing up again, flatfish Gary Stewart
> Looks like you are trying to harm snit's business, HPT = George Hostler
> = Wendy Toiletwater and many more.
What "Business"? The only "business" that lying twit has is trolling usenet
24/7.
His phony "IT-company" Prescott Computer Guy hardly is any "business", as Snit
Michael Glasser does no paid work at all. No time for things like that,
trolling usenet is more important. In excess of 20.000 posts/year speak a
clear language
> What a hypocrite you are HPT.
If that where true, what makes this shite you just posted you then?
--
Don't abandon hope: your Tom Mix decoder ring arrives tomorrow
Snit
2/13/11 2:23 PM:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 14:15:50 -0700, High Plains Thumper wrote:
>
>
>> Yup. "Big Crotch on a Small Fish" is a Snit sock, which Snit vehemently
>> denies,
>
> 1. Of course you can prove these claims?
Of course he cannot. And he whines when others accuse him of similar
things.
> 2. Why are you setting the follow ups to all kinds of *.education
> groups?
That is a trick Carroll and K�hlmann play.
> Looks like you are trying to harm snit's business, HPT = George Hostler
> = Wendy Toiletwater and many more.
>
> What a hypocrite you are HPT.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
on 2/13/11 2:15 PM:
> Tim Adams wrote:
>> Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> By the way, as you well know, Big Crotch is one of Carroll's socks. I
>>>> do not use socks.
>>>
>>> Translation: Snit has gotten busted using sock by multiple people on
>>> multiple occasions. Strangely, for some reason, Snit still seems to
>>> believe that people are as stupid as he needs them to be... as shown
>>> again here... where he is trying to pin one of his sock puppets on a
>>> person for whom there is no evidence of having ever used sock puppets
>>> (and there's a good reason for that).
>>
>> is snit's still posting that same old lie of his? Funny how he has
>> admitted using socks (Sigmund and Brock MacNugget come to mind).
>
> Yup. "Big Crotch on a Small Fish" is a Snit sock,
Nope. You made that up.
> which Snit vehemently denies, follows in the footsteps of other Snit socks,
> i.e., Joel Crump, Rhino Plastee, ceed, Omar Murad Asfour, Steve Carroll's Dog
> and ad nauseum. Snit can't exist without sock puppets. They are the only ones
> who console him.
>
> Sandman did thorough research to prove Snit uses socks:
>
> http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_New_Sock_Puppet
Which has been completely debunked many times.
> (If you look to the menu at the right of Sandman's webpage, it has other
> articles of interest (or non-interest) of Snit's trolling methods.)
Sandman has many pages of lies about me.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
2:44 PM:
> flatfish+++ wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 14:15:50 -0700, High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Yup. "Big Crotch on a Small Fish" is a Snit sock, which Snit vehemently
>>> denies,
>>
>> 1. Of course you can prove these claims?
>
> Snits socks are well known
In other words: no, you cannot prove it. Now can HPT. In fact, Big Crotch
is Steve Carroll... and not me.
I do not use socks.
> His worst one was "Brock McNuggets" which he tried to use on a group of people
> in a self-helping group of ill people.
>
> Imagine what kind of swine one needs to be to aggravate people who are sick.
> Thats Snit Michael Glasser for you. And yes, that case is one of those where
> Snit Glasser was not only found out, but where he had to admit it was him.
> There is no weaseling out of that case.
>
>> 2. Why are you setting the follow ups to all kinds of *.education
>> groups?
>
> He didn't. They were already in place, set up by a Snit sock
> Your incredible incompetence is showing up again, flatfish Gary Stewart
>
>> Looks like you are trying to harm snit's business, HPT = George Hostler
>> = Wendy Toiletwater and many more.
>
> What "Business"? The only "business" that lying twit has is trolling usenet
> 24/7.
> His phony "IT-company" Prescott Computer Guy hardly is any "business", as Snit
> Michael Glasser does no paid work at all. No time for things like that,
> trolling usenet is more important. In excess of 20.000 posts/year speak a
> clear language
>
>> What a hypocrite you are HPT.
>
> If that where true, what makes this shite you just posted you then?
See what an angry little man you are.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
High Plains Thumper
> flatfish+++ wrote:
>>
>>> Yup. "Big Crotch on a Small Fish" is a Snit sock, which Snit
>>> vehemently denies,
>>
>> 1. Of course you can prove these claims?
>
> Snits socks are well known His worst one was "Brock McNuggets" which
> he tried to use on a group of people in a self-helping group of ill
> people.
>
> Imagine what kind of swine one needs to be to aggravate people who
> are sick. Thats Snit Michael Glasser for you. And yes, that case is
> one of those where Snit Glasser was not only found out, but where he
> had to admit it was him. There is no weaseling out of that case.
104- 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." 06 Sep 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/fcad2955ac5cb03b
>> 2. Why are you setting the follow ups to all kinds of *.education
>> groups?
>
> He didn't. They were already in place, set up by a Snit sock Your
> incredible incompetence is showing up again, flatfish Gary Stewart
All I did was reply. The crossposts were already set by Snit through his
sock. Snit is just as bad or worse than Flatfish in regard to
crossposts. Crossposting especially using socks is a Flatfish trademark.
Read more: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com
>> What a hypocrite you are HPT.
>
> If that where true, what makes this shite you just posted you then?
Because he is a liar, what else?
[quote]
7.6 Trespasser Disinformation Tactics
45. Criticize Linux Advocates but ignore anti-Linux propagandist
transgressions. Always criticize the behavior of Linux Advocates, but,
ignore the same and even worse transgressions are being committed by
your fellow Trespassers.
[/quote]
Read more: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/
[quote]
Name: flatfish+++ (in real life Gary Stewart)
Traits:
* Nym shifting (see below)
* Self confessed thief and proud of it
* Homophobic
* Racist
* Habitual liar
* Frequently cross posts replies to other non-Linux related newsgroups
* Frequently cross posts articles originally not posted to COLA
The flatfish troll nyms shifts an extraordinary amount often using the
nyms as sock puppets.
[/quote]
Read more: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com
--
HPT
Snit
on 2/13/11 4:26 PM:
Curious: why do you lie about me so much?
Oh.
You are jealous you know I am, generally, right. And you know I refuse to
sink to your level.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Chance Furlong
>
> Sandman has many pages of lies about me.
>
Prove it, Mr. Incest.
Snit
on 2/13/11 5:00 PM:
> On 2/13/11 4:59 PM, Snit wrote:
>>
>> Sandman has many pages of lies about me.
>>
>
> Prove it
<http://csma.sandman.net/atlas/faq/index.php?faq=sigmond>
<http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_Css_Validation>
<http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_Gibberish>
<http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_New_Sock_Puppet>
<http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_Quote_Forging>
<http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_Tilde>
<http://csma.sandman.net/pages/PDFforgery>
<http://csma.sandman.net/pages/ScreenshotForgery>
<http://csma.sandman.net/plain/ascii.php?name=Snit>
<http://csma.sandman.net/TrollScoring/Snit>
And many more... he is obsessed with lying about me.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> Chance Furlong stated in post R7CdnQxxPqAp7cXQnZ2dnUVZ_sydn...@giganews.com
> on 2/13/11 5:00 PM:
>
> > On 2/13/11 4:59 PM, Snit wrote:
>
>
> > Prove it
>
> <http://csma.sandman.net/atlas/faq/index.php?faq=sigmond>
> <http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_Css_Validation>
> <http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_Gibberish>
> <http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_New_Sock_Puppet>
> <http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_Quote_Forging>
> <http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_Tilde>
> <http://csma.sandman.net/pages/PDFforgery>
> <http://csma.sandman.net/pages/ScreenshotForgery>
> <http://csma.sandman.net/plain/ascii.php?name=Snit>
> <http://csma.sandman.net/TrollScoring/Snit>
>
I agree.
Chance Furlong
You agree Sandman trolls? I don't recall him trolling.
Snit
on 2/14/11 9:45 AM:
Carroll forged text in my posts. You see, he thinks it is clever to pretend
I was suggesting Sandman's lies are in any way honest. Then again, Sandman
has suggested he gets paid for his trolling site - which means Carroll
likely is one of the ones who pays him.
Each of those links, of course, is filled with Sandman's lies about me. I
have shown this over and over and over and over and over... for example, the
whole "tilde" debate he shows says *nothing* about the fact Tim Adams was
ignorant about what the tilde meant, which is what the "debate" is about (no
real debate, nobody thinks Tim knew - but his friends will not admit to it).
And the "gibberish" BS Sandman posts is completely debunked here:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/coherent_gibberish.mov> and the
And Carroll's BS about my site is refuted here:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/site.mov>
These guys just make things up and spew lies and lies and lies. It is
repulsive. Heck, from a post from some time ago:
===============================================================
1 <http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_Gibberish>
Sandman defends Wally's absurd actions, shown here:
Clearly Wally is just flat out wrong and ignorant here. The text Wally
calls "coherent and well ordered" is just randomly put together sentenced
made from a filler-text generator. There is *no* reasoned defense for his
BS. None. But Sandman tries (sorta... what a sad, sad "try"):
Sandman: admitting I am right!
-----
The quote comes from a DreamWeaver plugin which can
insert placeholder text in HTML files in DreamWeaver.
It's called "Lorum and More" and one of the filler
settings are "Corporate Mumbo-Jumbo".
...
The text in question is indeed created by this plugin
and is indeed just random sentences thrown together.
-----
Sandman, tying his best to make sense of the gibberish:
-----
So, even though the sentences are randomly put
together, they are hardly nonsense, and hardly
gibberish.
-----
Sandman makes it very clear he knows I am right... and then contradicts
himself in the same sentence where he admits they sentences are "randomly
put together"! LOL Yeah, Sandman, you call Wally's "coherent and well
ordered" text "randomly put together"... and this somehow in your wee little
brain makes him right!
===============================================================
2 <http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_Css_Validation>
Sandman whines about my pointing out how he lied about his CSS not
validating. There is no doubt his CSS did not validate (which is not a big
deal) and it has been proved he lied about it (which Sandman freaked out
about being caught). Repeatedly.
Sandman cannot let it go: he was busted lying... and is still crying about
it years later. Of special note: the WayBackMachine's data is part of the
evidence that proves Sandman lied... but Sandman denies this proves he lied.
Yet, below (in #5), Sandman uses the WayBackMachine as part of his faulty
evidence... showing he later flip flops on even that!
===============================================================
3 <http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_Quote_Forging>
Sandman whines that I returned context he dishonestly snipped. Yes, that is
his whole complaint against me. Sandman was offended by... gasp!... the
fact I am honest and honorable. Not even he could find a counter-example.
===============================================================
4 <http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_Tilde>
Tim Adams made a complete idiot out of himself and said the following:
Tim Adams:
-----
YOU were the person claiming that the ~ told people to go to
HardDrive/users/username/ while I stated the ~ indicated the
name of the hard drive only. To bad in your reading, your
delusions took over.
-----
Gee, they all support me and the location. Hard drive (or in
their case ~) /library/widget. NOT the
~/users/username/library/widget as at least one other person
said, and you agreed with a day or so ago.
-----
As such, when the articles YOU directed me to indicated that
widgets were at ~/library/widgets THE ARTICLES WERE USING
THE ~ AS THE NAME OF THE HARD DRIVE AND NOT THE FULL PATH
harddrive/user/username/library
-----
Sandman tries to defend Tim by making up a story about what my saying
"Ouch!" must mean (it shows, in Sandman's world, *agreement*). Then Sandman
says:
Sandman:
-----
And this is the typical Snit circus. Snit is again
found to tell others what they meant in spite of them
just outlining precisely what they meant.
-----
Yes: Sandman cannot find an example of my doing as he does, telling others
what they must mean, but then chastises me for *his* own actions.
===============================================================
5 <http://csma.sandman.net/pages/PDFforgery>
Sandman tries to show how I have done wrong, but ends up calling *his own
attempt at evidence* an "obfuscation" and that *his own attempt at evidence*
should not be trusted. Great job, Sandman. The following video shows the
specifics:
Yeah, Sandman, great "evidence" there. LOL! You show that my claims are
supported and admit yours should not be trusted.
Worse than that, Sandman used the WayBackMachine as part of his
"evidence"... the very source he denies is accurate in his attempts to
defend his lies about his CSS!
===============================================================
6 <http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_New_Sock_Puppet>
Steve Carroll admitted he posted as his "dog", and because of this, Sandman
conclude there is no doubt I posted as Steve's Dog, and this Steve's other
socks must be mine. Huh? Does Sandman think Steve and I are the same
person? There is no other possible answer to his BS... well, other than the
fact he is a lying moron.
===============================================================
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Justin
users' machines. Simple as that.
What right do you have to decide how their OS behaves? When you pay for
a Microsoft product, you aren't "buying" the product. You are buying
permission to use the product. If Microsoft decides something should be
installed - like a magical Bing toolbar - it shall be installed.
If now, you violate the EULA.
In article <C97EB84D.8E060%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Hadron
Are you still too dense to realise that was all your fault?
Are you "Son Of Gortard" by any chance?
cc
> flatfish+++ stated in post qtaqy25dhkdt.1jqjx6buv1n1n$....@40tude.net on
> 2/12/11 2:24 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 10:09:18 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
> >> flatfish+++ wrote:
>
>
> >>>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Tim Adams wrote:
> >>>>>>> Marti Van Lin wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Peter Kohlmann wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Justin wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> I am curious why his screenshots look so different from the
> >>>>>>>>>> installation from the software from the site.
>
> >>>>>>>>> I haven't looked at any of them, but since you accessed Snit Michael
> >>>>>>>>> Glassers site, there is a fair bet that you encountered yet another
> >>>>>>>>> one of his "forged evidence".
>
> >>>>>>>> mind... Eeeek!
>
> >>>>>>> That was funny wasn't it. snit copied a picture form the net and
> >>>>>>> created a copy on his system, then claimed the date the picture was
> >>>>>>> taken with the date it got created on his desktop because the "EXIF
> >>>>>>> was posted without any EXIF DATA.
>
> >>>>>> This is hilarious... the "computer teacher" gets busted again ;)
>
> >>>>> Yup.
>
> >>>>> 133- TomB (COLA): "No Snit, you were flat out lying in an attempt to make
> >>>>> me look bad. Do you really have to sink to that level in order to 'be
> >>>>> right'? If so, you're pathetic. And I don't say this because I like to say
> >>>>> it." 07 Feb 2010
>
> >>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/43263f575ac...
>
> >>>> And then the ensuing thread, which got wose from post to post. Ultimately
> >>>> Snit Michael Glasser found that not only the "original" pictures he
> >>>> downloaded had EXIF data,
>
>
> >> < snip irrelevant crap >
>
> >> Dont try to distract from the fact that Snit Michael Glasser has shown
> >> himself
> >> to be utterly incompetent and lying has ass off in order to "somehow" be
> >> "right" and not so incredibly stupid
>
> > I didn't say anything about snit.
> > I'm not even familiar with that thread as I have been out of the COLA
> > loop for a while.
>
> >> He *has* shown himself to be completely dishonest.
> >> He could have made an error and simply have mistaken the date his infallible
> >> OSX had dowloaded the pictures from the net as "EXIF date". He simply could
> >> have said so and everything would have been OK, because everyone makes an
> >> error now and then.
>
> > And you could have admitted you screwed up with Finale.
> > Instead you dug yourself a deeper hole by trying to save face.
>
> >> But since Snit Michael Glasser by the very definition of that lying cretin
> >> never can be "wrong", not even in the smallest matter, he had to somehow
> >> construe a scenario whre he magically was "right".
>
> > I have no idea.
> > Just the fact that the Linux loons attack him leads me to believe he is
> > presenting facts they don't like.
>
> > The quickest way to aggravate a Linux zealot is to present facts.
>
> >> Even if he still was completely wrong and lying constantly
>
> > The same could be said of you.
> > Had you admitted you screwed up it would have been done with.
>
> >> So, just stop these so extremely obvious attempts at distracting from a
> >> description of a "comrade troll". Snit Michael Glasser will stay the most
> >> dishonest poster on usenet of all time, no matter how much you try to defend
> >> that swine. He will also stay that parasitic leech, who lets his wife put
> >> food
> >> on the table in order to troll usenet 24/7, instead of doing some "real work"
> >> himself.
>
> > And you know this how?
>
> > How about a SPAMMER like Schestowitz who is sponging off public grants
> > and SPAMMING to the net when he should be coding?
>
> > Do you think that is right?
>
> Peter is mad because he knows I am right that JPG files can have EXIF data.
> And he knows he is wrong about so many, many things. He is just one angry
> little man.
>
Your claim NOW is that JPG files can have EXIF data. No one is
disputing that. Not even in this thread. In the thread being discussed
(about Tattoo Vampire's pic), you said a SPECIFIC JPG had EXIF data,
and it did not. There's a subtle difference there.
Snit
justin-543BE3....@news.eternal-september.org on 2/14/11 11:33 AM:
> The real issue is the fact that Microsoft alone should decide what is on
> users' machines. Simple as that.
Well, maybe what comes on it.
> What right do you have to decide how their OS behaves? When you pay for
> a Microsoft product, you aren't "buying" the product. You are buying
> permission to use the product.
Correct.
> If Microsoft decides something should be installed - like a magical Bing
> toolbar - it shall be installed. If now, you violate the EULA.
Sure, if you are Dell or whatever and you have such an agreement with them.
>
> In article <C97EB84D.8E060%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
acddaf4e-3550-40fa...@o39g2000prb.googlegroups.com on 2/14/11
2:09 PM:
>>> And you know this how?
>>
>>> How about a SPAMMER like Schestowitz who is sponging off public grants
>>> and SPAMMING to the net when he should be coding?
>>
>>> Do you think that is right?
>>
>> Peter is mad because he knows I am right that JPG files can have EXIF data.
>> And he knows he is wrong about so many, many things. �He is just one angry
>> little man.
>>
>
> Your claim NOW is that JPG files can have EXIF data.
I have never said otherwise. That is my claim. To quote it:
-----
The fact is, JPG files can and often do have EXIF data.
-----
> No one is disputing that.
Sure they are. In just the past week:
Steve Carroll:
-----
This is hilarious... the "computer teacher" gets busted again;)
-----
But there is nothing to "bust" me over. I am right.
And then HPT babbled about this post:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/43263f575ac40353>
To which Peter K. responded with:
Peter K�hlmann:
-----
But the 2 pictures in that very thread had *no* EXIF data
-----
But he has not been able to say what 2 images. And:
Peter K�hlmann:
-----
He could have made an error and simply have mistaken the date
his infallible OSX had dowloaded the pictures from the net as
"EXIF date".
-----
Peter is, of course, completely wrong about OS X downloading pictures *as*
EXIF data. If an image has JPG data, it will be downloaded with the image
(of course) but *as* the image? Peter is just clueless.
> Not even in this thread. In the thread being discussed (about Tattoo Vampire's
> pic),
The thread HPT and Peter talked about had nothing to do with with any pic
from Tattoo Vampire.
> you said a SPECIFIC JPG had EXIF data, and it did not. There's a subtle
> difference there.
There are no such images in the referenced thread (from 2010). Peter did
remind me there was such a debate in *2008*, but that has nothing to do with
the current topic... he was simply moving goal posts.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
Read it again.
Steve Carroll
> Chance Furlong stated in post UfKdnf53r7mkwcTQnZ2dnUVZ_qOdn...@giganews.com
> on 2/14/11 9:45 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2/14/11 8:24 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> >> On Feb 13, 5:38 pm, Snit<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>> Chance Furlong stated in post R7CdnQxxPqAp7cXQnZ2dnUVZ_sydn...@giganews.com
> >>> on 2/13/11 5:00 PM:
>
> >>>> On 2/13/11 4:59 PM, Snit wrote:
>
> >>>>> Sandman has many pages that point out newsgroup trolls.
>
> >>>> Prove it
>
> >>> <http://csma.sandman.net/atlas/faq/index.php?faq=sigmond>
> >>> <http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_Css_Validation>
> >>> <http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_Gibberish>
> >>> <http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_New_Sock_Puppet>
> >>> <http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_Quote_Forging>
> >>> <http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_Tilde>
> >>> <http://csma.sandman.net/pages/PDFforgery>
> >>> <http://csma.sandman.net/pages/ScreenshotForgery>
> >>> <http://csma.sandman.net/plain/ascii.php?name=Snit>
> >>> <http://csma.sandman.net/TrollScoring/Snit>
>
> >>> And many more... he has been particularly accurate in documenting my
> >>> trolling.
>
> >> I agree.
>
> > You agree Sandman trolls? I don't recall him trolling.
>
> Carroll forged text in my posts.
Forged text? Text may have gotten altered, not really sure... and if
it was it may have been my dog. Seems he got up to the keyboard again.
Stop pretending that people do what you do, Mr. Forger.
High Plains Thumper
> Chance Furlong wrote:
>> Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sandman has many pages that point out newsgroup trolls.
>>>>>
>>>>> Prove it
>>>>
>>>> <http://csma.sandman.net/atlas/faq/index.php?faq=sigmond>
>>>> <http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_Css_Validation>
>>>> <http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_Gibberish>
>>>> <http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_New_Sock_Puppet>
>>>> <http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_Quote_Forging>
>>>> <http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_Tilde>
>>>> <http://csma.sandman.net/pages/PDFforgery>
>>>> <http://csma.sandman.net/pages/ScreenshotForgery>
>>>> <http://csma.sandman.net/plain/ascii.php?name=Snit>
>>>> <http://csma.sandman.net/TrollScoring/Snit>
>>>>
>>>> And many more... he has been particularly accurate in documenting my
>>>> trolling.
>>>
>>> I agree.
>>
>> You agree Sandman trolls? I don't recall him trolling.
>
> Read it again.
Chance is being facetious. OTOH, Snit seems proud of his trolling
achievements as documented by Sandman. Else why would he post Sandman's
proof of Snit's trolling? It's like a badge of courage for trolls, just
like the 148 Poster Quotes on the Snit Circus of Pathological Lies.
These are just examples of Snit begging for attention. As usual.
--
HPT
Snit
on 2/14/11 8:16 PM:
> Steve Carroll wrote:
>> Chance Furlong wrote:
>>> Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>> Chance Furlong stated:
>>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sandman has many pages that point out newsgroup trolls.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Prove it
>>>>>
>>>>> �<http://csma.sandman.net/atlas/faq/index.php?faq=sigmond>
>>>>> <http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_Css_Validation>
>>>>> <http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_Gibberish>
>>>>> <http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_New_Sock_Puppet>
>>>>> <http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_Quote_Forging>
>>>>> <http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_Tilde>
>>>>> <http://csma.sandman.net/pages/PDFforgery>
>>>>> <http://csma.sandman.net/pages/ScreenshotForgery>
>>>>> <http://csma.sandman.net/plain/ascii.php?name=Snit>
>>>>> <http://csma.sandman.net/TrollScoring/Snit>
>>>>>
>>>>> And many more... he has been particularly accurate in documenting my
>>>>> trolling.
>>>>
>>>> I agree.
>>>
>>> You agree Sandman trolls? I don't recall him trolling.
>>
>> Read it again.
>
> Chance is being facetious.
Right: everyone knows Sandman lies and trolls. Heck, the proof has been
posted many, many times - and above Sandman incriminates himself.
> OTOH, Snit seems proud of his trolling
> achievements as documented by Sandman.
I am "proud" Sandman, you and Carroll obsess and lie about me? No. That is
stupid.
...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Chris Ahlstrom
> On Feb 12, 11:48?am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> Peter is mad because he knows I am right that JPG files can have EXIF data.
>> And he knows he is wrong about so many, many things. ?He is just one angry
>> little man.
>
> Your claim NOW is that JPG files can have EXIF data. No one is
> disputing that. Not even in this thread. In the thread being discussed
> (about Tattoo Vampire's pic), you said a SPECIFIC JPG had EXIF data,
> and it did not. There's a subtle difference there.
Subtle? The only thing subtle here is your rhetoric about Snit! :-)
--
And this is good old Boston,
The home of the bean and the cod,
Where the Lowells talk only to Cabots,
And the Cabots talk only to God.
Snit
2/15/11 4:49 AM:
> cc wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On Feb 12, 11:48?am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Peter is mad because he knows I am right that JPG files can have EXIF data.
>>> And he knows he is wrong about so many, many things. ?He is just one angry
>>> little man.
>>
>> Your claim NOW is that JPG files can have EXIF data. No one is
>> disputing that. Not even in this thread. In the thread being discussed
>> (about Tattoo Vampire's pic), you said a SPECIFIC JPG had EXIF data,
>> and it did not. There's a subtle difference there.
>
> Subtle? The only thing subtle here is your rhetoric about Snit! :-)
My claim: JPG files can have EXIF data. I have not said word one about any
specific JPG... CC simply made that up.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> Chris Ahlstrom stated in post ijdp76$le...@news.eternal-september.org on
Not true:
Here you make fun of Tattoo Vampire (for of all reasons) having a July
Calendar present when you claim the picture was taken August 28th.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/033ad0d7af48decf?hl=en&dmode=source
After TV makes fun of you for claiming the picture was taken in the
future, he says that your typo doesn't even matter, because it's
wrong. He took it in July.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/d2d7266af5ed9bea?hl=en&dmode=source
Here you mention EXIF data SPECIFICALLY about the image TV posted:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/ccae1c6d597ce950?hl=en&dmode=source
Here you do it again:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/36a2ce30adc5a248?hl=en&dmode=source
One of the many, many, many, posts that follow that explain to you
that there was no EXIF data, that you claimed to exist.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/44895458d48b9a52?hl=en&dmode=source
After that it devolved into you making all sorts of excuses. The posts
clearly show that: You brought up the date a SPECIFIC picture was
taken, TV denied that it was taken either in the future or the day you
really meant (you had a typo), you respond to TV's post about that
SPECIFIC pic, SPECIFICALLY claiming it had EXIF data, and then
everyone points out to you that it did not, in fact, contain any EXIF
data.
Therefore I'm not a liar. Also, I believe the links I posted are the
thread everyone is talking about, not some nonsense you spouted above.
You of course will make up some wild excuse or something and I'll lose
interest like I did when talking about HCI with you after I emailed
John M. Carroll and confirmed my statements with him.
Snit
8481e7ee-82e8-40db...@r4g2000prm.googlegroups.com on 2/16/11
3:36 PM:
> On Feb 15, 10:53�am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> Chris Ahlstrom stated in post ijdp76$le...@news.eternal-september.org on
>> 2/15/11 4:49 AM:
>>
>>> cc wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>>> On Feb 12, 11:48?am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Peter is mad because he knows I am right that JPG files can have EXIF
>>>>> data.
>>>>> And he knows he is wrong about so many, many things. ?He is just one angry
>>>>> little man.
>>
>>>> Your claim NOW is that JPG files can have EXIF data. No one is
>>>> disputing that. Not even in this thread. In the thread being discussed
>>>> (about Tattoo Vampire's pic), you said a SPECIFIC JPG had EXIF data,
>>>> and it did not. There's a subtle difference there.
>>
>>> Subtle? �The only thing subtle here is your rhetoric about Snit! �:-)
>>
>> My claim: JPG files can have EXIF data. �I have not said word one about any
>> specific JPG... CC simply made that up.
>>
>
> Not true:
Yes it is. That is my claim. You can say it is not, but it is.
And no, I am not interested in a movement of goal posts to a completely
different topic from, I kid you not, 2008. Yes, that is what you ran to.
That is, well, absurd.
...
> Therefore I'm not a liar.
Sure you are... you claimed I was talking about some specific files when I
was merely noting that JPG files can have EXIF data.
> Also, I believe the links I posted are the thread everyone is talking about,
Nope. HPT was very clear about the thread he meant:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/43263f575ac40353>
And Peter K�hlmann jumped in to agree that was the thread he meant:
Peter K�hlmann:
-----
But the 2 pictures in that very thread had *no* EXIF data
-----
> not some nonsense you spouted above. You of course will make up some wild
> excuse or something and I'll lose interest like I did when talking about HCI
> with you after I emailed John M. Carroll and confirmed my statements with him.
You were completely clueless about HCI... why even bring that up? Here, the
summary of your BS:
* How sciences need "proofs and rules": This claim of yours is not only
completely unsupported, you have denied that some sciences with rules and
proofs are sciences, which shows, at the very least, your "rules and proofs"
criterion, which has no support, is not your only criterion. I do not
believe you have listed any others.
* Your claims that laws are irrefutable: it was pointed out to you that many
laws have been refuted, even Newton's Laws, as they do not pertain to the
very small or the very fast. You then softened your claim to say they are
irrefutable if applied to the "correct model", but have given no comment on
how these models change, nor have you been able to explain why some "laws"
have been refuted and are no longer accepted even in limited models, with
Bode's law and the biogenetic law being used as examples. This completely
trounced your claim that laws are "indisputable". They simply are not so...
laws have been disputed, limited, and refuted.
* You have insisted that HCI is not science because some things might
change, such as the use of the color red to catch attention. This is akin
to saying that while material X is used in buildings now, material Y might
be used in the future, so this Physics is not a science. It simply is not a
logical conclusion.
On and on... but your humiliation over that at least explains why you feel
the need to lie about me now.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> cc stated in post
> 8481e7ee-82e8-40db-93a4-7ea4e02c9...@r4g2000prm.googlegroups.com on 2/16/11
> 3:36 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 10:53 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> Chris Ahlstrom stated in post ijdp76$le...@news.eternal-september.org on
> >> 2/15/11 4:49 AM:
>
> >>> cc wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
> >>>> On Feb 12, 11:48?am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Peter is mad because he knows I am right that JPG files can have EXIF
> >>>>> data.
> >>>>> And he knows he is wrong about so many, many things. ?He is just one angry
> >>>>> little man.
>
> >>>> Your claim NOW is that JPG files can have EXIF data. No one is
> >>>> disputing that. Not even in this thread. In the thread being discussed
> >>>> (about Tattoo Vampire's pic), you said a SPECIFIC JPG had EXIF data,
> >>>> and it did not. There's a subtle difference there.
>
> >>> Subtle? The only thing subtle here is your rhetoric about Snit! :-)
>
> >> My claim: JPG files can have EXIF data. I have not said word one about any
> >> specific JPG... CC simply made that up.
>
> > Not true:
>
> Yes it is. That is my claim. You can say it is not, but it is.
>
> And no, I am not interested in a movement of goal posts to a completely
> different topic from, I kid you not, 2008. Yes, that is what you ran to.
>
> That is, well, absurd.
Whatever you say, Ignatius.
> ...
>
> > Therefore I'm not a liar.
>
> Sure you are... you claimed I was talking about some specific files when I
> was merely noting that JPG files can have EXIF data.
Whatever you say, Ignatius.
> > Also, I believe the links I posted are the thread everyone is talking about,
>
> Nope. HPT was very clear about the thread he meant:
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/43263f575ac...>
>
> And Peter K hlmann jumped in to agree that was the thread he meant:
>
> Peter K hlmann:
> -----
> But the 2 pictures in that very thread had *no* EXIF data
> -----
That very thread was referring to the one from 2008. How you can not
see that Ignatius, is not beyond me.
Whatever you say, Ignatius. But to add one more thing on this, who am
I to believe is right, John Carroll, or you? I've gotten posts (or in
one case emails) directed to me from both of you. Which source should
I choose? Hmmm..... so tough. Renowned author on HCI, or a guy who
claimed he took classes on making GUI's have pretty pictures. Hmm....
Really that's the only response I need. You can ignore the statements
above, which you will do anyway. If I have a written statement from
John Carroll about my opinions on HCI, and I have a written statement
from you about my opinions on HCI, which one should I give more weight
to?
Snit
930b2397-84b9-47f0...@t15g2000prt.googlegroups.com on 2/23/11
7:49 AM:
...
>>> Not true:
>>
>> Yes it is. That is my claim. You can say it is not, but it is.
>>
>> And no, I am not interested in a movement of goal posts to a completely
>> different topic from, I kid you not, 2008. Yes, that is what you ran to.
>>
>> That is, well, absurd.
>
> Whatever you say, Ignatius.
Non-response noted. You are waving your white flag. In other words, your
words show you know I am right.
...
>> Nope. HPT was very clear about the thread he meant:
>>
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/43263f575ac...>
>>
>> And Peter K hlmann jumped in to agree that was the thread he meant:
>>
>> Peter K hlmann:
>> -----
>> But the 2 pictures in that very thread had *no* EXIF data
>> -----
>
> That very thread was referring to the one from 2008.
The thread HPT pointed to was from 2010, not 2008. Check the link yourself
(snipped above, but here it is again):
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/43263f575ac40353>
Or, to keep it shorter: <http://goo.gl/KDJ0j>
And Peter jumped in to say that he, too, was talking about "that very
thread". From 2010.
Your name calling shows your insecurity... not even you believe your own
claims. Since you do not, why should anyone else take you seriously at all?
> But to add one more thing on this, who am I to believe is right, John Carroll,
> or you?
You contradicted him... as was noted many times. In that debate, you did
not:
* Find a single place you and Carroll actually agree (on any point
in contention)
* Acknowledge you have been shown general rules. You have.
* Apologize for your clearly false and hypocritical accusation of
not reading a paper you thought the appendix of was a "student
worksheet".
* Acknowledge or thank me for helping you to understand when
consistency is important.
* Acknowledge the obvious fact that Carroll knows psychology and
HCI are sciences.
You also spewed insults and lies. And you are doing the same thing... just
spewing insults and lies. It is what you do. Look below: you just flat
out lie - claiming to follow Carroll when you failed to find a single place
you and he agreed on *any* point that is in contention. Any. How can you
define that as you agreeing with him on anything relevant?
> I've gotten posts (or in one case emails) directed to me from both of
> you. Which source should I choose? Hmmm..... so tough. Renowned author on HCI,
> or a guy who claimed he took classes on making GUI's have pretty pictures.
> Hmm.... Really that's the only response I need. You can ignore the statements
> above, which you will do anyway. If I have a written statement from John
> Carroll about my opinions on HCI, and I have a written statement from you
> about my opinions on HCI, which one should I give more weight to?
You should stop lying... that is my view and my wish. But you will not. Oh
well.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
>> You were completely clueless about HCI... why even bring that up? Here, the
>> summary of your BS:
>>
>> * How sciences need "proofs and rules": This claim of yours is not only
>> completely unsupported, you have denied that some sciences with rules and
>> proofs are sciences, which shows, at the very least, your "rules and proofs"
>> criterion, which has no support, is not your only criterion. I do not
>> believe you have listed any others.
Forgot to ask: did you ever find any support for your claim? You have had a
long time to look now.
>> * Your claims that laws are irrefutable: it was pointed out to you that many
>> laws have been refuted, even Newton's Laws, as they do not pertain to the
>> very small or the very fast. You then softened your claim to say they are
>> irrefutable if applied to the "correct model", but have given no comment on
>> how these models change, nor have you been able to explain why some "laws"
>> have been refuted and are no longer accepted even in limited models, with
>> Bode's law and the biogenetic law being used as examples. This completely
>> trounced your claim that laws are "indisputable". They simply are not so...
>> laws have been disputed, limited, and refuted.
Any response yet to this... where you were flat out proved to be wrong?
>> * You have insisted that HCI is not science because some things might
>> change, such as the use of the color red to catch attention. This is akin
>> to saying that while material X is used in buildings now, material Y might
>> be used in the future, so this Physics is not a science. It simply is not a
>> logical conclusion.
And any response for this? In the past you completely failed. Any chance
you can actually rise to the occasion and *try* to support your views now?
>> On and on... but your humiliation over that at least explains why you feel
>> the need to lie about me now.
>
> Whatever you say, Ignatius. But to add one more thing on this, who am
> I to believe is right, John Carroll, or you? I've gotten posts (or in
> one case emails) directed to me from both of you. Which source should
> I choose? Hmmm..... so tough. Renowned author on HCI, or a guy who
> claimed he took classes on making GUI's have pretty pictures. Hmm....
> Really that's the only response I need. You can ignore the statements
> above, which you will do anyway. If I have a written statement from
> John Carroll about my opinions on HCI, and I have a written statement
> from you about my opinions on HCI, which one should I give more weight
> to?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> 7:49 AM:
>
> >> You were completely clueless about HCI... why even bring that up? Here, the
> >> summary of your BS:
>
> >> * How sciences need "proofs and rules": This claim of yours is not only
> >> completely unsupported, you have denied that some sciences with rules and
> >> proofs are sciences, which shows, at the very least, your "rules and proofs"
> >> criterion, which has no support, is not your only criterion. I do not
> >> believe you have listed any others.
>
> Forgot to ask: did you ever find any support for your claim? You have had a
> long time to look now.
>
> >> * Your claims that laws are irrefutable: it was pointed out to you that many
> >> laws have been refuted, even Newton's Laws, as they do not pertain to the
> >> very small or the very fast. You then softened your claim to say they are
> >> irrefutable if applied to the "correct model", but have given no comment on
> >> how these models change, nor have you been able to explain why some "laws"
> >> have been refuted and are no longer accepted even in limited models, with
> >> Bode's law and the biogenetic law being used as examples. This completely
> >> trounced your claim that laws are "indisputable". They simply are not so...
> >> laws have been disputed, limited, and refuted.
>
> Any response yet to this... where you were flat out proved to be wrong?
I don't believe I ever claimed laws are irrefutable.
> >> * You have insisted that HCI is not science because some things might
> >> change, such as the use of the color red to catch attention. This is akin
> >> to saying that while material X is used in buildings now, material Y might
> >> be used in the future, so this Physics is not a science. It simply is not a
> >> logical conclusion.
>
> And any response for this? In the past you completely failed. Any chance
> you can actually rise to the occasion and *try* to support your views now?
>
> >> On and on... but your humiliation over that at least explains why you feel
> >> the need to lie about me now.
>
> > Whatever you say, Ignatius. But to add one more thing on this, who am
> > I to believe is right, John Carroll, or you? I've gotten posts (or in
> > one case emails) directed to me from both of you. Which source should
> > I choose? Hmmm..... so tough. Renowned author on HCI, or a guy who
> > claimed he took classes on making GUI's have pretty pictures. Hmm....
> > Really that's the only response I need. You can ignore the statements
> > above, which you will do anyway. If I have a written statement from
> > John Carroll about my opinions on HCI, and I have a written statement
> > from you about my opinions on HCI, which one should I give more weight
> > to?
>
My only response to everything above, which you of course didn't
answer is, if I have an email from John Carroll where he responds to
my claims (only a fraction of which you stated above, and at least one
above I didn't state), or I have a post from you in which you respond
to my claims, which one should I give more weight to?
Snit
b13edbee-e6c9-4beb...@a8g2000pri.googlegroups.com on 2/23/11
9:20 AM:
> On Feb 23, 11:06 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> cc stated in post
>> 930b2397-84b9-47f0-944a-e7ba16f4e...@t15g2000prt.googlegroups.com on 2/23/11
>> 7:49 AM:
>>
>>>> You were completely clueless about HCI... why even bring that up? Here, the
>>>> summary of your BS:
>>
>>>> * How sciences need "proofs and rules": This claim of yours is not only
>>>> completely unsupported, you have denied that some sciences with rules and
>>>> proofs are sciences, which shows, at the very least, your "rules and
>>>> proofs" criterion, which has no support, is not your only criterion. I do
>>>> not believe you have listed any others.
>>>>
>> Forgot to ask: did you ever find any support for your claim? You have had a
>> long time to look now.
And your response is to dodge... you have *no* support for this claim.
>>>> * Your claims that laws are irrefutable: it was pointed out to you that
>>>> many
>>>> laws have been refuted, even Newton's Laws, as they do not pertain to the
>>>> very small or the very fast. You then softened your claim to say they are
>>>> irrefutable if applied to the "correct model", but have given no comment on
>>>> how these models change, nor have you been able to explain why some "laws"
>>>> have been refuted and are no longer accepted even in limited models, with
>>>> Bode's law and the biogenetic law being used as examples. This completely
>>>> trounced your claim that laws are "indisputable". They simply are not so...
>>>> laws have been disputed, limited, and refuted.
>>
>> Any response yet to this... where you were flat out proved to be wrong?
>
> I don't believe I ever claimed laws are irrefutable.
-----
All are "rules" or laws, and all have proofs (hence why they
are laws).
-----
The difference being an outcome of HCI research is not
guaranteed. A law is.
-----
Do you recall saying these things now?
And can you admit you were wrong?
>>>> * You have insisted that HCI is not science because some things might
>>>> change, such as the use of the color red to catch attention. This is akin
>>>> to saying that while material X is used in buildings now, material Y might
>>>> be used in the future, so this Physics is not a science. It simply is not a
>>>> logical conclusion.
>>
>> And any response for this? In the past you completely failed. Any chance
>> you can actually rise to the occasion and *try* to support your views now?
And you *still* have no response to this. OK.
>>>> On and on... but your humiliation over that at least explains why you feel
>>>> the need to lie about me now.
>>
>>> Whatever you say, Ignatius. But to add one more thing on this, who am
>>> I to believe is right, John Carroll, or you? I've gotten posts (or in
>>> one case emails) directed to me from both of you. Which source should
>>> I choose? Hmmm..... so tough. Renowned author on HCI, or a guy who
>>> claimed he took classes on making GUI's have pretty pictures. Hmm....
>>> Really that's the only response I need. You can ignore the statements
>>> above, which you will do anyway. If I have a written statement from
>>> John Carroll about my opinions on HCI, and I have a written statement
>>> from you about my opinions on HCI, which one should I give more weight
>>> to?
>>
>
> My only response to everything above, which you of course didn't
> answer is, if I have an email from John Carroll where he responds to
> my claims (only a fraction of which you stated above, and at least one
> above I didn't state), or I have a post from you in which you respond
> to my claims, which one should I give more weight to?
Given that you have yet to show where you agree with Carroll on any
controversial point, your *claim* to have some unquoted comments from him
are completely and wholly irrelevant. No matter who has said what, *you*
have the obligation to show *you* have learned and understand the topic you
claim to understand. As it stands, you have shown extreme ignorance on the
topics of HCI and what sciences are. If you want your views to be accepted,
you will need to show you can support them, as I have shown I can support my
views.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
Where in those quotes do I say a law is irrefutable? I searched for
the word irrefutable in there and didn't find it. I looked up synonyms
of the word "irrefutable" here: http://www.synonym.com/synonyms/irrefutable/
and also did not find any of those synonmys in what I'm assuming are
quotes from me (you didn't provide a link). So I fail to see how I'm
wrong about something I didn't say.
> >>>> * You have insisted that HCI is not science because some things might
> >>>> change, such as the use of the color red to catch attention. This is akin
> >>>> to saying that while material X is used in buildings now, material Y might
> >>>> be used in the future, so this Physics is not a science. It simply is not a
> >>>> logical conclusion.
>
> >> And any response for this? In the past you completely failed. Any chance
> >> you can actually rise to the occasion and *try* to support your views now?
>
> And you *still* have no response to this. OK.
>
My response is below.
I have shown where I agree. You have not supported anything, other to
say that you were right. You have shown no understanding of scenario
based design or HCI. You're also dodging questions. I'll repeat as
much as I deem necessary to get a response. If I have an email from
John Carroll where he responds to my claims (only a fraction of which
you stated above, and at least one above I didn't state), or I have a
post from you in which you respond to my claims, which one should I
give more weight to? That is the only question I care to see answered,
and the only one you care to dodge at the moment it seems.
Snit
b010c51a-26ea-4dd8...@a11g2000pro.googlegroups.com on 2/23/11
11:01 AM:
...
>>>>>> * How sciences need "proofs and rules": This claim of yours is not only
>>>>>> completely unsupported, you have denied that some sciences with rules and
>>>>>> proofs are sciences, which shows, at the very least, your "rules and
>>>>>> proofs" criterion, which has no support, is not your only criterion. I do
>>>>>> not believe you have listed any others.
>>
>>>> Forgot to ask: did you ever find any support for your claim? You have had a
>>>> long time to look now.
>>
>> And your response is to dodge... you have *no* support for this claim.
And you are still dodging this.
...
>>> I don't believe I ever claimed laws are irrefutable.
>>
>> -----
>> All are "rules" or laws, and all have proofs (hence why they
>> are laws).
>> -----
>> The difference being an outcome of HCI research is not
>> guaranteed. A law is.
>> -----
>>
>> Do you recall saying these things now?
>>
>> And can you admit you were wrong?
>
> Where in those quotes do I say a law is irrefutable?
Ah, you *incorrectly* think it is something which has been proved... but
also something that can be refuted. And you think it can be guaranteed...
but can also be refuted.
How does that work?
Oh, it does not... you are just showing you have no real view.
> I searched for the word irrefutable in there and didn't find it. I looked up
> synonyms of the word "irrefutable" here:
> http://www.synonym.com/synonyms/irrefutable/ and also did not find any of
> those synonmys in what I'm assuming are quotes from me (you didn't provide a
> link). So I fail to see how I'm wrong about something I didn't say.
You fail to see many very, very clear things. Oh well. Remember: you are
very, very bad at supporting your views or in understanding other's views.
Do not blame me or anyone else for your lacking there.
>>>>>> * You have insisted that HCI is not science because some things might
>>>>>> change, such as the use of the color red to catch attention. This is akin
>>>>>> to saying that while material X is used in buildings now, material Y
>>>>>> might be used in the future, so this Physics is not a science. It simply
>>>>>> is not >>>>>> a logical conclusion.
>>>>>>
>>>> And any response for this? In the past you completely failed. Any chance
>>>> you can actually rise to the occasion and *try* to support your views now?
>>>>
>> And you *still* have no response to this. OK.
>>
> My response is below.
...
>> Given that you have yet to show where you agree with Carroll on any
>> controversial point, your *claim* to have some unquoted comments from him
>> are completely and wholly irrelevant. No matter who has said what, *you*
>> have the obligation to show *you* have learned and understand the topic you
>> claim to understand. As it stands, you have shown extreme ignorance on the
>> topics of HCI and what sciences are. If you want your views to be accepted,
>> you will need to show you can support them, as I have shown I can support my
>> views.
>>
>
> I have shown where I agree.
Such as? What?
The answer is nothing. Not a thing.
> You have not supported anything, other to say that you were right.
Grossly incorrect. I have used studies and standards bodies and expert
opinion, I have used pictorial and video examples, I have used quotes from
the very people you pointed to... only to have you out and out deny that the
quotes are in the very things you pointed to. For example, you pointed to
this:
<http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=carole_ge
orge> OR <http://goo.gl/4RWkz>
I then quoted from the paper - comments that contradicted your claims:
-----
* The redesign strives for consistency in font color and
size, bucket labels, placement of links (preferably at the
beginning of the text), and simple design. Consistency
throughout the site is not only visually pleasing, but
decreases the learning curve.
...
* Consistency in the form of global design, header, footer,
and labeling decreases the learning curve for users and
increases the usability of the site. This also increases
usability for returning users, that is, once they learn to
navigate the site, remembering the location is easier.
...
* A global header is useful in providing users with a sense
of place, that is, where they are and how to get home, and is
important to navigation.
-----
You absurdly denied those quotes were a part of the material... even going
so far as to claim they were student worksheets or some such nonsense and
were not related to the very thing they are a part of. In other words, you
just flat out made things up to try to defend your unsupportable views.
So you made things up. I showed overwhelming evidence. And yet you spew
nonsense like the below (note your complete lack of support):
> You have shown no understanding of scenario based design or HCI. You're also
> dodging questions. I'll repeat as much as I deem necessary to get a response.
> If I have an email from John Carroll where he responds to my claims (only a
> fraction of which you stated above, and at least one above I didn't state), or
> I have a post from you in which you respond to my claims, which one should I
> give more weight to? That is the only question I care to see answered, and the
> only one you care to dodge at the moment it seems.
I already answered this... see above, and I will quote it for you *again*:
-----
Given that you have yet to show where you agree with Carroll on
any controversial point, your *claim* to have some unquoted
comments from him are completely and wholly irrelevant. No matter
who has said what, *you* have the obligation to show *you* have
learned and understand the topic you claim to understand. As it
stands, you have shown extreme ignorance on the topics of HCI and
what sciences are. If you want your views to be accepted, you
will need to show you can support them, as I have shown I can
support my views.
-----
What part of that confuses you?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
Really? Guarantees can't be refuted? Thousands of sports stars would
disagree. Did Netown's laws of motion have proofs? Were they not
refuted by Einstein?
> > I searched for the word irrefutable in there and didn't find it. I looked up
> > synonyms of the word "irrefutable" here:
> >http://www.synonym.com/synonyms/irrefutable/and also did not find any of
> > those synonmys in what I'm assuming are quotes from me (you didn't provide a
> > link). So I fail to see how I'm wrong about something I didn't say.
>
> You fail to see many very, very clear things. Oh well. Remember: you are
> very, very bad at supporting your views or in understanding other's views.
> Do not blame me or anyone else for your lacking there.
Nice support there for showing that guarantee or a proof means
irrefutable. You're just a shining beacon of clarity when it comes to
supporting your views.
> <http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=car...
No you didn't. Not once below did you say whether I should give more
weight to Carroll or you. Below is an explanation as to why you're
dodging the question, not an answer to the question.
> -----
> Given that you have yet to show where you agree with Carroll on
> any controversial point, your *claim* to have some unquoted
> comments from him are completely and wholly irrelevant. No matter
> who has said what, *you* have the obligation to show *you* have
> learned and understand the topic you claim to understand. As it
> stands, you have shown extreme ignorance on the topics of HCI and
> what sciences are. If you want your views to be accepted, you
> will need to show you can support them, as I have shown I can
> support my views.
> -----
>
> What part of that confuses you?
Nothing. It is of course, wholly wrong and completely irrelevant to my
question. Please stop dodging. It's a simple question.
Snit
8a23add5-bdd9-44df...@u24g2000prn.googlegroups.com on 2/23/11
2:01 PM:
>>>>>>>> * How sciences need "proofs and rules": This claim of yours is not only
>>>>>>>> completely unsupported, you have denied that some sciences with rules
>>>>>>>> and proofs are sciences, which shows, at the very least, your "rules
>>>>>>>> and proofs" criterion, which has no support, is not your only
>>>>>>>> criterion. I do not believe you have listed any others.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Forgot to ask: did you ever find any support for your claim? You have had
>>>>>> >>>>>> a long time to look now.
>>>>>>
>>>> And your response is to dodge... you have *no* support for this claim.
>>
>> And you are still dodging this.
Your whole BS about "proofs and rules" is just not something you are even
willing to try to respond to. You made it up to try to "prove" some
sciences are not sciences. And it back-fired on you... your silly claim was
called out and you folded. Got it.
So there we have it: you made a claim and when asked to support it you
folded.
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>>> I don't believe I ever claimed laws are irrefutable.
>>
>>>> -----
>>>> All are "rules" or laws, and all have proofs (hence why they
>>>> are laws).
>>>> -----
>>>> The difference being an outcome of HCI research is not
>>>> guaranteed. A law is.
>>>> -----
>>
>>>> Do you recall saying these things now?
>>
>>>> And can you admit you were wrong?
>>
>>> Where in those quotes do I say a law is irrefutable?
>>
>> Ah, you *incorrectly* think it is something which has been proved... but
>> also something that can be refuted. And you think it can be guaranteed...
>
>> but can also be refuted.
>>
>> How does that work?
>>
>> Oh, it does not... you are just showing you have no real view.
>
> Really? Guarantees can't be refuted? Thousands of sports stars would
> disagree.
Nice moving of goal posts.
> Did Netown's laws of motion have proofs?
You were the one who said laws did not prove things but explained them.
Remember? LOL!
> Were they not refuted by Einstein?
Ah, so proof are not really proved... so your whole BS about "proofs and
rules" was just you talking out your rear. Good: we agree you were making
claims you cannot back up. Oh, and your whole reason for saying some
sciences were not sciences is that it was possible their conclusions could
be refuted... but now you have back pedaled on that. See: you just make
things up as you go.
...
Gee: no comment from you about you being busted just out and out making
things up to try to support your views and then running when your own
sources contradict your views.
Why is that? Oh, other than you know your "support" blew up in your face.
Oh well.
...
>> I already answered this... see above, and I will quote it for you *again*:
>
> No you didn't.
Did... and quoted it *again* for you. And will do so again!
-----
Given that you have yet to show where you agree with Carroll on
any controversial point, your *claim* to have some unquoted
comments from him are completely and wholly irrelevant. No matter
who has said what, *you* have the obligation to show *you* have
learned and understand the topic you claim to understand. As it
stands, you have shown extreme ignorance on the topics of HCI and
what sciences are. If you want your views to be accepted, you
will need to show you can support them, as I have shown I can
support my views.
-----
> Not once below did you say whether I should give more weight to Carroll or
> you.
Being that you cannot show where he and I disagree the question is
meaningless. Remember: you could not show a single place you agreed with
him that was under contention. Not one. I showed several (for example, the
fact that some of the sciences you denied were sciences he agrees with me
that they are sciences). So accept what both he and I say - we agree
sciences are sciences.
> Below is an explanation as to why you're dodging the question, not an
> answer to the question.
>
>> -----
>> Given that you have yet to show where you agree with Carroll on
>> any controversial point, your *claim* to have some unquoted
>> comments from him are completely and wholly irrelevant. No matter
>> who has said what, *you* have the obligation to show *you* have
>> learned and understand the topic you claim to understand. As it
>> stands, you have shown extreme ignorance on the topics of HCI and
>> what sciences are. If you want your views to be accepted, you
>> will need to show you can support them, as I have shown I can
>> support my views.
>> -----
>>
>> What part of that confuses you?
>
>
> Nothing.
Yet you keep asking the same question over and over as if it was not
answered. Oh well. You are just being silly.
> It is of course, wholly wrong and completely irrelevant to my
> question. Please stop dodging. It's a simple question.
And it has been answered repeatedly. By the way: I would not say you should
blindly believe him or me. Look at the *evidence* and the *support*.
> If I have an email from John Carroll
So you say. With no support. And since you were caught just making things
up (as shown above) there is *no* reason to believe this.
> where he responds to my claims (only a fraction of which you stated above, and
> at least one above I didn't state), or I have a post from you in which you
> respond to my claims, which one should I give more weight to?
You should stop making things up. Follow the evidence and the support and
stop making appeals to some form authority you cannot even show agrees with
you... the very same authority who *disagrees* with you, in fact.
But that will go over your head. You have it in your mind to whine until I
say who you should believe, your imaginary "email" from an expert that
allegedly says something you cannot share or if you should believed me... on
the same topic, presumably... the very one you will not even say what you
are talking about.
So believe what you want: I will follow the evidence and use support. You
will find your own way. I am OK with that.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
How is it moving goal posts to point out that guarantees are
refutable?
> > Did Netown's laws of motion have proofs?
>
> You were the one who said laws did not prove things but explained them.
> Remember? LOL!
Where did I say that? Nice support.
> > Were they not refuted by Einstein?
>
> Ah, so proof are not really proved... so your whole BS about "proofs and
> rules" was just you talking out your rear. Good: we agree you were making
> claims you cannot back up. Oh, and your whole reason for saying some
> sciences were not sciences is that it was possible their conclusions could
> be refuted... but now you have back pedaled on that. See: you just make
> things up as you go.
>
You are the one making claims you can't back up. Where did I saw laws
are irrefutable? Why can't proofs be disproved? I never said sciences
were sciences because their conclusions could not be refuted. Please
quote me on that. Oh wait, you can't!
Wow. A whole lot of nonsense above there. Well I guess I will have to
answer my own question then, since you prefer to dodge. I will choose
a John Carroll email over a post from you. Why, you ask? Well because
he is a pioneer in the field and an author of books on the subject of
HCI, besides being a practicing professor. You are a no talent ass
clown who lies about sources he sites and claims to take HCI classes
he hasn't taken. I emailed Dr. Carroll a while ago with the exact same
statements you claim he disagrees with me on! Guess what? He doesn't!
So I was left in sort of a pickle. Do I trust my education (of which I
gave you links to the college, professors, and courses I took), all
the online material, authoritative books on HCI, and an email from one
of the pioneers in HCI directly answering my question? Or, do I trust
Snit, who can't understand the source material he reads, and claims to
have taken HCI classes (of which the class names he mentioned are not
even possibly HCI classes, anywhere)? I have no obligation to prove
anything to anyone. I do this for a living, and I've taken the
classes. You have never even attempted scenario based design of all
things, and you are an utter moron who likes to quote snippets of text
without reading the surrounding context and hopes people don't call
you on your bullshit. You can continue you're little bullshit
consistency argument and pretend like you're supporting it with actual
facts. I'm going to sit here with my rock solid evidence that my
statements were agreed with by the go to source for all things HCI and
just laugh and laugh and laugh. At you, of course. You don't know a
thing about HCI, but you are unable to see that because you just have
to be right. You are a true Ignatius Reilly. I will now let you
continue to think you're educating the other morons that populate this
group. Toodles.
Snit
I accept you white flag. Why not just admit from the start you have nothing
to back your views?
Face it... your own sources shot you down and you now have to resort to
appeals to *imaginary* authority - some email that does not even exist from
a man you cannot name one area you agree with him in nor explain why you
disagree with his views so often.
But at least you amuse me in you desperation. :).
--
[insert .sig here]
cc
Idiots are known to laugh at things they can't understand. As far as
imaginary authority, well why don't you email him? I mean the only way
to really prove to you that the email exists is to have you come to my
home and view it on my screen. Even then I have no doubt you'll scream
that it's some elaborate hoax. Do you want me to copy and paste it
here? You'll call it a fake. This debate was easily settled, and I
took matters into my own hands and did just that. Feel free to get
educated if you so desire. Maybe you already did, and did not like the
answer you received?
Snit
0cda0bac-7b55-4a68...@q2g2000pre.googlegroups.com on 2/23/11
3:01 PM:
...
>> I accept you white flag. Why not just admit from the start you have nothing
>> to back your views?
>>
>> Face it... your own sources shot you down and you now have to resort to
>> appeals to *imaginary* authority - some email that does not even exist from
>> a man you cannot name one area you agree with him in nor explain why you
>> disagree with his views so often.
>>
>> But at least you amuse me in you desperation. :).
>>
>
> Idiots are known to laugh at things they can't understand. As far as
> imaginary authority, well why don't you email him? I mean the only way
> to really prove to you that the email exists is to have you come to my
> home and view it on my screen. Even then I have no doubt you'll scream
> that it's some elaborate hoax. Do you want me to copy and paste it
> here? You'll call it a fake. This debate was easily settled, and I
> took matters into my own hands and did just that. Feel free to get
> educated if you so desire. Maybe you already did, and did not like the
> answer you received?
1) You cannot name a place where you *agree* with Carroll.
2) You have already made it clear you *disagree* with Carroll over things
such as if some sciences are really sciences (they are: as Carroll and I
agree on and you deny... or sometimes just say you think it is debatable)
3) You flip flop and change your story, such as what you even think makes a
science a science... rules and proofs you used to say, whining how you do
not understand how some sciences have such irrefutable things... but now you
completely back pedal on that.
4) Your own sources repeatedly disagreed with your claims - as in the
example I gave about <http://goo.gl/4RWkz> that you simple ran away from.
5) My claims about GUIs are backed up by expert opinion, public studies,
corporate internal studies, multiple UI guidelines (including those form
Apple, MS, KDE and Gnome), etc. Your "counter" is to say you have some
email you cannot even quote or paraphrase. In other words, *nothing*.
Face it: you have *no* point to make - you just whine and name call. Here,
prove me wrong: make a point about GUIs you think
1) You can support
2) You think there is disagreement about
For bonus points, since you focus on Carroll so much, show where he agrees
with you.
You *will* fail. You have *no* points to make which you can back up with
any form of evidence whatsoever. You folded. You waved your white flag.
You gave up. Now it is just you whining and name calling and bragging about
an email you almost surely do not even have.
Now please try to make a point in your reply or risk being ignored. Your
content-lacking posts are getting boring.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]