Hey, QUACK
Tattoo Vampire
http://a473.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/60/l_c225086fae68bd07a1748f3fc9873758.jpg
http://a533.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/17/l_0f6a6662b5dbed026dcae9cb169cb234.jpg
--
Regards,
[tv]
...Is there ever a day when mattresses are NOT on sale?
Owner/Proprietor, Cheesus Crust Pizza Company
Good to the last supper
Linonut
> Here's some more hair pics for you to obsess over:
>
> http://a473.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/60/l_c225086fae68bd07a1748f3fc9873758.jpg
> http://a533.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/17/l_0f6a6662b5dbed026dcae9cb169cb234.jpg
My God, you've aged!
And what a comb-over.
The gray! Man, you're almost dead already!
The cheesy decor!
I thought wood veneer panelling went out in the 60's!
Thank God you're wearing clothes!
<chuckles inanely>
--
To give happiness is to deserve happiness.
Snit
1vizlwjo2e95t$.dlg@this.domain.or.that on 8/26/08 3:20 PM:
> Here's some more hair pics for you to obsess over:
>
> http://a473.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/60/l_c225086fae68bd07a1748f3fc98
> 73758.jpg
> http://a533.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/17/l_0f6a6662b5dbed026dcae9cb169
> cb234.jpg
I love the picture taken on 28 August 2008... with the *July* calendar still
showing in background. That made me chuckle.
--
... something I'm committed to work on, focusing increasing amounts of
resources of Canonical on figuring out on how we actually move the desktop
experience forward to compete with Mac OS X.
- Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)
Tattoo Vampire
> I thought wood veneer panelling went out in the 60's!
I just moved into that office and haven't had a chance to decorate. :-P
--
Regards,
[tv]
...Eschew Obfuscation!
Snit
dk0tk.17368$De7....@bignews7.bellsouth.net on 8/26/08 4:32 PM:
> * Tattoo Vampire peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> Here's some more hair pics for you to obsess over:
>>
>> http://a473.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/60/l_c225086fae68bd07a1748f3fc9
>> 873758.jpg
>> http://a533.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/17/l_0f6a6662b5dbed026dcae9cb16
>> 9cb234.jpg
>
> My God, you've aged!
>
> And what a comb-over.
>
> The gray! Man, you're almost dead already!
>
> The cheesy decor!
>
> I thought wood veneer panelling went out in the 60's!
>
> Thank God you're wearing clothes!
>
> <chuckles inanely>
My favorite is the picture taken on 28 August 2008... with the *July*
calendar still showing in background. That made me chuckle.
--
"Uh... ask me after we ship the next version of Windows [laughs] then I'll
be more open to give you a blunt answer." - Bill Gates
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/gates/>
Tattoo Vampire
> I love the picture taken on 28 August 2008... with the *July* calendar still
> showing in background. That made me chuckle.
How could it be taken on August 28th when today is only the 26th?
--
Regards,
[tv]
...Eschew Obfuscation!
Owner/Proprietor, Cheesus Crust Pizza Company
Tattoo Vampire
> My favorite is the picture taken on 28 August 2008... with the *July*
> calendar still showing in background. That made me chuckle.
What's today's date, dummy?
--
Regards,
[tv]
..."I'll be Bach." - Johann Sebastian Schwarzenegger
Snit
> Linonut wrote:
>
>> I thought wood veneer panelling went out in the 60's!
>
> I just moved into that office and haven't had a chance to decorate. :-P
Just moved... but have an old calendar up. LOL!
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>
>> I love the picture taken on 28 August 2008... with the *July* calendar still
>> showing in background. That made me chuckle.
>
> How could it be taken on August 28th when today is only the 26th?
Hmmm, darn good question... and my typo.. it was taken today, on the 26th.
--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>
>> My favorite is the picture taken on 28 August 2008... with the *July*
>> calendar still showing in background. That made me chuckle.
>
> What's today's date, dummy?
I made a typo.
You "work" in a room with a month-old calendar.
Oh well.
LOL!
--
The answer to the water shortage is to dilute it.
Tattoo Vampire
> Hmmm, darn good question... and my typo.. it was taken today, on the 26th.
Wrong yet again, idiot. It was taken last month, after I moved into that
office. Last month was July, hence a July magazine schedule on the wall.
Follow that, Prescott Computer Guy?
--
Regards,
[tv]
...Why are there no size B batteries? (G. Carlin)
Tattoo Vampire
> Just moved... but have an old calendar up. LOL!
Does just moved mean in the past few days? Your trolling efforts are getting
lame, Michael.
And the next time you call, lose the fake falsetto, it made you sound really
girlish.
--
Regards,
[tv]
...Mainframe: the biggest PC peripheral you can buy.
Tattoo Vampire
> You "work" in a room with a month-old calendar.
Clue to the clueless: link posted today does not equal taken today. How can
you be that stupid but still have people entrust you with their personal
computers? Yet another hole in the "home business" tall tale...
--
Regards,
[tv]
...I don't have a solution, but I do admire the problem.
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>
>> You "work" in a room with a month-old calendar.
>
> Clue to the clueless: link posted today does not equal taken today.
And in next weeks lesson we shall discuss EXIF data!
> How can
> you be that stupid but still have people entrust you with their personal
> computers? Yet another hole in the "home business" tall tale...
And when the bulb turns on Tattoo Vampire shall slap himself on the
forehead. :)
--
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please
everyone. -- Bill Cosby
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Just moved... but have an old calendar up. LOL!
>
> Does just moved mean in the past few days? Your trolling efforts are getting
> lame, Michael.
>
> And the next time you call, lose the fake falsetto, it made you sound really
> girlish.
Gee, and before you denied you had lied about me calling you. How funny is
that!
--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Hmmm, darn good question... and my typo.. it was taken today, on the 26th.
>
> Wrong yet again, idiot. It was taken last month, after I moved into that
> office. Last month was July, hence a July magazine schedule on the wall.
> Follow that, Prescott Computer Guy?
EXIF.
Look it up.
--
The fact that OS X is growing and Linux isn't, tells you that OS X is
offering things that Linux is not.
William Poaster
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Just moved... but have an old calendar up. LOL!
>
> Does just moved mean in the past few days? Your trolling efforts are
> getting lame, Michael.
>
> And the next time you call, lose the fake falsetto, it made you sound
> really girlish.
Michael Snit Glasser isn't too bright, is he. He really shows himself to
be a clown.
--
ɐ ɯoɹɟ ʇuǝs sɐʍ ǝƃɐssǝɯ sıɥʇ
pǝǝʇuɐɹɐnƃ sı ɥɔıɥʍ ɹǝʇndɯoɔ
˙snɹıʌ ǝzopuıʍ $ɯ ǝɥʇ ɟo ǝǝɹɟ %00⇂
-- sɯǝʇsʎs xnuıl/nuƃ --
Tattoo Vampire
> EXIF.
>
> Look it up.
Nice try, but you're still full of it, Splut.
--
Regards,
[tv]
...I'm! A! Graduate! Of! The! Bill! Shatner! Acting! School!
Tattoo Vampire
> And in next weeks lesson we shall discuss EXIF data!
And of course you can use your great tech skills to post a screenshot of
said data?
This should be good. Will Snit fake something in order to save face? My
money says yes.
--
Regards,
[tv]
...User: The hardest-to-setup PC peripheral you can buy.
Peter Köhlmann
> Snit wrote:
>
>> And in next weeks lesson we shall discuss EXIF data!
>
> And of course you can use your great tech skills to post a screenshot of
> said data?
>
> This should be good. Will Snit fake something in order to save face? My
> money says yes.
Well, it *will* be good. Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser will muster all
his forging skills. After all, he will provide "proof" of data which is not
even present in those pictures
Business as usual for Snot Glasser. His proof is usually forged
--
Who the fuck is General Failure, and why is he reading my harddisk?
Linonut
> "Linonut" <lin...@bollsouth.nut> stated in post
>>> http://a473.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/60/l_c225086fae68bd07a1748f3fc9
>>> 873758.jpg
>>> http://a533.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/17/l_0f6a6662b5dbed026dcae9cb16
>>> 9cb234.jpg
>>
>> Thank God you're wearing clothes!
>
> My favorite is the picture taken on 28 August 2008... with the *July*
> calendar still showing in background. That made me chuckle.
Why? The calendar on the wall in my household "computer" room was at
June a couple days ago.
I need a calendar, I just type "cal".
--
The state of some commercial Un*x is more unsecure than any Linux box
without a root password...
-- Bernd Eckenfels
Linonut
> "Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> stated in post
> hn6xzdtx3gw7$.dlg@this.domain.or.that on 8/26/08 5:08 PM:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> You "work" in a room with a month-old calendar.
>>
>> Clue to the clueless: link posted today does not equal taken today.
>
> And in next weeks lesson we shall discuss EXIF data!
$ exif l_0f6a6662b5dbed026dcae9cb169cb234.jpg
Corrupt data (ExifLoader):
The data supplied does not seem to contain EXIF data.
$ exif l_c225086fae68bd07a1748f3fc9873758.jpg
Corrupt data (ExifLoader):
The data supplied does not seem to contain EXIF data.
--
Mid-Twenties Breakdown:
A period of mental collapse occurring in one's twenties,
often caused by an inability to function outside of school or
structured environments coupled with a realization of one's essential
aloneness in the world. Often marks induction into the ritual of
pharmaceutical usage.
-- Douglas Coupland, "Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated
Culture"
Peter Köhlmann
> * Snit peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> "Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> stated in post
>> hn6xzdtx3gw7$.dlg@this.domain.or.that on 8/26/08 5:08 PM:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> You "work" in a room with a month-old calendar.
>>>
>>> Clue to the clueless: link posted today does not equal taken today.
>>
>> And in next weeks lesson we shall discuss EXIF data!
>
> $ exif l_0f6a6662b5dbed026dcae9cb169cb234.jpg
> Corrupt data (ExifLoader):
> The data supplied does not seem to contain EXIF data.
>
> $ exif l_c225086fae68bd07a1748f3fc9873758.jpg
> Corrupt data (ExifLoader):
> The data supplied does not seem to contain EXIF data.
>
Just don't mind. Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser will still provide the
proof. After all, he just forges it himself. Instant proof! Just as his
PDFs he routinely fabricates
And if all that does not help, he will claim that the EXIF data was removed
--
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons, For thou art crunchy, and good
with ketchup!
William Poaster
> Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> And in next weeks lesson we shall discuss EXIF data!
>>
>> And of course you can use your great tech skills to post a screenshot of
>> said data?
>>
>> This should be good. Will Snit fake something in order to save face? My
>> money says yes.
>
> Well, it *will* be good. Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser will muster
> all his forging skills. After all, he will provide "proof" of data which
> is not even present in those pictures
>
> Business as usual for Snot Glasser. His proof is usually forged
Well why not. After all he changes what people have *really* posted, &
tried to blackmail someone, so forgery is probably another of Michael Snit
Glasser's nefarious "talents".
Phil Da Lick!
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:53:56 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> And in next weeks lesson we shall discuss EXIF data!
>>> And of course you can use your great tech skills to post a screenshot of
>>> said data?
>>>
>>> This should be good. Will Snit fake something in order to save face? My
>>> money says yes.
>> Well, it *will* be good. Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser will muster
>> all his forging skills. After all, he will provide "proof" of data which
>> is not even present in those pictures
>>
>> Business as usual for Snot Glasser. His proof is usually forged
>
> Well why not. After all he changes what people have *really* posted, &
> tried to blackmail someone, so forgery is probably another of Michael Snit
> Glasser's nefarious "talents".
>
blackmail?
Tattoo Vampire
> $ exif l_0f6a6662b5dbed026dcae9cb169cb234.jpg
> Corrupt data (ExifLoader):
> The data supplied does not seem to contain EXIF data.
>
> $ exif l_c225086fae68bd07a1748f3fc9873758.jpg
> Corrupt data (ExifLoader):
> The data supplied does not seem to contain EXIF data.
Dangit, Linonut, you ruined everything. I was hoping the silly SOB would
concoct something to post here.
--
Regards,
[tv]
...Tip: Never take a beer to a job interview.
Tattoo Vampire
> And if all that does not help, he will claim that the EXIF data was removed
I bribed Linonaut.
--
Regards,
[tv]
...Working hard to become roadkill on the Infobahn.
Peter Köhlmann
> Linonut wrote:
>
>> $ exif l_0f6a6662b5dbed026dcae9cb169cb234.jpg
>> Corrupt data (ExifLoader):
>> The data supplied does not seem to contain EXIF data.
>>
>> $ exif l_c225086fae68bd07a1748f3fc9873758.jpg
>> Corrupt data (ExifLoader):
>> The data supplied does not seem to contain EXIF data.
>
> Dangit, Linonut, you ruined everything. I was hoping the silly SOB would
> concoct something to post here.
>
Does not matter. He already has shown his utter incompetence by sputtering
about EXIF data which is not even present.
Some "IT teacher" this Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser is! No wonder his
wife has to do all the work to put food on the table. Snot Glasser is
simply too dumb to get anything right
--
Programmer: A biological system designed to convert coffee and cheesies into
code
chrisv
>Shit::
>>
>> You "work" in a room with a month-old calendar.
>
>Clue to the clueless: link posted today does not equal taken today. How can
>you be that stupid but still have people entrust you with their personal
>computers?
Hehe. Your calendar is a month off, man! But don't feel too bad, I
have photos that prove that MY calendar is YEARS behind!
Sheesh. What a fsckwit!
chrisv
>Shit:
>>
>> EXIF.
>>
>> Look it up.
>
>Nice try, but you're still full of it, Splut.
Amazing how the POS makes a complete jackass of himself, then decides
to compound it by blubbering about EXIF data.
Andrew Halliwell
> "Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> stated in post
> 17jo33ik...@this.domain.or.that on 8/26/08 5:03 PM:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Hmmm, darn good question... and my typo.. it was taken today, on the 26th.
>>
>> Wrong yet again, idiot. It was taken last month, after I moved into that
>> office. Last month was July, hence a July magazine schedule on the wall.
>> Follow that, Prescott Computer Guy?
>
> EXIF.
And what does the EXIF metadata in those photos SAY?
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
Linonut
> Linonut wrote:
>
>> $ exif l_0f6a6662b5dbed026dcae9cb169cb234.jpg
>> Corrupt data (ExifLoader):
>> The data supplied does not seem to contain EXIF data.
>>
>> $ exif l_c225086fae68bd07a1748f3fc9873758.jpg
>> Corrupt data (ExifLoader):
>> The data supplied does not seem to contain EXIF data.
>
> Dangit, Linonut, you ruined everything. I was hoping the silly SOB would
> concoct something to post here.
When will I learn? Let 'em have enough rope first.
> ...Tip: Never take a beer to a job interview.
And if you do, be sure to share.
--
In every hierarchy the cream rises until it sours.
-- Dr. Laurence J. Peter
ml2mst
> Snit wrote:
>
>> You "work" in a room with a month-old calendar.
>
> Clue to the clueless: link posted today does not equal taken today. How can
> you be that stupid but still have people entrust you with their personal
> computers? Yet another hole in the "home business" tall tale...
I refused to respond to the Snot circus so far, but this is ridiculous :-p
I guess Snot's jealous and uses the calender BS to hide his frustration.
Let's compare:
http://a533.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/17/l_0f6a6662b5dbed026dcae9cb169cb234.jpg
and
http://prescottcomputerguy.org/
Now who'd ya thunk *any* guy loving person (F/M) would choose: the aged
- but good looking - stud, or the young babyfaced boy?
Bwahhahaha, what a joke :-)
Poor Snotster :-p
--
|_|0|_| Marti T. van Lin
|_|_|0| http://ml2mst.googlepages.com
|0|0|0| http://osgeex.blogspot.com
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>
>> EXIF.
>>
>> Look it up.
>
> Nice try, but you're still full of it, Splut.
You did not look up "EXIF" did you? LOL!
--
When thinking changes your mind, that's philosophy.
When God changes your mind, that's faith.
When facts change your mind, that's science.
Snit
YP2dnXAzNc_i3SjV...@posted.plusnet on 8/27/08 4:54 AM:
> William Poaster wrote:
...
>> Well why not. After all he changes what people have *really* posted, &
>> tried to blackmail someone, so forgery is probably another of Michael Snit
>> Glxsser's nefarious "talents".
>>
>
> blackmail?
Another of his lies. He does that.
A lot.
Geoff M. Fitton simply cannot stop himself from making serious yet dishonest
accusations in a public forum.
--
What do you call people who are afraid of Santa Claus? Claustrophobic.
Snit
8/27/08 9:01 AM:
> Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> You "work" in a room with a month-old calendar.
>>
>> Clue to the clueless: link posted today does not equal taken today. How can
>> you be that stupid but still have people entrust you with their personal
>> computers? Yet another hole in the "home business" tall tale...
>
> I refused to respond to the Snot circus so far, but this is ridiculous :-p
>
> I guess Snot's jealous and uses the calender BS to hide his frustration.
Frustration?
With what?
I snipped your BS about how each of us *look*. Note I did not comment on
his looks - others did, but not I. Frankly such actions would be below
me... but not you.
Sad, eh.
--
Never stand between a dog and the hydrant. - John Peers
Peter Köhlmann
> "Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> stated in post
> 1aqa7s1x...@this.domain.or.that on 8/27/08 3:25 AM:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> EXIF.
>>>
>>> Look it up.
>>
>> Nice try, but you're still full of it, Splut.
>
> You did not look up "EXIF" did you? LOL!
>
>
Why should he? His pictures did not contain any EXIF data, so
your "argument" of "EXIF" is just another lunacy of you,
Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser
Face it: You have shown again what kind of incompetent lying twit you are.
Don't you have to forge some PDFs showing those two files with EXIF data,
Michael Snot Glasser?
--
We are Linux. Resistance is measured in Ohms.
Snit
> * Snit peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> "Linonut" <lin...@bollsouth.nut> stated in post
>>>> http://a473.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/60/l_c225086fae68bd07a1748f3f
>>>> c9
>>>> 873758.jpg
>>>> http://a533.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/17/l_0f6a6662b5dbed026dcae9cb
>>>> 16
>>>> 9cb234.jpg
>>>
>>> Thank God you're wearing clothes!
>>
>> My favorite is the picture taken on 28 August 2008... with the *July*
>> calendar still showing in background. That made me chuckle.
>
> Why? The calendar on the wall in my household "computer" room was at
> June a couple days ago.
>
> I need a calendar, I just type "cal".
If you look at his he clearly has items on it... it shows how busy he is
not. :)
--
Satan lives for my sins... now *that* is dedication!
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>
>> And in next weeks lesson we shall discuss EXIF data!
>
> And of course you can use your great tech skills to post a screenshot of
> said data?
I trusted most in COLA are fully able to view EXIF data on their own.
Really.
I do admit, though, it seems I was wrong about that.
...
--
Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value.
--Albert Einstein
Snit
> * Snit peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> "Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> stated in post
>> hn6xzdtx3gw7$.dlg@this.domain.or.that on 8/26/08 5:08 PM:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> You "work" in a room with a month-old calendar.
>>>
>>> Clue to the clueless: link posted today does not equal taken today.
>>
>> And in next weeks lesson we shall discuss EXIF data!
>
> $ exif l_0f6a6662b5dbed026dcae9cb169cb234.jpg
> Corrupt data (ExifLoader):
> The data supplied does not seem to contain EXIF data.
>
> $ exif l_c225086fae68bd07a1748f3fc9873758.jpg
> Corrupt data (ExifLoader):
> The data supplied does not seem to contain EXIF data.
I have not even looked at what he currently has there.
I do not care.
--
I think we [the folks who make Linux desktops] don't yet deliver a good
enough user experience.
Andrew Halliwell
which keeps the photo auto updated?
(like in timeslides on red dwarf)
How primitive.
:)
--
| spi...@freenet.co,uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | |
| in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
| Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
Peter Köhlmann
> "Linonut" <lin...@bollsouth.nut> stated in post
> dHatk.16978$rD2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net on 8/27/08 4:16 AM:
>
>> * Snit peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>
>>> "Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> stated in post
>>> hn6xzdtx3gw7$.dlg@this.domain.or.that on 8/26/08 5:08 PM:
>>>
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You "work" in a room with a month-old calendar.
>>>>
>>>> Clue to the clueless: link posted today does not equal taken today.
>>>
>>> And in next weeks lesson we shall discuss EXIF data!
>>
>> $ exif l_0f6a6662b5dbed026dcae9cb169cb234.jpg
>> Corrupt data (ExifLoader):
>> The data supplied does not seem to contain EXIF data.
>>
>> $ exif l_c225086fae68bd07a1748f3fc9873758.jpg
>> Corrupt data (ExifLoader):
>> The data supplied does not seem to contain EXIF data.
>
> I have not even looked at what he currently has there.
>
> I do not care.
>
>
You are lying, naturally.
*You* have brought up the issue of EXIF data of those pictures
Snot Michael Glasser, in his total incompetence: "And in next weeks lesson
we shall discuss EXIF data!"
You are clearly the most incompetent "IT teacher" of all time, Michael
Glasser. Nobody deserves to be ripped off by a fraud like you
--
A fool-proof method for sculpting an elephant:
first, get a huge block of marble; then you chip
away everything that doesn't look like an elephant.
Peter Köhlmann
> "Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> stated in post
> caxr4nxgylmd$.dlg@this.domain.or.that on 8/27/08 3:42 AM:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> And in next weeks lesson we shall discuss EXIF data!
>>
>> And of course you can use your great tech skills to post a screenshot of
>> said data?
>
> I trusted most in COLA are fully able to view EXIF data on their own.
Actually, you can be fairly certain that almost 100% are
With the exception of some incompetent and dumb trolls like you or DFS,
perhaps
> Really.
Yes, really. The EXIF data is one mouseclick away
> I do admit, though, it seems I was wrong about that.
You were simply lying.
--
Confucius: He who play in root, eventually kill tree.
Clogwog
news:1vizlwjo2e95t$.dlg@this.domain.or.that...
> Here's some more hair pics for you to obsess over:
>
> http://a473.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/60/l_c225086fae68bd07a1748f3fc9873758.jpg
> http://a533.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/17/l_0f6a6662b5dbed026dcae9cb169cb234.jpg
Nice earring!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earring
"In the late 1960s, ear piercing began to make inroads among men through the
hippie and gay communities."
Tattoo Vampire
> I have not even looked at what he currently has there.
Currently has there? What does that have to do with the supposed EXIF data
on the image you downloaded? Are you admitting you made all this crap up?
Tattoo Vampire
> You are clearly the most incompetent "IT teacher" of all time, Michael
> Glasser. Nobody deserves to be ripped off by a fraud like you
Michael's next course for his "students" will be in how to backpedal at a
high rate of speed.
chrisv
>
>> "Linonut" <lin...@bollsouth.nut> stated in post
>> dHatk.16978$rD2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net on 8/27/08 4:16 AM:
>>
>>> * Snit peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>>
>>>
>>> $ exif l_0f6a6662b5dbed026dcae9cb169cb234.jpg
>>> Corrupt data (ExifLoader):
>>> The data supplied does not seem to contain EXIF data.
>>>
>>> $ exif l_c225086fae68bd07a1748f3fc9873758.jpg
>>> Corrupt data (ExifLoader):
>>> The data supplied does not seem to contain EXIF data.
>>
>> I have not even looked at what he currently has there.
>>
>> I do not care.
You are a bald-faced LIAR, Shit. Documented.
Your mother must be so proud, to have raised a dishonest,
attention-starved, POS like you.
chrisv
>The liar Michael Glasser (Snot/Snit/Rekruled) snotted:
>> "Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> stated:
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> EXIF.
>>>>
>>>> Look it up.
>>>
>>> Nice try, but you're still full of it, Splut.
>>
>> You did not look up "EXIF" did you? LOL!
>
>Why should he? His pictures did not contain any EXIF data, so
>your "argument" of "EXIF" is just another lunacy of you,
>Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser
>
>Face it: You have shown again what kind of incompetent lying twit you are.
Jezuz. What a worthless, trolling, piece of shit, this Sn^Hhit troll
is. He makes a jackass of himself regarding the "old calendar on the
wall", then goes on to make a *complete* jackass of himself on this
EXIF issue.
And he's still pretending that he's not just been utterly humiliated!
LOL'ing and baldly lying that it "seems" that he was wrong about us
being able to view EXIF data, which, I dare say, *everyone* in here is
able to do.
Sn^Hhit: Utterly shameless. Utterly dishonest. Utterly worthless.
Tattoo Vampire
> Now who'd ya thunk *any* guy loving person (F/M) would choose: the aged
> - but good looking - stud, or the young babyfaced boy?
>
> Bwahhahaha, what a joke :-)
>
> Poor Snotster :-p
I dunno... I haven't had hair long enough for a ponytail in years, but if
it's back in style, maybe I'll try it so I can look more "hip".
Tattoo Vampire
> If you look at his he clearly has items on it... it shows how busy he is
> not. :)
I guess you can't read. I posted previously that it was only a print
schedule for the July real estate magazines. *My* calendar is on my Palm
device. :-P
Tattoo Vampire
> I do admit, though, it seems I was wrong about that.
Wrong, my foot, you were lying your ass off. There was no EXIF data there
to read, period.
In your vanity you assumed most people wouldn't know what EXIF data was,
including me. You were figuring I'd panic or something, I guess. Instead
you were caught with your pants down, Splat.
How does that crow taste, Prescott "Computer" Guy?
Clogwog
news:g93tqb$5f7$1...@news.albasani.net...
> Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> You "work" in a room with a month-old calendar.
>>
>> Clue to the clueless: link posted today does not equal taken today. How
>> can
>> you be that stupid but still have people entrust you with their personal
>> computers? Yet another hole in the "home business" tall tale...
>
> I refused to respond to the Snot circus so far, but this is ridiculous :-p
>
> I guess Snot's jealous and uses the calender BS to hide his frustration.
>
> Let's compare:
>
> http://a533.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/17/l_0f6a6662b5dbed026dcae9cb169cb234.jpg
>
> and
>
> http://prescottcomputerguy.org/
>
> Now who'd ya thunk *any* guy loving person (F/M) would choose: the aged -
> but good looking - stud, or the young babyfaced boy?
>
> Bwahhahaha, what a joke :-)
>
[^ indicates up]
Boring Marti, very boring! You made it very clear to this group that you are
deeply in love with Don, although your in denial!
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/71872630895aca2f?dmode=source&output=gplain
"Don is yet another good looking dude"
Moshe Goldfarb.
Judging by the pictures Don posted of himself I would say he is "a little
light in the loafers" if you get my drift......
--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Tattoo Vampire
> Judging by the pictures Don posted of himself I would say he is "a little
> light in the loafers" if you get my drift......
Want me to blow you a kiss, flatty?
Snit
I did not keep the file. Why would I?
--
"In order to discover who you are, first learn who everybody else is. You're
what's left." - Skip Hansen
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>
>> I do admit, though, it seems I was wrong about that.
>
> Wrong, my foot, you were lying your ass off.
Wrong about what. Put the context back. Frankly your snipping to run from
your lies grows old.
Tattoo Vampire
> Wrong about what. Put the context back. Frankly your snipping to run from
> your lies grows old.
Context my ass. You claimed the EXIF tags showed that photo was taken on
8/28, a claim you later changed, excusing your original claim as a "typo".
Your lame comment "I may have been mistaken" is totally B.S. since that
photo had no EXIF data embedded in it.
In your zeal to make me look stupid, you only succeeded in making yourself
look like an utter fool.
Tattoo Vampire
> I did not keep the file. Why would I?
Oh, I don't know, to back up your original claim, maybe?
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Wrong about what. Put the context back. Frankly your snipping to run from
>> your lies grows old.
>
> Context my ass.
Context is important. Stop snipping it all away.
I caught you openly lying about my having called you... and now you keep
running to your silly picture as if that somehow makes it alright for you to
openly lie about my actions.
As far as your silly picture: You corrected me and said it was *26* and not
*28* as I wrote. Yup, I made a typo. Get over it. Freak out over
something else.
--
One who makes no mistakes, never makes anything.
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>
>> I do admit, though, it seems I was wrong about that.
>
> Wrong, my foot, you were lying your ass off.
The context of the comment you quoted:
-----
I trusted most in COLA are fully able to view EXIF data on their own.
Really.
I do admit, though, it seems I was wrong about that.
-----
Yup, I caught you in *another* dishonest act.
Can't you even *try* to be honest? Please?
Tattoo Vampire
> I caught you openly lying about my having called you... and now you keep
> running to your silly picture as if that somehow makes it alright for you to
> openly lie about my actions.
Who else would it have been?
> As far as your silly picture: You corrected me and said it was *26* and not
> *28* as I wrote. Yup, I made a typo. Get over it. Freak out over
> something else.
You're the one all in a tizzy because you got busted, Splat.
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>
>> I caught you openly lying about my having called you... and now you keep
>> running to your silly picture as if that somehow makes it alright for you to
>> openly lie about my actions.
>
> Who else would it have been?
I do not care one little bit about who calls you or not. Your private life
is of *no* interest to me.
The fact is you accused me, in a public forum, of calling you.
And you lied.
It is that simple.
>
>> As far as your silly picture: You corrected me and said it was *26* and not
>> *28* as I wrote. Yup, I made a typo. Get over it. Freak out over
>> something else.
>
> You're the one all in a tizzy because you got busted, Splat.
I made a typo and owned up to it when you pointed it out. Who cares?
--
You really have to give credit to Apple for driving innovation.
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>
>> I did not keep the file. Why would I?
>
> Oh, I don't know, to back up your original claim, maybe?
The date was not the 28th but, as you said, the 26th. Oh well. I made a
typo. Get over it.
--
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
--Aldous Huxley
Peter Köhlmann
> "Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> stated in post
> tiahonqy...@this.domain.or.that on 8/27/08 12:24 PM:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Wrong about what. Put the context back. Frankly your snipping to run
>>> from your lies grows old.
>>
>> Context my ass.
>
> Context is important. Stop snipping it all away.
What context, you dishonest twit?
The context was date of the pictures. You mumbled "EXIF"
You *lied* Michael Glasser. That is the simple truth. There was *no* EXIF
data you could have been talking about, you made it all up
> I caught you openly lying about my having called you... and now you keep
> running to your silly picture as if that somehow makes it alright for you
> to openly lie about my actions.
>
> As far as your silly picture: You corrected me and said it was *26* and
> not
> *28* as I wrote. Yup, I made a typo. Get over it. Freak out over
> something else.
He is not talking or "freaking out" over a typo.
He is talking about you making up "EXIF data" out of full cloth
And again Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser totally disregards the proof
that he was caught lying *again* with the stupid "EXIF" claim
--
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Geoff M. Fitton
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Just moved... but have an old calendar up. LOL!
>
> Does just moved mean in the past few days? Your trolling efforts are
> getting lame, Michael.
>
> And the next time you call, lose the fake falsetto, it made you sound
> really girlish.
Michael Snit Glasser isn't too bright, is he. He really shows himself to
be a clown.
--
? ?o?? ?u?s s?? ???ss?? si??
p???u???n? si ??i?? ???nd?o?
?sn?i? ?zopui? $? ??? ?o ???? %00?
-- s???s?s xnuil/nu? --
Geoff M. Fitton
> Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> And in next weeks lesson we shall discuss EXIF data!
>>
>> And of course you can use your great tech skills to post a screenshot of
>> said data?
>>
>> This should be good. Will Snit fake something in order to save face? My
>> money says yes.
>
> Well, it *will* be good. Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser will muster
> all his forging skills. After all, he will provide "proof" of data which
> is not even present in those pictures
>
> Business as usual for Snot Glasser. His proof is usually forged
Well why not. After all he changes what people have *really* posted, &
tried to blackmail someone, so forgery is probably another of Michael Snit
Glasser's nefarious "talents".
The Ghost In The Machine
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
wrote
on Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:41:37 -0700
<C4DAD1D1.D291A%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>:
> "Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> stated in post
>
>>
>>> And in next weeks lesson we shall discuss EXIF data!
>>
>> And of course you can use your great tech skills to post a screenshot of
>> said data?
>
>
> Really.
>
> I do admit, though, it seems I was wrong about that.
>
>
Define "view". At the very pedantic level that would
involve scanning the disk surface for undetectable (by us;
the flying head has no problem) magnetic domains; one can
also look at the raw waveform of the head.
At more useful levels one can look at bits, bytes, pixels,
or chunks. Apparently it can be an extension/fleshing out of
JPEG, standarizing certain properties, or TIFF.
I have no difficulties viewing the actual pictures
at http://www.exif.org/samples/ (presumably there's an
explanation for the pumpkin-colored top a woman in glasses
is wearing in the one picture, and the glasses-topped
pumpkin in the other :-) ) but neither Firefox nor its
assistant (if any) displays the properties thereof.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Linux. Because life's too short for a buggy OS.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
chrisv
I'd bet that just the thought of that got him "over the top".
Tattoo Vampire
> Can't you even *try* to be honest? Please?
Speaking of honest, where's the EXIF data from my photo, flatfish II? Still
waiting for that screen shot...
Snit
t8ngo5-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net on 8/27/08 12:41 PM:
>> I trusted most in COLA are fully able to view EXIF data on their own.
>>
>> Really.
>>
>> I do admit, though, it seems I was wrong about that.
>>
>> ...
>>
>
> Define "view".
Open an image, get info, and see the EXIF data. Most image editing programs
have this option.
> At the very pedantic level that would
> involve scanning the disk surface for undetectable (by us;
> the flying head has no problem) magnetic domains; one can
> also look at the raw waveform of the head.
That might be a fun way to spend an evening!
> At more useful levels one can look at bits, bytes, pixels,
> or chunks. Apparently it can be an extension/fleshing out of
> JPEG, standarizing certain properties, or TIFF.
>
> I have no difficulties viewing the actual pictures
> at http://www.exif.org/samples/ (presumably there's an
> explanation for the pumpkin-colored top a woman in glasses
> is wearing in the one picture, and the glasses-topped
> pumpkin in the other :-) ) but neither Firefox nor its
> assistant (if any) displays the properties thereof.
<?xpacket begin="" id="W5M0MpCehiHzreSzNTczkc9d"?>
<x:xmpmeta xmlns:x="adobe:ns:meta/" x:xmptk="Adobe XMP Core 4.1-c036
46.276720, Mon Feb 19 2007 22:13:43 ">
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
<rdf:Description rdf:about=""
xmlns:tiff="http://ns.adobe.com/tiff/1.0/">
<tiff:Orientation>1</tiff:Orientation>
<tiff:YCbCrPositioning>2</tiff:YCbCrPositioning>
<tiff:XResolution>72/1</tiff:XResolution>
<tiff:YResolution>72/1</tiff:YResolution>
<tiff:ResolutionUnit>2</tiff:ResolutionUnit>
<tiff:Make>SONY</tiff:Make>
<tiff:Model>CYBERSHOT</tiff:Model>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about=""
xmlns:xap="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/">
<xap:ModifyDate>2000-09-30T10:59:45-07:00</xap:ModifyDate>
<xap:CreateDate>2000-09-30T10:59:45-07:00</xap:CreateDate>
<xap:MetadataDate>2000-09-30T10:59:45-07:00</xap:MetadataDate>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about=""
xmlns:exif="http://ns.adobe.com/exif/1.0/">
<exif:ExifVersion>0210</exif:ExifVersion>
<exif:FlashpixVersion>0100</exif:FlashpixVersion>
<exif:ColorSpace>1</exif:ColorSpace>
<exif:CompressedBitsPerPixel>2/1</exif:CompressedBitsPerPixel>
<exif:PixelXDimension>640</exif:PixelXDimension>
<exif:PixelYDimension>480</exif:PixelYDimension>
<exif:DateTimeOriginal>2000-09-30T10:59:45-07:00</exif:DateTimeOriginal>
<exif:DateTimeDigitized>2000-09-30T10:59:45-07:00</exif:DateTimeDigitized>
<exif:ExposureTime>1/197</exif:ExposureTime>
<exif:FNumber>40/10</exif:FNumber>
<exif:ExposureProgram>2</exif:ExposureProgram>
<exif:ISOSpeedRatings>
<rdf:Seq>
<rdf:li>100</rdf:li>
</rdf:Seq>
</exif:ISOSpeedRatings>
<exif:ExposureBiasValue>0/10</exif:ExposureBiasValue>
<exif:MaxApertureValue>3/1</exif:MaxApertureValue>
<exif:MeteringMode>2</exif:MeteringMode>
<exif:LightSource>0</exif:LightSource>
<exif:Flash rdf:parseType="Resource">
<exif:Fired>False</exif:Fired>
<exif:Return>0</exif:Return>
<exif:Mode>0</exif:Mode>
<exif:Function>False</exif:Function>
<exif:RedEyeMode>False</exif:RedEyeMode>
</exif:Flash>
<exif:FocalLength>216/10</exif:FocalLength>
<exif:FileSource>3</exif:FileSource>
<exif:SceneType>1</exif:SceneType>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about=""
xmlns:xapMM="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/mm/">
<xapMM:DocumentID>uuid:A4E1FCC7CC75DD119F6EE13C4E4CA24D</xapMM:DocumentID>
<xapMM:InstanceID>uuid:A4E1FCC7CC75DD119F6EE13C4E4CA24D</xapMM:InstanceID>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about=""
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<dc:format>image/jpeg</dc:format>
<dc:description>
<rdf:Alt>
<rdf:li xml:lang="x-default">
</rdf:li>
</rdf:Alt>
</dc:description>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about=""
xmlns:photoshop="http://ns.adobe.com/photoshop/1.0/">
<photoshop:ColorMode>3</photoshop:ColorMode>
<photoshop:ICCProfile>sRGB IEC61966-2.1</photoshop:ICCProfile>
<photoshop:History/>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
</x:xmpmeta>
<?xpacket end="w"?>
AND
<?xpacket begin="" id="W5M0MpCehiHzreSzNTczkc9d"?>
<x:xmpmeta xmlns:x="adobe:ns:meta/" x:xmptk="Adobe XMP Core 4.1-c036
46.276720, Mon Feb 19 2007 22:13:43 ">
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
<rdf:Description rdf:about=""
xmlns:xap="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/">
<xap:CreateDate>2008-08-27T13:16:26-07:00</xap:CreateDate>
<xap:ModifyDate>2008-08-27T13:16:26-07:00</xap:ModifyDate>
<xap:MetadataDate>2008-08-27T13:16:26-07:00</xap:MetadataDate>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about=""
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<dc:format>image/jpeg</dc:format>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about=""
xmlns:photoshop="http://ns.adobe.com/photoshop/1.0/">
<photoshop:ColorMode>3</photoshop:ColorMode>
<photoshop:History/>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
</x:xmpmeta>
<?xpacket end="w"?>
Holy cow! The EXIF data include the date the image was created! Who would
have guessed!
:)
--
"The music is not inside the piano." - Alan Kay
Snit
You are focusing on this non-issue to run from the fact I caught you lying
about calling you... and since we already agreed that I should have written
"26" when I wrote "28" what the heck is the problem? As I said I do not
even have the file - so no screen image for you.
Go cry to someone else... and then spew your lies someone who cares.
--
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/f351
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
Tattoo Vampire
> You are focusing on this non-issue
You made it the issue when you lied about it, Splut.
chrisv
>>
>> Can't you even *try* to be honest? Please?
LOL
William Poaster
The Michael Snit Glasser troll talking about
honesty? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAhAHA!!!
--
ɐ ɯoɹɟ ʇuǝs sɐʍ ǝƃɐssǝɯ sıɥʇ
pǝǝʇuɐɹɐnƃ sı ɥɔıɥʍ ɹǝʇndɯoɔ
˙snɹıʌ ǝzopuıʍ $ɯ ǝɥʇ ɟo ǝǝɹɟ %00⇂
-- sɯǝʇsʎs xnuıl/nuƃ --
William Poaster
Well *that* didn't take much, did it!
The Ghost In The Machine
<C4DB0527.D2994%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>:
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> stated in post
> t8ngo5-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net on 8/27/08 12:41 PM:
>
>>> I trusted most in COLA are fully able to view EXIF data on their own.
>>>
>>> Really.
>>>
>>> I do admit, though, it seems I was wrong about that.
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>
>> Define "view".
>
> Open an image, get info, and see the EXIF data. Most image editing programs
> have this option.
>
>> At the very pedantic level that would
>> involve scanning the disk surface for undetectable (by us;
>> the flying head has no problem) magnetic domains; one can
>> also look at the raw waveform of the head.
>
> That might be a fun way to spend an evening!
If one has a shot disk drive and a microscope, maybe. ;-)
I've plenty of dead drive units, but no microscope...
>
>> At more useful levels one can look at bits, bytes, pixels,
>> or chunks. Apparently it can be an extension/fleshing out of
>> JPEG, standarizing certain properties, or TIFF.
>>
>> I have no difficulties viewing the actual pictures
>> at http://www.exif.org/samples/ (presumably there's an
>> explanation for the pumpkin-colored top a woman in glasses
>> is wearing in the one picture, and the glasses-topped
>> pumpkin in the other :-) ) but neither Firefox nor its
>> assistant (if any) displays the properties thereof.
>
> <?xpacket begin="?" id="W5M0MpCehiHzreSzNTczkc9d"?>
> <x:xmpmeta xmlns:x="adobe:ns:meta/" x:xmptk="Adobe XMP Core 4.1-c036
> 46.276720, Mon Feb 19 2007 22:13:43 ">
> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
> <rdf:Description rdf:about=""
> xmlns:tiff="http://ns.adobe.com/tiff/1.0/">
[snip for brevity]
>
> Holy cow! The EXIF data include the date the image was created! Who would
> have guessed!
>
>:)
>
Probably a lot of other stuff too. I downloaded
fujifilm-finepix40i.jpg from http://www.exim.org/samples/
and had no trouble extracting EXIF data, though I can't
say it came out in XML. Among other things,
exif printed out:
Manufacturer |FUJIFILM
Model |FinePix40i
Orientation |top - left
x-Resolution |72.00
y-Resolution |72.00
Resolution Unit |Inch
Software |Digital Camera FinePix40i Ver1.39
Date and Time |2000:08:04 18:22:57
Exif Version |Exif Version 2.1
Date and Time (origi|2000:08:04 18:22:57
Date and Time (digit|2000:08:04 18:22:57
(The tags were obviously truncated for formatting purposes,
obviously; exif -m works a little better if the output
needs to be fed to a program. I can't say I know what
exif tool generates XML/RDF.)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Linux. Because Windows' Blue Screen Of Death is just
way too frightening to novice users.
Linonut
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> You are clearly the most incompetent "IT teacher" of all time, Michael
>> Glasser. Nobody deserves to be ripped off by a fraud like you
>
> Michael's next course for his "students" will be in how to backpedal at a
> high rate of speed.
That's what they call a "spin" class.
--
It is well known that *things* from undesirable universes are always seeking
an entrance into this one, which is the psychic equivalent of handy for the
buses and closer to the shops.
-- Terry Pratchett, "The Light Fantastic"
Linonut
> "Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> schreef in bericht
> news:1vizlwjo2e95t$.dlg@this.domain.or.that...
>> Here's some more hair pics for you to obsess over:
>>
>> http://a473.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/60/l_c225086fae68bd07a1748f3fc9873758.jpg
>> http://a533.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/17/l_0f6a6662b5dbed026dcae9cb169cb234.jpg
>
> Nice earring!
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earring
> "In the late 1960s, ear piercing began to make inroads among men through the
> hippie and gay communities."
Ah pity tha foool who don't read da rest of da article!
The heavily jeweled Mr. T was an early example of an American
celebrity wearing earrings in both ears, although this trend did not
become popular with mainstream American men until the 1990s.
Now stop this jammerin', before I start hammerin'!
Shut up Murdock!
--
Encyclopedia for sale by father. Son knows everything.
Linonut
Ohmigod. Stop it you guys!
I can't stop freakin' laughing. You're killing me!
<choking with laughter>
--
More fun than a barrel of monkeys
Snit
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
> <use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
> wrote
> on Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:20:39 -0700
> <C4DB0527.D2994%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>:
>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> stated in post
>> t8ngo5-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net on 8/27/08 12:41 PM:
>>
>>>> I trusted most in COLA are fully able to view EXIF data on their own.
>>>>
>>>> Really.
>>>>
>>>> I do admit, though, it seems I was wrong about that.
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Define "view".
>>
>> Open an image, get info, and see the EXIF data. Most image editing programs
>> have this option.
>>
>>> At the very pedantic level that would
>>> involve scanning the disk surface for undetectable (by us;
>>> the flying head has no problem) magnetic domains; one can
>>> also look at the raw waveform of the head.
>>
>> That might be a fun way to spend an evening!
>
> If one has a shot disk drive and a microscope, maybe. ;-)
> I've plenty of dead drive units, but no microscope...
I have a friend with all sorts of telescopes and microscopes... I do not
think the telescopes will be of much value here, but maybe I can borrow a
microscope.
>>> At more useful levels one can look at bits, bytes, pixels,
>>> or chunks. Apparently it can be an extension/fleshing out of
>>> JPEG, standarizing certain properties, or TIFF.
>>>
>>> I have no difficulties viewing the actual pictures
>>> at http://www.exif.org/samples/ (presumably there's an
>>> explanation for the pumpkin-colored top a woman in glasses
>>> is wearing in the one picture, and the glasses-topped
>>> pumpkin in the other :-) ) but neither Firefox nor its
>>> assistant (if any) displays the properties thereof.
>>
>> <?xpacket begin="?" id="W5M0MpCehiHzreSzNTczkc9d"?>
>> <x:xmpmeta xmlns:x="adobe:ns:meta/" x:xmptk="Adobe XMP Core 4.1-c036
>> 46.276720, Mon Feb 19 2007 22:13:43 ">
>> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
>> <rdf:Description rdf:about=""
>> xmlns:tiff="http://ns.adobe.com/tiff/1.0/">
>
> [snip for brevity]
>
>>
>> Holy cow! The EXIF data include the date the image was created! Who would
>> have guessed!
>>
>> :)
>>
>
> Probably a lot of other stuff too. I downloaded
> fujifilm-finepix40i.jpg from http://www.exim.org/samples/
> and had no trouble extracting EXIF data, though I can't
> say it came out in XML.
Frankly I would have preferred if mine had not - but it was not worth my
time to export it with another tool or look at export options on Photoshop.
> Among other things,
> exif printed out:
>
> Manufacturer |FUJIFILM
> Model |FinePix40i
> Orientation |top - left
> x-Resolution |72.00
> y-Resolution |72.00
> Resolution Unit |Inch
> Software |Digital Camera FinePix40i Ver1.39
> Date and Time |2000:08:04 18:22:57
> Exif Version |Exif Version 2.1
> Date and Time (origi|2000:08:04 18:22:57
> Date and Time (digit|2000:08:04 18:22:57
>
> (The tags were obviously truncated for formatting purposes,
> obviously; exif -m works a little better if the output
> needs to be fed to a program. I can't say I know what
> exif tool generates XML/RDF.)
Bottom line, though, as I noted EXIF data contains dates. Seriously, I am
surprised how many people in COLA did not know that.
--
I know how a jam jar feels...
... full of jam!
Peter Köhlmann
< snip >
> Bottom line, though, as I noted EXIF data contains dates. Seriously, I am
> surprised how many people in COLA did not know that.
>
>
And you can certainly give us the Msg-IDs, Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael
Glasser
After all, it is *your* lie about EXIF data
--
What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth? Judging from realistic
simulations involving a sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog,
we can assume it will be pretty bad. --- Dave Barry
Snit
48b5dbe7$0$12955$9b4e...@newsspool2.arcor-online.net on 8/27/08 3:57 PM:
> The liar Michael Glasser (Snot/Snit/Rekruled) snotted:
>
> < snip >
>
>> Bottom line, though, as I noted EXIF data contains dates. Seriously, I am
>> surprised how many people in COLA did not know that.
>>
>>
>
> And you can certainly give us the Msg-IDs
LOL! It is not Usenet messages that have EXIF data but images (mostly jpg
images).
Seriously, Peter, it amuses me to see you try to sound clever. Too funny!
--
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?
Geoff M. Fitton
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Wrong about what. Put the context back. Frankly your snipping to run
>> from your lies grows old.
>
> Context my ass. You claimed the EXIF tags showed that photo was taken on
> 8/28, a claim you later changed, excusing your original claim as a "typo".
>
> Your lame comment "I may have been mistaken" is totally B.S. since that
> photo had no EXIF data embedded in it.
>
> In your zeal to make me look stupid, you only succeeded in making yourself
> look like an utter fool.
Well *that* didn't take much, did it!
--
Geoff M. Fitton
>>Shit:
>>>
>>> Can't you even *try* to be honest? Please?
>
> LOL
The Michael Snit Glasser troll talking about
honesty? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAhAHA!!!
--
Don Zeigler
Don Zeigler
Don Zeigler
> I caught you openly lying about my having called you... and now you keep
> running to your silly picture as if that somehow makes it alright for you
> to
> openly lie about my actions.
Who else would it have been?
> As far as your silly picture: You corrected me and said it was *26* and
> not
> *28* as I wrote. Yup, I made a typo. Get over it. Freak out over
> something else.
You're the one all in a tizzy because you got busted, Splat.
Don Zeigler
Don Zeigler
Don Zeigler
Don Zeigler
> I do admit, though, it seems I was wrong about that.
Wrong, my foot, you were lying your ass off. There was no EXIF data there
to read, period.
In your vanity you assumed most people wouldn't know what EXIF data was,
including me. You were figuring I'd panic or something, I guess. Instead
you were caught with your pants down, Splat.
How does that crow taste, Prescott "Computer" Guy?
Don Zeigler
> If you look at his he clearly has items on it... it shows how busy he is
> not. :)
I guess you can't read. I posted previously that it was only a print
schedule for the July real estate magazines. *My* calendar is on my Palm
device. :-P
Don Zeigler
> Now who'd ya thunk *any* guy loving person (F/M) would choose: the aged
> - but good looking - stud, or the young babyfaced boy?
>
> Bwahhahaha, what a joke :-)
>
> Poor Snotster :-p
I dunno... I haven't had hair long enough for a ponytail in years, but if
it's back in style, maybe I'll try it so I can look more "hip".
Don Zeigler
Don Zeigler
> I have not even looked at what he currently has there.
Currently has there? What does that have to do with the supposed EXIF data
on the image you downloaded? Are you admitting you made all this crap up?
Peter Köhlmann
> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.k...@arcor.de> stated in post
> 48b5dbe7$0$12955$9b4e...@newsspool2.arcor-online.net on 8/27/08 3:57 PM:
>
>> The liar Michael Glasser (Snot/Snit/Rekruled) snotted:
>>
>> < snip >
>>
>>> Bottom line, though, as I noted EXIF data contains dates. Seriously, I
>>> am surprised how many people in COLA did not know that.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And you can certainly give us the Msg-IDs
>
> LOL! It is not Usenet messages that have EXIF data but images (mostly jpg
> images).
>
> Seriously, Peter, it amuses me to see you try to sound clever. Too funny!
>
>
You can certainly give us the Msg-IDs, Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser.
You know, those messages where "people did not know that EXIF contains
data".
But then, you are just a liar. You are extremely dishonest
--
It's sweet to be remembered, but it's often cheaper to be forgotten.
chrisv
>>
>> Bottom line, though, as I noted EXIF data contains dates. Seriously, I am
>> surprised how many people in COLA did not know that.
You're a fscking liar. There is NO evidence that we didn't know that.
Seriously, I am surprised at what a lying cretin you are.
Hadron
Can you read?
Yes? Good. Now reread what he said and wonder at your own stupidity once
more when you said "we didn't". He said "how many" not ALL. Idiot. You
seem to need a top up of your meds.
Peter Köhlmann
And Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser lied then as well. As usual
> Idiot. You seem to need a top up of your meds.
Another fine "true linux advocacy post" from the
"true linux advocate", "kernel hacker", "emacs user", "swapfile expert", "X
specialist", "CUPS guru", "USB-disk server admin", "defragger
professional", "newsreader magician", "hardware maven", "time
coordinator", "email sage" and "OSS culling committee chairman" Hadron
Quark, aka Hans Schneider, aka Richard, aka Damian O'Leary
--
Eternity is a very long time, especially towards the end
Hadron
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> writes:
>>
>>>>Shit:
>>>>>
>>>>> Bottom line, though, as I noted EXIF data contains dates. Seriously, I
>>>>> am surprised how many people in COLA did not know that.
>>>
>>> You're a fscking liar. There is NO evidence that we didn't know that.
>>>
>>> Seriously, I am surprised at what a lying cretin you are.
>>>
>>
>> Can you read?
>>
>> Yes? Good. Now reread what he said and wonder at your own stupidity once
>> more when you said "we didn't". He said "how many" not ALL.
>
> And Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser lied then as well. As usual
So you think NO ONE did not know that?
You DO realise that "how many" does not mean a lot necessarily?
Peter, don't play word games. You're not very good at it. Stick to
telling lies and linking peoples real life details with their COLA
escapades in order to damage their potential and possibly their
families.