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.
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]
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]
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
Redjak
"Clavicus Vile" wrote in message news:ij3ohb$2c2$1...@news.albasani.net...
Refreshing. Most of these Freaks think they're reincarnated Einstein's.
Snit
1:44 AM:
Please show where in that thread EXIF data was discussed.
> That dishonest cretin knows absolutely no bounds when he has painted himself
> into a corner with one of his many bullshit claims
JPG files can have EXIF data. How horrid for me to say so, eh?
LOL!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> Peter K hlmann stated in post ij5ha4$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.
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).
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
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]
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?
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]
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]