Steve's claims of forgery likely a lie.
Snit
COLA 67.164.185.11 Giganews 3/18/05 7:16 AM
COLA 67.164.185.11 Giganews 3/18/05 7:17 AM
COLA 67.164.185.11 Giganews 3/18/05 7:34 AM
CSMA 67.164.185.11 Giganews 3/18/05 7:46 AM
CSMA 67.164.185.11 Giganews 3/18/05 7:53 AM
CSMA/COLA 67.164.185.11 Giganews 3/18/05 8:14 AM
CSMA 67.164.185.11 Giganews 3/18/05 8:47 AM
COLA 67.164.185.11 Giganews 3/18/05 8:58 AM
COLA 67.164.185.11 Giganews 3/18/05 9:08 AM
CSMA 67.164.185.11 Giganews 3/18/05 9:19 AM
CSMA/COLA 67.164.185.11 Giganews 3/18/05 9:22 AM
COLA 67.164.185.11 Giganews 3/18/05 9:41 AM
CSMA 67.164.185.11 Giganews 3/18/05 11:07 AM
CSMA 67.164.185.11 Giganews 3/18/05 11:33 AM
CSMA/COLA Individual.net 3/18/05 11:01 PM
CSMA 67.164.185.11 Giganews 3/18/05 11:02 PM
CSMA/COLA Individual.net 3/18/05 11:18 PM
CSMA/COLA Individual.net 3/19/05 3:45 AM
COLA Individual.net 3/20/05 10:35 AM
CSMA/COLA Individual.net 3/20/05 8:25 AM
COLA 67.164.185.11 Giganews 3/20/05 12:22 PM
COLA 67.164.185.11 Giganews 3/20/05 12:33 PM
COLA 67.164.185.11 Giganews 3/20/05 12:55 PM
COLA 67.164.185.11 Giganews 3/21/05 4:41 PM
COLA 67.164.185.11 Giganews 3/21/05 4:45 PM
COLA 67.164.185.11 Giganews 3/21/05 4:48 PM
COLA 67.164.185.11 Giganews 3/21/05 5:25 PM
COLA 67.164.185.11 Giganews 3/21/05 6:10 PM
etc... no more posts from Individual.net as of 6:30 PM
On 3/18, if you believe Steve, he posted at 11:33 AM, and then did not post
for about 12 hours. Coincidently, however, *one* minute before he did post,
someone else posted as him... and of course that post was some nasty things
about me that Steve does not want to take the blame for.
And then this "other" person posted four more times on 3/18 - 3/20 (all
attacks against me), and the "real" Steve just happened to stop posting.
The "real" Steve started posting again on 3/20, and the "fake" Steve stopped
posting, at least for over 24 hours, which the "fake" Steve had not done
before.
Is this your story, Steve? If so, you find it believable? If not, where am
I not understanding your claims?
I am guessing you will dodge the issue and refuse to answer - never making
it clear what your claims are, because the idea that someone was forging
your name is not very likely. It is far more likely you are just setting
yourself up to play the victim... as you do so often.
How long until you admit to this game? More or less time than it took you
to admit to repeatedly and dishonestly attributing your own quotes to me?
For that you used as your "defense" the claim that I had done something bad
to you long ago... though you could not find evidence to support your long
held grudge.
What will you use as your defense this time?
And will you keep insinuating such falsehoods such as "Trina Swallows" being
me?
Why do you not just try, for a change, Steve, to tell the truth? Then
again, I do tell the truth, and you have made it clear you do not like that
about me... remember when you begged me to stop forcing you confront truths
you could not deal with?
Please stop playing your games in COLA, Steve. Leave your games in CSMA
where you and your troll friends have succeeded in turning it into little
more than flames.
--
"stop forcing me to confront truths I can't deal with." - Steve Carroll
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Rick G
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Hi, Snit.
Are you trying this again? Didn't this go over like a lead balloon last
time?
--
Rick...
Snit
Rick-5B8272.1...@news.telus.net on 3/21/05 7:27 PM:
Would love to know how the "fake" Steve know to post one minute before the
"real" one... and why Steve runs from any questions as to which are the
"fake" posts.
He is likely just playing the victim... his favorite role in life.
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
Rick G
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> Would love to know how the "fake" Steve know to post one minute before the
> "real" one... and why Steve runs from any questions as to which are the
> "fake" posts.
>
> He is likely just playing the victim... his favorite role in life.
>
Post hoc ergo propter hoc?
Life's too short for such silliness.
--
Rick...
Snit
It is very coincidental that someone would "forge" one of Steve's posts
*one* minute before the "real" Steve started posting again. I am not
claiming that this constitutes the level of proof needed to satisfy a
logical proof, but it surely is an odd coincidence...
Add to that the fact that Steve refuses to comment on which of the posts are
the ones he claims are "forged" - there is no doubt he is hiding something.
In my timing research I made the assumption that Steve's "forger" posted did
not post showing his IP... but he will not verify even that.
What is he hiding?
And why?
--
"You're being trolled right now." - Steve Carroll
Rick G
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Rick G" <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote in post
> Rick-BCFBAB.1...@news.telus.net on 3/21/05 7:42 PM:
>
> > In article <BE64D228.BE68%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> Would love to know how the "fake" Steve know to post one minute before the
> >> "real" one... and why Steve runs from any questions as to which are the
> >> "fake" posts.
> >>
> >> He is likely just playing the victim... his favorite role in life.
> >>
> >
> > Post hoc ergo propter hoc?
> >
> > Life's too short for such silliness.
>
> It is very coincidental that someone would "forge" one of Steve's posts
> *one* minute before the "real" Steve started posting again. I am not
> claiming that this constitutes the level of proof needed to satisfy a
> logical proof, but it surely is an odd coincidence...
If coincidences didn't happen, there wouldn't be a word to describe them.
>
> Add to that the fact that Steve refuses to comment on which of the posts are
> the ones he claims are "forged" - there is no doubt he is hiding something.
> In my timing research I made the assumption that Steve's "forger" posted did
> not post showing his IP... but he will not verify even that.
Here: A gift.
CSMA/COLA Individual.net 3/20/05 8:25 AM
<3a5j1sF...@individual.net>
No NNTP-Posting-Host.
Thunderbird on Windows, Timezone -0800
This one is a forgery, as referenced in:
<noone-B46836....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.164.185.11
MTNW on OS X, Timezone -0700.
>
> What is he hiding?
Who, exactly? Steve, or the presumed forger?
>
> And why?
>
I won't begin to speculate until the other questions are resolved.
--
Rick...
Snit
> In article <BE64D851.BE75%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Rick G" <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote in post
>> Rick-BCFBAB.1...@news.telus.net on 3/21/05 7:42 PM:
>>
>>> In article <BE64D228.BE68%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Would love to know how the "fake" Steve know to post one minute before the
>>>> "real" one... and why Steve runs from any questions as to which are the
>>>> "fake" posts.
>>>>
>>>> He is likely just playing the victim... his favorite role in life.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Post hoc ergo propter hoc?
>>>
>>> Life's too short for such silliness.
>>
>> It is very coincidental that someone would "forge" one of Steve's posts
>> *one* minute before the "real" Steve started posting again. I am not
>> claiming that this constitutes the level of proof needed to satisfy a
>> logical proof, but it surely is an odd coincidence...
>
> If coincidences didn't happen, there wouldn't be a word to describe them.
Your info below does shed some light on the situation...
>
>>
>> Add to that the fact that Steve refuses to comment on which of the posts are
>> the ones he claims are "forged" - there is no doubt he is hiding something.
>> In my timing research I made the assumption that Steve's "forger" posted did
>> not post showing his IP... but he will not verify even that.
>
> Here: A gift.
> CSMA/COLA Individual.net 3/20/05 8:25 AM
> <3a5j1sF...@individual.net>
> No NNTP-Posting-Host.
> Thunderbird on Windows, Timezone -0800
>
>
> This one is a forgery, as referenced in:
> <noone-B46836....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.164.185.11
> MTNW on OS X, Timezone -0700.
Hmmm, so some of the ones from his IP he does claim are forgeries.... I
missed that. Thanks.
That means Steve is claiming that someone can forge his IP... interesting.
I did not pay close attention to what posts he said were forged - I just
made an assumption that Steve would claim the posts with non-standard
headers (for him) were the forged ones. I was wrong.
So now it seems that Steve wants us to believe someone can forge his IP. Or
maybe someone broke into his house?
>
>> What is he hiding?
>
> Who, exactly? Steve, or the presumed forger?
Either... assuming they are not one and the same.
>>
>> And why?
>>
> I won't begin to speculate until the other questions are resolved.
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
Rick G
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Steve's disavowed post, one that he claims is a forgery:
> > Here: A gift.
> > CSMA/COLA Individual.net 3/20/05 8:25 AM
> > <3a5j1sF...@individual.net>
> > No NNTP-Posting-Host.
> > Thunderbird on Windows, Timezone -0800
> >
> >
I see the problem. A dangling 'this' pointer. ;)
> > This one is a forgery, as referenced in:
Steve's actual, not in any way denied, authentic post:
> > <noone-B46836....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>
> > NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.164.185.11
> > MTNW on OS X, Timezone -0700.
>
> Hmmm, so some of the ones from his IP he does claim are forgeries.... I
> missed that. Thanks.
I think that either I was not sufficiently clear in my writing, or you
somehow messed up the understanding. The forgery did not have the IP,
Steve's post that identified the forgery was the one with the IP.
>
> That means Steve is claiming that someone can forge his IP... interesting.
Oops, no.
> I did not pay close attention to what posts he said were forged - I just
> made an assumption that Steve would claim the posts with non-standard
> headers (for him) were the forged ones. I was wrong.
Well, you are still wrong, if it helps any, just about different items...
--
Rick...
Snit
Aha... so my original assumption may still be correct - that the "different"
headers are the ones Steve claims are forged...
>
>>
>> That means Steve is claiming that someone can forge his IP... interesting.
> Oops, no.
>
>> I did not pay close attention to what posts he said were forged - I just
>> made an assumption that Steve would claim the posts with non-standard
>> headers (for him) were the forged ones. I was wrong.
>
> Well, you are still wrong, if it helps any, just about different items...
Well, I would hate to be wrong about the wrong thing
(I am sure that will show up in some .sig....:) )
Rick G
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
> Aha... so my original assumption may still be correct - that the "different"
> headers are the ones Steve claims are forged...
Yeah, although I'm by no means an expert at post forging, it seems
likely that the ones that don't look like the others would be the ones
that aren't like the others.
> >
> >>
> >> That means Steve is claiming that someone can forge his IP... interesting.
> > Oops, no.
> >
> >> I did not pay close attention to what posts he said were forged - I just
> >> made an assumption that Steve would claim the posts with non-standard
> >> headers (for him) were the forged ones. I was wrong.
> >
> > Well, you are still wrong, if it helps any, just about different items...
>
> Well, I would hate to be wrong about the wrong thing
>
> (I am sure that will show up in some .sig....:) )
>
If it doesn't, I'll try to set up some more good quotes... I see that my
quote referenced by the moderator hasn't changed yet, and that many of
the people referenced therein are no longer present, obviously new
quotes are necessary - seriously, when do old quotes roll off that thing?
BTW - My advice to you is to drop this thread, it is very likely to be
fruitless. However, that said, all options are open. (I'm trying to work
that in whenever I get a chance ;))
--
Rick...
Snit
> In article <BE64E489.BE9E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>
>> Aha... so my original assumption may still be correct - that the "different"
>> headers are the ones Steve claims are forged...
>
> Yeah, although I'm by no means an expert at post forging, it seems
> likely that the ones that don't look like the others would be the ones
> that aren't like the others.
Tee hee... yeah... but Steve is hesitant to specify. Odd...
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That means Steve is claiming that someone can forge his IP... interesting.
>>> Oops, no.
>>>
>>>> I did not pay close attention to what posts he said were forged - I just
>>>> made an assumption that Steve would claim the posts with non-standard
>>>> headers (for him) were the forged ones. I was wrong.
>
>
>>>
>>> Well, you are still wrong, if it helps any, just about different items...
>>
>> Well, I would hate to be wrong about the wrong thing
>>
>> (I am sure that will show up in some .sig....:) )
>>
>
> If it doesn't, I'll try to set up some more good quotes... I see that my
> quote referenced by the moderator hasn't changed yet, and that many of
> the people referenced therein are no longer present, obviously new
> quotes are necessary - seriously, when do old quotes roll off that thing?
When Steve, Elizabot, or whoever is the "real" CSMA_moderator decides to
change them.
>
>
>
> BTW - My advice to you is to drop this thread, it is very likely to be
> fruitless. However, that said, all options are open. (I'm trying to work
> that in whenever I get a chance ;))
--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson
Snit
> In article <OYO%d.190$zl...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
> "ed" <news...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>
>>> To me this seems much more plausible than Snit trying to rub his own
>>> nose in it.
>>
>> except that everyone and his mother pretty much agrees sigmond is snit (and
>> there is ip evidence to back it up), and sigmond's been known to troll
>> snit...
>
> Well, I haven't been seriously involved in this group since before Xmas
> (I have looked in a couple of times), and I really don't want to wade
> through months of tripe, but were there any IP similarities between the
> moderator and Snit?
>
> And, unless I remember it incorrectly, I thought sigmond just attacked
> Steve/whoever else was involved at the time? When did sigmond start
> attacking Snit?
Add to that the fact that CSMA_Mod is someone Steve loves to quote... which
is unlikely if Steve did not know who the "real" person was. I suspect
Elizabot, but am open to other ideas. Who else is so obsessive about me,
though? Who else would care to help Steve Carroll in his desperate
struggles to get revenge?
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)
Steve Carroll
Rick G <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote:
> In article <BE650D34.BF26%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
> > "Rick G" <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote in post
> > Rick-990D73.2...@news.telus.net on 3/21/05 11:39 PM:
> >
> > > And, unless I remember it incorrectly, I thought sigmond just attacked
> > > Steve/whoever else was involved at the time? When did sigmond start
> > > attacking Snit?
> >
> > Add to that the fact that CSMA_Mod is someone Steve loves to quote... which
> > is unlikely if Steve did not know who the "real" person was.
> This doesn't follow, if the resources are there, there's no reason not
> to use them. Knowledge of the actual author is irrelevant, this is
> obviously not peer-reviewed, or rigourous in any way.
Well, if you're going to throw *actual* logic into the mix... :)
> > I suspect
> > Elizabot, but am open to other ideas. Who else is so obsessive about me,
> > though?
>
> Dude, take your pick, there's only about a half dozen to choose from.
> The people quoted by the moderator have all expressed a negative opinion
> of you, but only a few of them are serious enough to follow you around.
> It should be pretty apparent by now.
Not necessarily. I've been on this NG a long time and I can tell you
that it may not be someone so obvious. There are people (like Mayor, for
instance) who are often vocal at points on certain things but remain
sleepers while doing stuff behind the scenes on other things. In any
event, it's not like Snit hasn't asked for what he gets. He begs for it
and then whines when he gets it; people like that are always gonna be a
target.
> > Who else would care to help Steve Carroll in his desperate
> > struggles to get revenge?
>
> I don't necessarily see any attempt to assist (or any desperation, for
> that matter).
I don't need any help in pointing out what a lying, delusional loon Snit
is. Think about it... he has shown you several examples just tonight
where he jumps to unfounded conclusions and you've called him on it.
That he has such a "fan club" is his own doing... unlike you, most
people aren't quite as tolerant of his obvious bullshit.
--
--
Steve
Snit
> In article <BE64F604.BED4%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Rick G" <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote in post
>> Rick-949C56.2...@news.telus.net on 3/21/05 9:45 PM:
>>>> When Steve, Elizabot, or whoever is the "real" CSMA_moderator decides to
>>>> change them.
>>>
>>> Ok, why the quotes around "real"? Is one of them accusing the other of
>>> being/not being the moderator? Did I miss anything interesting? Or is
>>> this just More Of The Same?
>>
>> I do not think there is a real CSMA_Moderator - it is likely merely a sock
>> puppet of one of the others. Steve's actions make it quite clear he knows
>> who it is, but I no longer think it is him. The Mod is too good at doing
>> basic research, and therefore can not be Steve. Elizabot is a likely
>> suspect...
>
> I would tend to disagree - Not much in the way of basic research is
> required to compile such a list.
No - but more than Steve has shown he can do.
>
> I'd start by looking at people who have one or more of the following
> traits:
>
> A) Net-savvy enough to run a usenet server and grep through the posts.
> B) Obsessive enough to run a usenet server and grep through the posts.
>
> B relies upon A, of course.
>
> C) Obsessive enough to run a Google search and GUI through the posts.
> D) Obsessive enough to read every post in this NG in the hope that it
> references you.
>
> As many of the posts don't actually refer to you by name, D seems to be
> the most likely choice.
Which points back to it likely being Elizabot...
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
Snit
> In article <BE650BAC.BF21%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "ed" <news...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote in post
>> OYO%d.190$zl...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com on 3/21/05 11:31 PM:
>>
>>> In news:Rick-3B47CA.2...@news.telus.net,
>>> Rick G <Ri...@dot.dot> typed:
>>>> In article <noone-456472....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
>>>> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> Which points back to it likely being Elizabot...
>>>>>> Actually, after reviewing point D, it may be just the case that the
>>>>>> person might just read all threads in which you participate, as
>>>>>> they are more likely to have people reacting to you. However, this
>>>>>> doesn't change the amounts by much, as you tend to post a hell of a
>>>>>> lot.
>>>>>
>>>>> IOW... it could be Snit.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose so, but I don't see any motive for it.
>>>> Actually, I think it's more likely to be somebody who
>>>> consistently/obsessively replies to Snit, especially somebody who
>>>> follows him to not-yet-destroyed-by-trolling threads. Clearly there
>>>> is a
>>>> group that are already reading a large amount of threads, and react to
>>>> his posts in them.
>>>>
>>>> To me this seems much more plausible than Snit trying to rub his own
>>>> nose in it.
>>>
>>> except that everyone and his mother pretty much agrees sigmond is snit (and
>>> there is ip evidence to back it up), and sigmond's been known to troll
>>> snit...
>>
>> Elizabot recently posted IP evidence, in an effort to clear Steve, that also
>> cleared me. She then postulated, and Steve concurred, that there was more
>> than one Sigmond - in fact, there may be a whole team of Sigmonds.
>
> Hmm - do you always capitalize Sigmond? I just noticed that...
I generally do - though I am then criticized by nit picking trolls and told
that there is a sigmond and a Sigmond... though then they leave out
_sigmond. Poor _sigmond. Poor, poor _sigmond. Always forgotten by the
trolls.
I have not figured out if the claim is that there are multiple Sigmonds,
sigmonds, Steve Sigmonds, _sigmonds, etc. For some reason Steve and the
other trolls shy away from this question - they never make their ideas on
this known.
> Also, it seems to me that although most people here only have one person
> that chases them and acts obsessively, you alone have a 'fan club'...
I am quite popular. That seems to piss of the trolls. :)
>>
>> They have not been clear in their comments as to if they think I am the
>> leader of the Sigmond cult or if I am merely one of many members.
>>
>> Perhaps they will clarify their oft changing position on this - but I doubt
>> it.
>
> Hmm, maybe some interesting things did happen while I was away.
It would be interesting if they were to clarify their position - but it will
not happen.
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)
_________________________________________
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Rick G" <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote in post
> Rick-BCFBAB.1...@news.telus.net on 3/21/05 7:42 PM:
>
> > In article <BE64D228.BE68%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> Would love to know how the "fake" Steve know to post one minute before the
> >> "real" one... and why Steve runs from any questions as to which are the
> >> "fake" posts.
> >>
> >> He is likely just playing the victim... his favorite role in life.
> >>
> >
> > Post hoc ergo propter hoc?
> >
> > Life's too short for such silliness.
>
> It is very coincidental that someone would "forge" one of Steve's posts
> *one* minute before the "real" Steve started posting again. I am not
> claiming that this constitutes the level of proof needed to satisfy a
> logical proof, but it surely is an odd coincidence...
Not today you aren't... but tomorrow, after a good glue sniffing
session...
> Add to that the fact that Steve refuses to comment on which of the posts are
> the ones he claims are "forged" - there is no doubt he is hiding something.
And you claim that I'm bad at basic research <shaking head in disbelief>
As stupid as you repeatedly show yourself to be, even you should be able
to figure it out.
> In my timing research I made the assumption that Steve's "forger" posted did
> not post showing his IP... but he will not verify even that.
If you knew what you were doing, you wouldn't need me or anyone to
verify it for you.. you could do so for yourself.
> What is he hiding?
Your glue tube.
> And why?
Cuz' it pisses you off...
--
--
Steve
Snit
OYO%d.190$zl...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com on 3/21/05 11:31 PM:
> In news:Rick-3B47CA.2...@news.telus.net,
> Rick G <Ri...@dot.dot> typed:
>> In article <noone-456472....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
>> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>>>>> Which points back to it likely being Elizabot...
>>>> Actually, after reviewing point D, it may be just the case that the
>>>> person might just read all threads in which you participate, as
>>>> they are more likely to have people reacting to you. However, this
>>>> doesn't change the amounts by much, as you tend to post a hell of a
>>>> lot.
>>>
>>> IOW... it could be Snit.
>>
>> I suppose so, but I don't see any motive for it.
>> Actually, I think it's more likely to be somebody who
>> consistently/obsessively replies to Snit, especially somebody who
>> follows him to not-yet-destroyed-by-trolling threads. Clearly there
>> is a
>> group that are already reading a large amount of threads, and react to
>> his posts in them.
>>
>> To me this seems much more plausible than Snit trying to rub his own
>> nose in it.
>
> except that everyone and his mother pretty much agrees sigmond is snit (and
> there is ip evidence to back it up), and sigmond's been known to troll
> snit...
Elizabot recently posted IP evidence, in an effort to clear Steve, that also
cleared me. She then postulated, and Steve concurred, that there was more
than one Sigmond - in fact, there may be a whole team of Sigmonds.
They have not been clear in their comments as to if they think I am the
leader of the Sigmond cult or if I am merely one of many members.
Perhaps they will clarify their oft changing position on this - but I doubt
it.
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
Steve Carroll
Rick G <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote:
> In article <noone-84A386....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > > I suppose so, but I don't see any motive for it.
> >
> > Snit loves to play the victim... plus, it feeds his need for attention.
> > He will accept negative attention if he's not getting enough positive
> > attention, in fact, he seeks negative attention even while he is getting
> > plenty of positive attention. I don't see how you could possibly have
> > missed this.
>
> Ok, I can see that, now. I just don't generally think that way.
> However, if this were the case, shouldn't he be making more noise about
> the quotes? Or posting them at strategic intervals? What's the (fun?
> point?) in trying to be a victim if you don't capitalize on it?
Snit does make noise about the moderator for those that listen... when
they listen (like you are doing here). Few people respond to Snit now
when he talks about the moderator. Why? Because they realize that it
doesn't much matter who the moderator is... as the message is clear,
regardless. That SO many people have essentially stated the same thing
is telling. As far as the intervals go, they do appear to generally be
posted on weekends, usually on Saturdays. Whether or not we could
consider that "strategic" or not, I dunno.
> >
> > > Actually, I think it's more likely to be somebody who
> > > consistently/obsessively replies to Snit, especially somebody who
> > > follows him to not-yet-destroyed-by-trolling threads. Clearly there is a
> > > group that are already reading a large amount of threads, and react to
> > > his posts in them.
> > >
> > > To me this seems much more plausible than Snit trying to rub his own
> > > nose in it.
> >
> > Nah, you're way off the mark here... Snit isn't happy until he has
> > provoked someone into rubbing his nose in his past. It's actually how he
> > gains the majority of his attention. If this weren't so, he wouldn't do
> > things like putting out of context quotes in his sig. He does it with
> > the hope that the misquotees (is that a word?) will show, once again,
> > what a liar he is. I think you've read enough of his posts to know what
> > I'm saying is true. He's done this with quite a few posters.
> > Additionally, he often takes the word of other posters out of context in
> > the midst of conversation... in csma he's achieved legendary status on
> > this. I don't believe all of it is his poor reading comprehension, much
> > of it is intentional. Elizabot has shown this over and over, many times
> > now. Snit is right about one thing, she does better research than I
> > do... but you really don't need to get that heavy with it... it's easy
> > to prove what a liar Snit is. look at this thread... do you think I am
> > the only person Snit does this with? It's a blatant bid for attention on
> > his part... so people give it to him, then he whines that he's being
> > attacked and begins a campaign of projection. Pretty cut and dried stuff.
>
> No, I don't doubt that there are intentionally 'misunderstood' replies.
>
> Still, I have to believe that if you really understand his motives, his
> need for any sort of attention, why do you continue to 'feed' him?
To keep his crap in the limelight. The longer it stays there, the more
people see him for what he is. Now, the poster in cola (linux ng) who
does the 'stats' has shown that Snit is the top poster in cola for the
last two reports... and he has labeled him as a troll. Many have chimed
in agreement, though, there are still a few holdouts. That'll change
before too long... with or without my help but I plan on helping Snit
achieve his goal of having a certain percentage of the ng talking about
him.
--
--
Steve
Snit
noone-D20F00....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 3/21/05 10:03 PM:
> In article <BE64C8A5.BE44%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
> Another delusional timetable, Snit?
What, specifically, is your problem with it?
> Now let's see... *who* is on the internet *so* much that he can create any
> kind of timetable that he wants while he is forging posts? Hey... maybe I
> should drum up a timetable on this idiot...
Now you think is is Elizabot? What evidence do you have?
I will do you the favor of ignoring your idiotic flames, below.
--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson
>
>> On 3/18, if you believe Steve, he posted at 11:33 AM, and then did not post
>> for about 12 hours. Coincidently, however, *one* minute before he did post,
>> someone else posted as him... and of course that post was some nasty things
>> about me that Steve does not want to take the blame for.
>
> Gee... another absolute? Have you sniffed so much glue that you are
> incapable of learning? Nasty things I do "not want to take the blame
> for"? If it's about you and it's nasty I will not only agree with it, I
> will wholeheartedly endorse it. Don't look now but that stomps the shit
> out of this newest delusion of yours.
>
>> And then this "other" person posted four more times on 3/18 - 3/20 (all
>> attacks against me), and the "real" Steve just happened to stop posting.
>> The "real" Steve started posting again on 3/20, and the "fake" Steve stopped
>> posting, at least for over 24 hours, which the "fake" Steve had not done
>> before.
>>
>> Is this your story, Steve? If so, you find it believable? If not, where am
>> I not understanding your claims?
>
> Your problem rests between your ears.
>
>> I am guessing you will dodge the issue and refuse to answer - never making
>> it clear what your claims are, because the idea that someone was forging
>> your name is not very likely. It is far more likely you are just setting
>> yourself up to play the victim... as you do so often.
>
> Projecting again? Posters in csma have seen you play the ID theft game.
> Posters here have seen you play the sockpuppet game. Posters here have
> seen you lie and twist their words on a daily basis. Posters here have
> seen you whine about being "attacked" by "trolls". Go lock your medicine
> chest, Snit... and hide the key for tonight.
>
>
>> How long until you admit to this game? More or less time than it took you
>> to admit to repeatedly and dishonestly attributing your own quotes to me?
>> For that you used as your "defense" the claim that I had done something bad
>> to you long ago... though you could not find evidence to support your long
>> held grudge.
>>
>> What will you use as your defense this time?
>>
>> And will you keep insinuating such falsehoods such as "Trina Swallows" being
>> me?
>>
>> Why do you not just try, for a change, Steve, to tell the truth? Then
>> again, I do tell the truth, and you have made it clear you do not like that
>> about me... remember when you begged me to stop forcing you confront truths
>> you could not deal with?
>>
>> Please stop playing your games in COLA, Steve. Leave your games in CSMA
>> where you and your troll friends have succeeded in turning it into little
>> more than flames.
>
> What's wrong, Snit? The folks in cola spotted you for the troll you are,
> too? Poor widdle snittie... can't get a break:)
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Other than it's delusional, nothing.
> > Now let's see... *who* is on the internet *so* much that he can create any
> > kind of timetable that he wants while he is forging posts? Hey... maybe I
> > should drum up a timetable on this idiot...
>
> Now you think is is Elizabot?
No.
> What evidence do you have?
That a person known for stealing ID's spends a lot of time on the
internet creating tables like the above?
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/about
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/about
BTW, after all this time, what makes you now change your mind and assume
Elizabot is a *he*?
--
--
Steve
Rick G
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Rick G" <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote in post
> Rick-990D73.2...@news.telus.net on 3/21/05 11:39 PM:
>
> > And, unless I remember it incorrectly, I thought sigmond just attacked
> > Steve/whoever else was involved at the time? When did sigmond start
> > attacking Snit?
>
> Add to that the fact that CSMA_Mod is someone Steve loves to quote... which
> is unlikely if Steve did not know who the "real" person was.
This doesn't follow, if the resources are there, there's no reason not
to use them. Knowledge of the actual author is irrelevant, this is
obviously not peer-reviewed, or rigourous in any way.
> I suspect
> Elizabot, but am open to other ideas. Who else is so obsessive about me,
> though?
Dude, take your pick, there's only about a half dozen to choose from.
The people quoted by the moderator have all expressed a negative opinion
of you, but only a few of them are serious enough to follow you around.
It should be pretty apparent by now.
> Who else would care to help Steve Carroll in his desperate
> struggles to get revenge?
I don't necessarily see any attempt to assist (or any desperation, for
that matter).
--
RickG...
BTW - for those who don't like reading headers, my ISP is telus.net
Snit
Great non-answer, Steve... and the only one you are likely to give.
Why they obfuscation? Why can't you be open and honest, Steve... afraid to
be too much like me?
>
>>> Now let's see... *who* is on the internet *so* much that he can create any
>>> kind of timetable that he wants while he is forging posts? Hey... maybe I
>>> should drum up a timetable on this idiot...
>>
>> Now you think is is Elizabot?
>
> No.
>
>> What evidence do you have?
>
> That a person known for stealing ID's spends a lot of time on the
> internet creating tables like the above?
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/about
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/about
>
> BTW, after all this time, what makes you now change your mind and assume
> Elizabot is a *he*?
Look up the definition of "he", Steve. "He" does not always refer to a male
- it can also refer to someone whose gender is not known.
You will, of course, use this info to troll...
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)
_________________________________________
Snit
>>>>> Which points back to it likely being Elizabot...
>>>> Actually, after reviewing point D, it may be just the case that the
>>>> person might just read all threads in which you participate, as they are
>>>> more likely to have people reacting to you. However, this doesn't change
>>>> the amounts by much, as you tend to post a hell of a lot.
>>>
>>> IOW... it could be Snit.
>>
>> I suppose so, but I don't see any motive for it.
>
> Snit loves to play the victim...
Did you not, Steve, just claim to be the victim of a forger?
> plus, it feeds his need for attention.
> He will accept negative attention if he's not getting enough positive
> attention, in fact, he seeks negative attention even while he is getting
> plenty of positive attention. I don't see how you could possibly have
> missed this.
>
>> Actually, I think it's more likely to be somebody who
>> consistently/obsessively replies to Snit, especially somebody who
>> follows him to not-yet-destroyed-by-trolling threads. Clearly there is a
>> group that are already reading a large amount of threads, and react to
>> his posts in them.
>>
>> To me this seems much more plausible than Snit trying to rub his own
>> nose in it.
>
> Nah, you're way off the mark here... Snit isn't happy until he has
> provoked someone into rubbing his nose in his past. It's actually how he
> gains the majority of his attention. If this weren't so, he wouldn't do
> things like putting out of context quotes in his sig.
Quotes you claim are out of context... though you admitted to having your
own quotes attributed to me in your sig.
> He does it with
> the hope that the misquotees (is that a word?) will show, once again,
> what a liar he is. I think you've read enough of his posts to know what
> I'm saying is true. He's done this with quite a few posters.
> Additionally, he often takes the word of other posters out of context in
> the midst of conversation... in csma he's achieved legendary status on
> this. I don't believe all of it is his poor reading comprehension, much
> of it is intentional. Elizabot has shown this over and over, many times
> now. Snit is right about one thing, she does better research than I
> do... but you really don't need to get that heavy with it... it's easy
> to prove what a liar Snit is. look at this thread... do you think I am
> the only person Snit does this with? It's a blatant bid for attention on
> his part... so people give it to him, then he whines that he's being
> attacked and begins a campaign of projection. Pretty cut and dried stuff.
I point out others' lies and am not afraid to speak about un-popular ideas.
Look at COLA, where I talked about some bad experiences with Linux (though
also had some good). Some in COLA just could not accept it. Look at you,
Steve, when I talk about Windows - you panic and go into denial mode... and
you claim to prefer Mac, do you not? If you can not accept reality even
when it matches your claimed preference... what makes you think others can
accept it when it does not?
Ah hell, who am I kidding... you will merely troll and not actually answer.
Talking to you is like talking to a 2 year old in the midst of a tantrum -
you never are able to stay coherent.
At least you know what you are... see your quote, below...
--
I'm not denying I'm an asshole. What of it? - Steve Carroll
Rick G
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Rick G" <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote in post
> Rick-76F224.2...@news.telus.net on 3/21/05 9:04 PM:
>
> > In article <BE64E489.BE9E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Aha... so my original assumption may still be correct - that the
> >> "different"
> >> headers are the ones Steve claims are forged...
> >
> > Yeah, although I'm by no means an expert at post forging, it seems
> > likely that the ones that don't look like the others would be the ones
> > that aren't like the others.
>
> Tee hee... yeah... but Steve is hesitant to specify. Odd...
Since you've gone to the trouble of creating a list of posts, and their
respective posting times, it should be little trouble to go the rest of
the way and *actually look at them*. Surely you're not saying that Steve
is controlling your actions and forcing you not to examine them?
> >
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> That means Steve is claiming that someone can forge his IP...
> >>>> interesting.
> >>> Oops, no.
> >>>
> >>>> I did not pay close attention to what posts he said were forged - I just
> >>>> made an assumption that Steve would claim the posts with non-standard
> >>>> headers (for him) were the forged ones. I was wrong.
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>> Well, you are still wrong, if it helps any, just about different items...
> >>
> >> Well, I would hate to be wrong about the wrong thing
> >>
> >> (I am sure that will show up in some .sig....:) )
> >>
> >
> > If it doesn't, I'll try to set up some more good quotes... I see that my
> > quote referenced by the moderator hasn't changed yet, and that many of
> > the people referenced therein are no longer present, obviously new
> > quotes are necessary - seriously, when do old quotes roll off that thing?
>
> When Steve, Elizabot, or whoever is the "real" CSMA_moderator decides to
> change them.
Ok, why the quotes around "real"? Is one of them accusing the other of
being/not being the moderator? Did I miss anything interesting? Or is
this just More Of The Same?
--
Rick...
ed
> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>>> Which points back to it likely being Elizabot...
>>> person might just read all threads in which you participate, as
>>> they are more likely to have people reacting to you. However, this
>>> doesn't change the amounts by much, as you tend to post a hell of a
>>> lot.
>>
>> IOW... it could be Snit.
>
> I suppose so, but I don't see any motive for it.
> consistently/obsessively replies to Snit, especially somebody who
> follows him to not-yet-destroyed-by-trolling threads. Clearly there
> is a
> group that are already reading a large amount of threads, and react to
> his posts in them.
>
> To me this seems much more plausible than Snit trying to rub his own
> nose in it.
except that everyone and his mother pretty much agrees sigmond is snit (and
Snit
> In article <BE64EAED.BEBE%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Rick G" <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote in post
>> Rick-76F224.2...@news.telus.net on 3/21/05 9:04 PM:
>>
>>> In article <BE64E489.BE9E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Aha... so my original assumption may still be correct - that the
>>>> "different"
>>>> headers are the ones Steve claims are forged...
>>>
>>> Yeah, although I'm by no means an expert at post forging, it seems
>>> likely that the ones that don't look like the others would be the ones
>>> that aren't like the others.
>>
>> Tee hee... yeah... but Steve is hesitant to specify. Odd...
>
> Since you've gone to the trouble of creating a list of posts, and their
> respective posting times, it should be little trouble to go the rest of
> the way and *actually look at them*. Surely you're not saying that Steve
> is controlling your actions and forcing you not to examine them?
Of course not - but while Steve has talked about *some* posts which he
claims are forged, I do not believe he has given a complete list.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That means Steve is claiming that someone can forge his IP...
>>>>>> interesting.
>>>>> Oops, no.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I did not pay close attention to what posts he said were forged - I just
>>>>>> made an assumption that Steve would claim the posts with non-standard
>>>>>> headers (for him) were the forged ones. I was wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, you are still wrong, if it helps any, just about different items...
>>>>
>>>> Well, I would hate to be wrong about the wrong thing
>>>>
>>>> (I am sure that will show up in some .sig....:) )
>>>>
>>>
>>> If it doesn't, I'll try to set up some more good quotes... I see that my
>>> quote referenced by the moderator hasn't changed yet, and that many of
>>> the people referenced therein are no longer present, obviously new
>>> quotes are necessary - seriously, when do old quotes roll off that thing?
>>
>> When Steve, Elizabot, or whoever is the "real" CSMA_moderator decides to
>> change them.
>
> Ok, why the quotes around "real"? Is one of them accusing the other of
> being/not being the moderator? Did I miss anything interesting? Or is
> this just More Of The Same?
I do not think there is a real CSMA_Moderator - it is likely merely a sock
puppet of one of the others. Steve's actions make it quite clear he knows
who it is, but I no longer think it is him. The Mod is too good at doing
basic research, and therefore can not be Steve. Elizabot is a likely
suspect...
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
Rick G
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Actually, after reviewing point D, it may be just the case that the
person might just read all threads in which you participate, as they are
more likely to have people reacting to you. However, this doesn't change
the amounts by much, as you tend to post a hell of a lot.
--
Rick...
Rick G
"ed" <news...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> > To me this seems much more plausible than Snit trying to rub his own
> > nose in it.
>
> except that everyone and his mother pretty much agrees sigmond is snit (and
> there is ip evidence to back it up), and sigmond's been known to troll
> snit...
Well, I haven't been seriously involved in this group since before Xmas
(I have looked in a couple of times), and I really don't want to wade
through months of tripe, but were there any IP similarities between the
moderator and Snit?
And, unless I remember it incorrectly, I thought sigmond just attacked
Steve/whoever else was involved at the time? When did sigmond start
attacking Snit?
--
ed
Rick G <Ri...@dot.dot> typed:
> In article <OYO%d.190$zl...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
> "ed" <news...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>
>>> To me this seems much more plausible than Snit trying to rub his own
>>> nose in it.
>>
>> except that everyone and his mother pretty much agrees sigmond is
>> snit (and there is ip evidence to back it up), and sigmond's been
>> known to troll snit...
>
> Well, I haven't been seriously involved in this group since before
> Xmas (I have looked in a couple of times), and I really don't want to
> wade through months of tripe, but were there any IP similarities
> between the moderator and Snit?
checking some recent posts, i don't see any posts of csma_moderator that
includes the posting ip.
> And, unless I remember it incorrectly, I thought sigmond just attacked
> Steve/whoever else was involved at the time? When did sigmond start
> attacking Snit?
he's done it on and off since way back.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Let's see... you led people to believe that you thought it was me fairly
early on... yet, not so early that you didn't make it clear that you
thought my research skills were poor prior to making this leading
statement. Now, you are claiming that you no longer think it is me based
on my inability to do basic research. Yup, this makes no sense... like
most of your posts.
--
--
Steve
Steve Carroll
Another delusional timetable, Snit? Now let's see... *who* is on the
internet *so* much that he can create any kind of timetable that he
wants while he is forging posts? Hey... maybe I should drum up a
timetable on this idiot...
> On 3/18, if you believe Steve, he posted at 11:33 AM, and then did not post
--
--
Steve
Rick G
> In article <Rick-6866AC.2...@news.telus.net>,
> IOW... it could be Snit.
I suppose so, but I don't see any motive for it.
Actually, I think it's more likely to be somebody who
consistently/obsessively replies to Snit, especially somebody who
follows him to not-yet-destroyed-by-trolling threads. Clearly there is a
group that are already reading a large amount of threads, and react to
his posts in them.
To me this seems much more plausible than Snit trying to rub his own
nose in it.
--
Steve Carroll
Rick G <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote:
Snit loves to play the victim... plus, it feeds his need for attention.
He will accept negative attention if he's not getting enough positive
attention, in fact, he seeks negative attention even while he is getting
plenty of positive attention. I don't see how you could possibly have
missed this.
> Actually, I think it's more likely to be somebody who
> consistently/obsessively replies to Snit, especially somebody who
> follows him to not-yet-destroyed-by-trolling threads. Clearly there is a
> group that are already reading a large amount of threads, and react to
> his posts in them.
>
> To me this seems much more plausible than Snit trying to rub his own
> nose in it.
Nah, you're way off the mark here... Snit isn't happy until he has
provoked someone into rubbing his nose in his past. It's actually how he
gains the majority of his attention. If this weren't so, he wouldn't do
things like putting out of context quotes in his sig. He does it with
the hope that the misquotees (is that a word?) will show, once again,
what a liar he is. I think you've read enough of his posts to know what
I'm saying is true. He's done this with quite a few posters.
Additionally, he often takes the word of other posters out of context in
the midst of conversation... in csma he's achieved legendary status on
this. I don't believe all of it is his poor reading comprehension, much
of it is intentional. Elizabot has shown this over and over, many times
now. Snit is right about one thing, she does better research than I
do... but you really don't need to get that heavy with it... it's easy
to prove what a liar Snit is. look at this thread... do you think I am
the only person Snit does this with? It's a blatant bid for attention on
his part... so people give it to him, then he whines that he's being
attacked and begins a campaign of projection. Pretty cut and dried stuff.
--
--
Steve
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Not always, but he did here:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/74b085999d9
4dc70?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&safe=off&prev=/groups%3Fas_epq%3Dposted
%2520as%2520sigmond%26safe%3Doff%26ie%3DUTF-8%26as_uauthors%3Dsnit%26lr%3
D%26hl%3Den
> I generally do - though I am then criticized by nit picking trolls and told
> that there is a sigmond and a Sigmond... though then they leave out
> _sigmond. Poor _sigmond. Poor, poor _sigmond. Always forgotten by the
> trolls.
Uh hunh... but not forgotten by those that are aware you have used
multiple sockpuppets. Of course, why would a person that has resorted to
ID theft, more than once, care about engaging in sock puppetry, right?
That's small potatoes to a person like this.
> I have not figured out if the claim is that there are multiple Sigmonds,
> sigmonds, Steve Sigmonds, _sigmonds, etc. For some reason Steve and the
> other trolls shy away from this question - they never make their ideas on
> this known.
>
> > Also, it seems to me that although most people here only have one person
> > that chases them and acts obsessively, you alone have a 'fan club'...
>
> I am quite popular. That seems to piss of the trolls. :)
> >>
> >> They have not been clear in their comments as to if they think I am the
> >> leader of the Sigmond cult or if I am merely one of many members.
> >>
> >> Perhaps they will clarify their oft changing position on this - but I
> >> doubt
> >> it.
> >
> > Hmm, maybe some interesting things did happen while I was away.
>
> It would be interesting if they were to clarify their position - but it will
> not happen.
Learn to read and you just might realize it's already been done.
--
--
Steve
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Snit, your answer is delusional... no obfuscation involved.
> >>> Now let's see... *who* is on the internet *so* much that he can create any
> >>> kind of timetable that he wants while he is forging posts? Hey... maybe I
> >>> should drum up a timetable on this idiot...
> >>
> >> Now you think is is Elizabot?
> >
> > No.
> >
> >> What evidence do you have?
> >
> > That a person known for stealing ID's spends a lot of time on the
> > internet creating tables like the above?
> >
> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/about
> >
> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/about
> >
> > BTW, after all this time, what makes you now change your mind and assume
> > Elizabot is a *he*?
>
> Look up the definition of "he", Steve. "He" does not always refer to a male
> - it can also refer to someone whose gender is not known.
>
> You will, of course, use this info to troll...
Gee, no comment on my "basic research"? I'm crushed:) LOL!
--
--
Steve
Rick G
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > I suppose so, but I don't see any motive for it.
>
> Snit loves to play the victim... plus, it feeds his need for attention.
> He will accept negative attention if he's not getting enough positive
> attention, in fact, he seeks negative attention even while he is getting
> plenty of positive attention. I don't see how you could possibly have
> missed this.
Ok, I can see that, now. I just don't generally think that way.
However, if this were the case, shouldn't he be making more noise about
the quotes? Or posting them at strategic intervals? What's the (fun?
point?) in trying to be a victim if you don't capitalize on it?
>
> > Actually, I think it's more likely to be somebody who
> > consistently/obsessively replies to Snit, especially somebody who
> > follows him to not-yet-destroyed-by-trolling threads. Clearly there is a
> > group that are already reading a large amount of threads, and react to
> > his posts in them.
> >
> > To me this seems much more plausible than Snit trying to rub his own
> > nose in it.
>
> Nah, you're way off the mark here... Snit isn't happy until he has
> provoked someone into rubbing his nose in his past. It's actually how he
> gains the majority of his attention. If this weren't so, he wouldn't do
> things like putting out of context quotes in his sig. He does it with
> the hope that the misquotees (is that a word?) will show, once again,
> what a liar he is. I think you've read enough of his posts to know what
> I'm saying is true. He's done this with quite a few posters.
> Additionally, he often takes the word of other posters out of context in
> the midst of conversation... in csma he's achieved legendary status on
> this. I don't believe all of it is his poor reading comprehension, much
> of it is intentional. Elizabot has shown this over and over, many times
> now. Snit is right about one thing, she does better research than I
> do... but you really don't need to get that heavy with it... it's easy
> to prove what a liar Snit is. look at this thread... do you think I am
> the only person Snit does this with? It's a blatant bid for attention on
> his part... so people give it to him, then he whines that he's being
> attacked and begins a campaign of projection. Pretty cut and dried stuff.
No, I don't doubt that there are intentionally 'misunderstood' replies.
Still, I have to believe that if you really understand his motives, his
need for any sort of attention, why do you continue to 'feed' him?
--
Steve Carroll
Rick G <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote:
> In article <BE64DE48.BE87%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
> > "Rick G" <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote in post
> > Rick-CC8710.1...@news.telus.net on 3/21/05 8:19 PM:
> >
> > > In article <BE64D851.BE75%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Rick G" <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote in post
> > >> Rick-BCFBAB.1...@news.telus.net on 3/21/05 7:42 PM:
> > >>
> > >>> In article <BE64D228.BE68%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > >>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Would love to know how the "fake" Steve know to post one minute before
> > >>>> the
> > >>>> "real" one... and why Steve runs from any questions as to which are the
> > >>>> "fake" posts.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> He is likely just playing the victim... his favorite role in life.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Post hoc ergo propter hoc?
> > >>>
> > >>> Life's too short for such silliness.
> > >>
> > >> It is very coincidental that someone would "forge" one of Steve's posts
> > >> *one* minute before the "real" Steve started posting again. I am not
> > >> claiming that this constitutes the level of proof needed to satisfy a
> > >> logical proof, but it surely is an odd coincidence...
> > >
> > > If coincidences didn't happen, there wouldn't be a word to describe them.
> >
> > Your info below does shed some light on the situation...
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Add to that the fact that Steve refuses to comment on which of the posts
> > >> are
> > >> the ones he claims are "forged" - there is no doubt he is hiding
> > >> something.
> > >> In my timing research I made the assumption that Steve's "forger" posted
> > >> did
> > >> not post showing his IP... but he will not verify even that.
> > >
>
> Steve's disavowed post, one that he claims is a forgery:
> > > Here: A gift.
> > > CSMA/COLA Individual.net 3/20/05 8:25 AM
> > > <3a5j1sF...@individual.net>
> > > No NNTP-Posting-Host.
> > > Thunderbird on Windows, Timezone -0800
> > >
> > >
> I see the problem. A dangling 'this' pointer. ;)
>
> > > This one is a forgery, as referenced in:
>
>
> Steve's actual, not in any way denied, authentic post:
> > > <noone-B46836....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>
> > > NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.164.185.11
> > > MTNW on OS X, Timezone -0700.
> >
> > Hmmm, so some of the ones from his IP he does claim are forgeries.... I
> > missed that. Thanks.
>
> I think that either I was not sufficiently clear in my writing, or you
> somehow messed up the understanding.
Gee, ya think :)
> The forgery did not have the IP,
> Steve's post that identified the forgery was the one with the IP.
>
> >
> > That means Steve is claiming that someone can forge his IP... interesting.
> Oops, no.
>
> > I did not pay close attention to what posts he said were forged - I just
> > made an assumption that Steve would claim the posts with non-standard
> > headers (for him) were the forged ones. I was wrong.
>
> Well, you are still wrong, if it helps any, just about different items...
It's amazing that someone so poor at basic research would accuse others
of it.
--
--
Steve
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
I wanted to address this one on its own because it's SO delusional:
According to you, Elizabot and I are liars. So why choose to believe
such liars only when it suits you? Of course you'll have a *reasonable*
explanation for doing this:)
--
--
Steve
Mike Dee
>
> Hi, Snit.
> Are you trying this again? Didn't this go over like a lead balloon
> last time?
Hello Rick G. Time off university?
--
dee
Rick G
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Rick G" <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote in post
> Rick-949C56.2...@news.telus.net on 3/21/05 9:45 PM:
> >> When Steve, Elizabot, or whoever is the "real" CSMA_moderator decides to
> >> change them.
> >
> > Ok, why the quotes around "real"? Is one of them accusing the other of
> > being/not being the moderator? Did I miss anything interesting? Or is
> > this just More Of The Same?
>
> I do not think there is a real CSMA_Moderator - it is likely merely a sock
> puppet of one of the others. Steve's actions make it quite clear he knows
> who it is, but I no longer think it is him. The Mod is too good at doing
> basic research, and therefore can not be Steve. Elizabot is a likely
> suspect...
I would tend to disagree - Not much in the way of basic research is
required to compile such a list.
I'd start by looking at people who have one or more of the following
traits:
A) Net-savvy enough to run a usenet server and grep through the posts.
B) Obsessive enough to run a usenet server and grep through the posts.
B relies upon A, of course.
C) Obsessive enough to run a Google search and GUI through the posts.
D) Obsessive enough to read every post in this NG in the hope that it
references you.
As many of the posts don't actually refer to you by name, D seems to be
the most likely choice.
--
Rick...
Steve Carroll
Rick G <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote:
IOW... it could be Snit.
--
--
Steve
Rick G
"ed" <news...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> In news:Rick-990D73.2...@news.telus.net,
> Rick G <Ri...@dot.dot> typed:
> > In article <OYO%d.190$zl...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
> > "ed" <news...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> To me this seems much more plausible than Snit trying to rub his own
> >>> nose in it.
> >>
> >> except that everyone and his mother pretty much agrees sigmond is
> >> snit (and there is ip evidence to back it up), and sigmond's been
> >> known to troll snit...
> >
> > Well, I haven't been seriously involved in this group since before
> > Xmas (I have looked in a couple of times), and I really don't want to
> > wade through months of tripe, but were there any IP similarities
> > between the moderator and Snit?
>
> checking some recent posts, i don't see any posts of csma_moderator that
> includes the posting ip.
It's nice to see that people are capable of learning new things, even in
this day and age. ;) I remember having a conversation with him that
properly configured servers specifically reject attempts to supply the
NNTP-Posting-Host header.
>
> > And, unless I remember it incorrectly, I thought sigmond just attacked
> > Steve/whoever else was involved at the time? When did sigmond start
> > attacking Snit?
>
> he's done it on and off since way back.
Ok, I thought that it was some new behaviour that I had missed. So far,
there's not much in the way of changes since > 4 months ago. For some
reason, I find this disappointing.
Snit
When do you believe the most recent time is (or one of the most recent
times)?
--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson
_________________________________________
Rick G
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "ed" <news...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote in post
> OYO%d.190$zl...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com on 3/21/05 11:31 PM:
>
> Elizabot recently posted IP evidence, in an effort to clear Steve, that also
> cleared me. She then postulated, and Steve concurred, that there was more
> than one Sigmond - in fact, there may be a whole team of Sigmonds.
Hmm - do you always capitalize Sigmond? I just noticed that...
Also, it seems to me that although most people here only have one person
that chases them and acts obsessively, you alone have a 'fan club'...
>
> They have not been clear in their comments as to if they think I am the
> leader of the Sigmond cult or if I am merely one of many members.
>
> Perhaps they will clarify their oft changing position on this - but I doubt
> it.
Hmm, maybe some interesting things did happen while I was away.
--
Rick G
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Rick G" <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote in post
> Rick-96743B.0...@news.telus.net on 3/22/05 9:35 AM:
>
> > In article <noone-1D226C....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> > Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <Rick-02C42A.2...@news.telus.net>,
> >> Rick G <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Ok, I can see that, now. I just don't generally think that way.
> >>> However, if this were the case, shouldn't he be making more noise about
> >>> the quotes? Or posting them at strategic intervals? What's the (fun?
> >>> point?) in trying to be a victim if you don't capitalize on it?
> >>
> >> Snit does make noise about the moderator for those that listen... when
> >> they listen (like you are doing here).
> >
> > I just found it curious, but ultimately irrelevant, for the reasons you
> > state below.
> >
> >> Few people respond to Snit now
> >> when he talks about the moderator. Why? Because they realize that it
> >> doesn't much matter who the moderator is... as the message is clear,
> >> regardless. That SO many people have essentially stated the same thing
> >> is telling. As far as the intervals go, they do appear to generally be
> >> posted on weekends, usually on Saturdays. Whether or not we could
> >> consider that "strategic" or not, I dunno.
> >
> > Sorry - I was considering strategic in the sense that a number of
> > arguments had been lost or won, and then the moderator 'reminds' us of
> > who Snit is. The schedule is not regular, such as if it had been
> > auto-posted.
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>> Still, I have to believe that if you really understand his motives, his
> >>> need for any sort of attention, why do you continue to 'feed' him?
> >>
> >> To keep his crap in the limelight. The longer it stays there, the more
> >> people see him for what he is. Now, the poster in cola (linux ng) who
> >> does the 'stats' has shown that Snit is the top poster in cola for the
> >> last two reports... and he has labeled him as a troll. Many have chimed
> >> in agreement, though, there are still a few holdouts. That'll change
> >> before too long... with or without my help but I plan on helping Snit
> >> achieve his goal of having a certain percentage of the ng talking about
> >> him.
> >
> > If Snit had happened to wander into COLA, and was not branded a troll,
> > wouldn't that serve your purpose of getting him out of CSMA? Usenet is
> > big, I hope you don't intend to chase him all the way to the other side
> > and back again... (especially the back again part!)
> > I expect that you believe it is inevitable that he would reveal his
> > nature eventually, so that the good people of COLA would rise against
> > him, so why hasten the process?
> >
> > Just to be plain here, I have no doubt that he is a troll. I am tolerant
> > of his nature, not blind to it. However, as a troll, he is ... somewhat
> > clumsy.
>
> Do you find Steve to be any less of a troll?
Less than before? Less than you?
I'd say that he's very specific in his trolling, but as he has basically
stated that he intends to continue to draw responses from you, see 'crap
in limelight', above, I'd also say that he's very effective.
Snit
Rick-A5C9EB.0...@news.telus.net on 3/22/05 9:54 AM:
> In article <BE65969F.C00C%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Rick G" <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote in post
>> Rick-59AFC7.0...@news.telus.net on 3/22/05 9:12 AM:
>>
>>> In article <Xns9621C87...@81.174.12.30>,
>>> Yeah, got a couple of free days, so I thought I'd see if anything had
>>> happened here in the interim. I was quite amazed that despite all the
>>> bluster, nothing changed.
>>
>> Let's see... what has changed:
>>
>> I have commented on how I am expecting a baby
>
> Interesting, I suppose you'll be in the journals, or at least your small
> town newspaper. Your wife refused to carry it, eh?
Yeah, makes things a bit rough. I am debating if I should have a C-section
or natural birth... any thoughts? :)
>
>> - and Elizabot went into one
>> of her jealous rages where she demanded that she should be involved with my
>> family planning decisions - and then when I failed to include her she
>> repeatedly called me names and made it clear it was simply wrong for me to
>> have children with my wife (or, really, anyone but her). She also
>> repeatedly begged me to tell her how the concept of incest makes me feel -
>> even to the point of making a silly "test" where she has that as the very
>> first question. In other words, she is no less sick than before, but she is
>> more jealous now that she knows I am expecting.
>
> Somehow, I expect that her opinion differs.
Ya' think?
I am happy to point to at least a dozen posts, each, of her trying to
question me on my family planning and her asking me how I feel about the
concept of incest. Not hard to find.
She will have excuses for doing so, but, really, what excuse could there be?
>
>>
> <snip>
>> In other words - you are right, nothing has changed.
>>
> I had hoped, but it seems that 4 months is insufficient time.
> Well, I don't plan on hanging around here for too long this time.
You always add good things to the group... when you are here...
--
"So just killfile me and no one else. It'll cut down on the noise factor"
-- Steve Carroll
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-76152A.09...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 3/22/05
7:34 AM:
>> Since you've gone to the trouble of creating a list of posts, and their
>> respective posting times, it should be little trouble to go the rest of
>> the way and *actually look at them*. Surely you're not saying that Steve
>> is controlling your actions and forcing you not to examine them?
>
> It would also be nice for him to add in all the times he posted within
> this time. The you might see that snit also posted during that time
> frame and could just as easily be forging other peoples posts.
>
> IE: posting times only show that a person posted at a certain time.
> Nothing more!
I have clearly shown the fact that Steve stop posting for about 12 hours.
One minute before he started posting again his "forger" started to post. It
is clearly an oddity that someone would forge his posts at almost the exact
time he would be posting...
It is not 100% definitive proof - but it is odd... and being that Steve has
been babbling about someone forging his posts recently but has been unable
to produce evidence, it is likely that he is fabricating this evidence so he
can better play the victim.
--
Steve Carroll flip flops:
*actually legally guilty* = *legally guilty*
There is no such thing as *actually* guilty in this context. There
is only guilty or not guilty.
Snit
1111509869....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com on 3/22/05 9:44 AM:
>
> Snit wrote:
>> "Rick G" <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote in post
>> Rick-BCFBAB.1...@news.telus.net on 3/21/05 7:42 PM:
>>
>>> In article <BE64D228.BE68%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Would love to know how the "fake" Steve know to post one minute before the
>>>> "real" one... and why Steve runs from any questions as to which are the
>>>> "fake" posts.
>>>>
>>>> He is likely just playing the victim... his favorite role in life.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Post hoc ergo propter hoc?
>>>
>>> Life's too short for such silliness.
>>>
>> It is very coincidental that someone would "forge" one of Steve's posts *one*
>> minute before the "real" Steve started posting again. I am not claiming that
>> this constitutes the level of proof needed to satisfy a logical proof,
>>
> So you admit you have nothing...
No, but I can see where someone with a weak grasp of logic would conclude
such.
Is there anything hidden in your trolling, below, that you wanted a response
to?
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
>
>> but it surely is an odd coincidence...
>
> ... but you claim to have something anyway. Pure Snit Circus.
>
>> Add to that the fact that Steve refuses to comment on which of the posts are
>> the ones he claims are "forged" -
>>
> Why should he help refine the forger's technique by telling how he spots each
> and every forgery?
>
>> there is no doubt he is hiding something.
>>
> One need not be hiding anything to not give in to the demands made in a Snit
> Circus.
>
>> In my timing research I made the assumption that Steve's "forger" posted did
>> not post showing his IP... but he will not verify even that.
>>
>> What is he hiding?
>>
> The information you... er... I mean 'the forger,' needs to be successful in
> forgery.
>
>> And why?
>>
> *chough*
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-0188B8.09...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 3/22/05
> 7:45 AM:
>
> >>> IOW... it could be Snit.
> >>
> >> I suppose so, but I don't see any motive for it.
> >
> > It's an ego thing for snit. He posted as 'Evil John' several months ago
> > and then accused Steve of doing the posting.
>
> I would love to see the support for your accusation.
>
> Keep in mind, Steve Carroll admitted to posting as "John"...
or so you claim. You have however NEVER been able to prove it. You OTOH
have never denied it when I've accused you of it, while Steve has done
just that.
> he also
> admitted to repeatedly attributing his own quotes to me - something you have
> done but have refused to admit to.
>
> Will you admit to it now?
As I've clearly stated - I've never attributed a quote to you.
--
reguarding 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
Tim
Snit
Fair enough... he is effective is getting a rise out of me. Not much else,
but he does do that...
--
"You're being trolled right now." - Steve Carroll
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-7ADA4A.12...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 3/22/05
> 10:14 AM:
>
> >> he also
> >> admitted to repeatedly attributing his own quotes to me - something you
> >> have
> >> done but have refused to admit to.
> >>
> >> Will you admit to it now?
> >
> > As I've clearly stated - I've never attributed a quote to you.
>
Wrong - I copied a quote from your message. I used your handle to
clearly show you the quote you had taken out of context. IF I was
attributing a quote to you I wouldn't have included the space - space.
> In that post you attribute your own quote to me.
>
> Or are you going to play a Carrollesque game and pretend that was not you?
Snit
> In article <noone-1D226C....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <Rick-02C42A.2...@news.telus.net>,
>> Rick G <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, I can see that, now. I just don't generally think that way.
>>> However, if this were the case, shouldn't he be making more noise about
>>> the quotes? Or posting them at strategic intervals? What's the (fun?
>>> point?) in trying to be a victim if you don't capitalize on it?
>>
>> Snit does make noise about the moderator for those that listen... when
>> they listen (like you are doing here).
>
> I just found it curious, but ultimately irrelevant, for the reasons you
> state below.
>
>> Few people respond to Snit now
>> when he talks about the moderator. Why? Because they realize that it
>> doesn't much matter who the moderator is... as the message is clear,
>> regardless. That SO many people have essentially stated the same thing
>> is telling. As far as the intervals go, they do appear to generally be
>> posted on weekends, usually on Saturdays. Whether or not we could
>> consider that "strategic" or not, I dunno.
>
> Sorry - I was considering strategic in the sense that a number of
> arguments had been lost or won, and then the moderator 'reminds' us of
> who Snit is. The schedule is not regular, such as if it had been
> auto-posted.
>
>
>>>
>>> Still, I have to believe that if you really understand his motives, his
>>> need for any sort of attention, why do you continue to 'feed' him?
>>
>> To keep his crap in the limelight. The longer it stays there, the more
>> people see him for what he is. Now, the poster in cola (linux ng) who
>> does the 'stats' has shown that Snit is the top poster in cola for the
>> last two reports... and he has labeled him as a troll. Many have chimed
>> in agreement, though, there are still a few holdouts. That'll change
>> before too long... with or without my help but I plan on helping Snit
>> achieve his goal of having a certain percentage of the ng talking about
>> him.
>
> If Snit had happened to wander into COLA, and was not branded a troll,
> wouldn't that serve your purpose of getting him out of CSMA? Usenet is
> big, I hope you don't intend to chase him all the way to the other side
> and back again... (especially the back again part!)
> I expect that you believe it is inevitable that he would reveal his
> nature eventually, so that the good people of COLA would rise against
> him, so why hasten the process?
>
> Just to be plain here, I have no doubt that he is a troll. I am tolerant
> of his nature, not blind to it. However, as a troll, he is ... somewhat
> clumsy.
Do you find Steve to be any less of a troll?
--
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/bid1
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
Rick G
Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:45:33 +0000, Tim Adams wrote:
>
> > In article <Rick-3B47CA.2...@news.telus.net>,
> > It's an ego thing for snit. He posted as 'Evil John' several months ago
> > and then accused Steve of doing the posting.
>
> IIRC, sigmond<aka, Snit> also flamed snit. So this could very possibly be
> snit.
>
> Let us not forget, that snit did indeed post as sigmond. Went through
> months of smoke screens, coincidently just like this one...
>
>
> What a coincidence, eh? :)
I'm not certain about this, but when you say 'this could very possibly
be snit.' are you thinking I'm Snit?
If so, I can tell you I'm not, but other than that I don't see any way
to demonstrate that I'm not.
If not, then I'm not quite following your statement. Are you agreeing
that Snit may be the moderator?
Snit
Rick-59AFC7.0...@news.telus.net on 3/22/05 9:12 AM:
> In article <Xns9621C87...@81.174.12.30>,
> Mike Dee <mik...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> Yeah, got a couple of free days, so I thought I'd see if anything had
> happened here in the interim. I was quite amazed that despite all the
> bluster, nothing changed.
Let's see... what has changed:
I have commented on how I am expecting a baby - and Elizabot went into one
of her jealous rages where she demanded that she should be involved with my
family planning decisions - and then when I failed to include her she
repeatedly called me names and made it clear it was simply wrong for me to
have children with my wife (or, really, anyone but her). She also
repeatedly begged me to tell her how the concept of incest makes me feel -
even to the point of making a silly "test" where she has that as the very
first question. In other words, she is no less sick than before, but she is
more jealous now that she knows I am expecting.
Steve, on the other hand, has been fluctuating between acting like a toddler
going through his terrible twos and a crazed teen - so I suppose that is
good preparation for me.
Steve was caught and finally admitted to repeatedly attributing his own
quote to me. As a "defense" he claimed he was giving me a taste of my own
medicine - so I asked him when he imagined I did this to him. He never
clarified that, and likely will not (since he was lying), but he did allude
to some ancient wrong he claims I did to him that he has been holding a a
grudge for ever since. He can not, of course, find any support for his
claim. Even if he did (assuming such evidence even exists) it has *nothing*
to do with his attributing his own words to me. In other words, he is
playing his typical game of obfuscation and piling of one lie on top of
another.
Sandman is dishonestly snipping posts and claiming empty victories, and Tim
Adams jumps in from time to time to slap the backs of the cretin crew and
show he can emulate Steve's stupidity... though Steve is still the master
there.
I still taunt the cretins, and they jump up and down claiming that since the
all agree with each other they must be right, even if logic, external
resources, and common sense are not on their side.
In other words - you are right, nothing has changed.
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
Snit
10:12 AM:
> In article <BE657D70.BFE7%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
>> teadams$2$0$0$3-76152A.09...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 3/22/05
>> 7:34 AM:
>>
>>>> Since you've gone to the trouble of creating a list of posts, and their
>>>> respective posting times, it should be little trouble to go the rest of
>>>> the way and *actually look at them*. Surely you're not saying that Steve
>>>> is controlling your actions and forcing you not to examine them?
>>>
>>> It would also be nice for him to add in all the times he posted within
>>> this time. The you might see that snit also posted during that time
>>> frame and could just as easily be forging other peoples posts.
>>>
>>> IE: posting times only show that a person posted at a certain time.
>>> Nothing more!
>>
>> I have clearly shown the fact that Steve stop posting for about 12 hours.
>> One minute before he started posting again his "forger" started to post. It
>> is clearly an oddity that someone would forge his posts at almost the exact
>> time he would be posting...
>
> Yet the question remains - how close to this same time did YOU post?
I had not posted in over 24 hours... and did not for some time after.
Predictably enough, when I am not posting, Steve finds the need to invent a
new bad guy.
>
>>
>> It is not 100% definitive proof -
>
> It's proof of NOTHING!
LOL... wow... are you going to follow in Steve's footsteps and start playing
semantic games with that word? It is one piece of evidence - of many.
Something you will simply not understand.
>
>> but it is odd... and being that Steve has
>> been babbling about someone forging his posts recently but has been unable
>> to produce evidence, it is likely that he is fabricating this evidence so he
>> can better play the victim.
--
"you are a better man than I" - Steve Carroll
Rick G
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Rick G" <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote in post
> Rick-59AFC7.0...@news.telus.net on 3/22/05 9:12 AM:
>
> > In article <Xns9621C87...@81.174.12.30>,
> > Mike Dee <mik...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> Rick G <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote in
> >> news:Rick-5B8272.1...@news.telus.net:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Hi, Snit.
> >>> Are you trying this again? Didn't this go over like a lead balloon
> >>> last time?
> >>
> >> Hello Rick G. Time off university?
> >
> > Yeah, got a couple of free days, so I thought I'd see if anything had
> > happened here in the interim. I was quite amazed that despite all the
> > bluster, nothing changed.
>
> Let's see... what has changed:
>
> I have commented on how I am expecting a baby
Interesting, I suppose you'll be in the journals, or at least your small
town newspaper. Your wife refused to carry it, eh?
> - and Elizabot went into one
> of her jealous rages where she demanded that she should be involved with my
> family planning decisions - and then when I failed to include her she
> repeatedly called me names and made it clear it was simply wrong for me to
> have children with my wife (or, really, anyone but her). She also
> repeatedly begged me to tell her how the concept of incest makes me feel -
> even to the point of making a silly "test" where she has that as the very
> first question. In other words, she is no less sick than before, but she is
> more jealous now that she knows I am expecting.
Somehow, I expect that her opinion differs.
>
<snip>
> In other words - you are right, nothing has changed.
>
I had hoped, but it seems that 4 months is insufficient time.
Well, I don't plan on hanging around here for too long this time.
--
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-76152A.09...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 3/22/05
> 7:34 AM:
>
> >> Since you've gone to the trouble of creating a list of posts, and their
> >> respective posting times, it should be little trouble to go the rest of
> >> the way and *actually look at them*. Surely you're not saying that Steve
> >> is controlling your actions and forcing you not to examine them?
> >
> > It would also be nice for him to add in all the times he posted within
> > this time. The you might see that snit also posted during that time
> > frame and could just as easily be forging other peoples posts.
> >
> > IE: posting times only show that a person posted at a certain time.
> > Nothing more!
>
> I have clearly shown the fact that Steve stop posting for about 12 hours.
> One minute before he started posting again his "forger" started to post. It
> is clearly an oddity that someone would forge his posts at almost the exact
> time he would be posting...
Yet the question remains - how close to this same time did YOU post?
>
> It is not 100% definitive proof -
It's proof of NOTHING!
> but it is odd... and being that Steve has
> been babbling about someone forging his posts recently but has been unable
> to produce evidence, it is likely that he is fabricating this evidence so he
> can better play the victim.
--
Snit
10:14 AM:
>> he also
>> admitted to repeatedly attributing his own quotes to me - something you have
>> done but have refused to admit to.
>>
>> Will you admit to it now?
>
> As I've clearly stated - I've never attributed a quote to you.
In that post you attribute your own quote to me.
Or are you going to play a Carrollesque game and pretend that was not you?
--
"I'm a troll that pisses off many CSMA regulars" - Tim Adams
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
As snit anyways... How about sockpupets?
> and did not for some time after.
> Predictably enough, when I am not posting, Steve finds the need to invent a
> new bad guy.
> >
> >>
> >> It is not 100% definitive proof -
> >
> > It's proof of NOTHING!
>
> LOL... wow... are you going to follow in Steve's footsteps and start playing
> semantic games with that word? It is one piece of evidence - of many.
yet you have shown nothing else but a bunch of times. Go figure.
>
> Something you will simply not understand.
> >
> >> but it is odd... and being that Steve has
> >> been babbling about someone forging his posts recently but has been unable
> >> to produce evidence, it is likely that he is fabricating this evidence so
> >> he
> >> can better play the victim.
--
Snit
7:45 AM:
>>> IOW... it could be Snit.
>>
>> I suppose so, but I don't see any motive for it.
>
> It's an ego thing for snit. He posted as 'Evil John' several months ago
> and then accused Steve of doing the posting.
I would love to see the support for your accusation.
Keep in mind, Steve Carroll admitted to posting as "John"... he also
admitted to repeatedly attributing his own quotes to me - something you have
done but have refused to admit to.
Will you admit to it now?
--
Rick G
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Rick G" <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote in post
> Rick-A5C9EB.0...@news.telus.net on 3/22/05 9:54 AM:
> >> I have commented on how I am expecting a baby
> >
> > Interesting, I suppose you'll be in the journals, or at least your small
> > town newspaper. Your wife refused to carry it, eh?
>
> Yeah, makes things a bit rough. I am debating if I should have a C-section
> or natural birth... any thoughts? :)
Although it pains me to consider that area of your 'geography', I would
advise you to go the C-section route. I don't think that even you have
enough of an asshole to deliver a baby naturally.
(That one has *got* to make the list)
Snit
LOL! Yes, I would be surprised if it did not.
--
"Reality can simply be snipped away" - Steve Carroll
Steve Mackay
> In article <Rick-3B47CA.2...@news.telus.net>,
> Rick G <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote:
>
>> In article <noone-456472....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
>> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> I suppose so, but I don't see any motive for it.
>
> It's an ego thing for snit. He posted as 'Evil John' several months ago
> and then accused Steve of doing the posting.
IIRC, sigmond<aka, Snit> also flamed snit. So this could very possibly be
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-A8E784.15...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 3/22/05
> 1:35 PM:
>
> > In article <BE65B836.C0AB%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
> >> teadams$2$0$0$3-7ADA4A.12...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 3/22/05
> >> 10:14 AM:
> >>
> >>>> he also
> >>>> admitted to repeatedly attributing his own quotes to me - something you
> >>>> have
> >>>> done but have refused to admit to.
> >>>>
> >>>> Will you admit to it now?
> >>>
> >>> As I've clearly stated - I've never attributed a quote to you.
> >>
> >> http://snipurl.com/dl8z
> >
> > Wrong - I copied a quote from your message. I used your handle to
> > clearly show you the quote you had taken out of context. IF I was
> > attributing a quote to you I wouldn't have included the space - space.
>
> Your silly attempts to justify your dishonesty do not wash - you clearly are
> attributing the quote to me when you state:
You may now explain why I do a proper quote with attribute as my sig
file but don't to do it in a post.
You might also note that the other times I called you on quoting me out
of context, I removed the quotes to further remove all doubt as to it
being a 'quote' of yours.
>
> "I'm a troll that pisses off many CSMA regulars" - snit
>
~snip
Snit
1:37 PM:
I note you have no replies to my comments, just silly accusations and
trolling.
So be it.
--
I'm not sure I even know how to be honest - Steve Carroll
_________________________________________
Tim Adams
Rick G <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote:
> In article <noone-456472....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> I suppose so, but I don't see any motive for it.
It's an ego thing for snit. He posted as 'Evil John' several months ago
and then accused Steve of doing the posting.
> Actually, I think it's more likely to be somebody who
> consistently/obsessively replies to Snit, especially somebody who
> follows him to not-yet-destroyed-by-trolling threads. Clearly there is a
> group that are already reading a large amount of threads, and react to
> his posts in them.
>
> To me this seems much more plausible than Snit trying to rub his own
> nose in it.
--
Snit
1:35 PM:
> In article <BE65B836.C0AB%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
>> teadams$2$0$0$3-7ADA4A.12...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 3/22/05
>> 10:14 AM:
>>
>>>> he also
>>>> admitted to repeatedly attributing his own quotes to me - something you
>>>> have
>>>> done but have refused to admit to.
>>>>
>>>> Will you admit to it now?
>>>
>>> As I've clearly stated - I've never attributed a quote to you.
>>
>> http://snipurl.com/dl8z
>
> Wrong - I copied a quote from your message. I used your handle to
> clearly show you the quote you had taken out of context. IF I was
> attributing a quote to you I wouldn't have included the space - space.
Your silly attempts to justify your dishonesty do not wash - you clearly are
attributing the quote to me when you state:
"I'm a troll that pisses off many CSMA regulars" - snit
You have been caught, red handed, lying... being that you, not I, are the
author of that quote.
>
>> In that post you attribute your own quote to me.
>>
>> Or are you going to play a Carrollesque game and pretend that was not you?
I see you are playing Carrollesque games... so be it.
--
"stop forcing me to confront truths I can't deal with." - Steve Carroll
Rick G
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> In article <Rick-02C42A.2...@news.telus.net>,
--
Rick G
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > Dude, take your pick, there's only about a half dozen to choose from.
> > The people quoted by the moderator have all expressed a negative opinion
> > of you, but only a few of them are serious enough to follow you around.
> > It should be pretty apparent by now.
>
> Not necessarily. I've been on this NG a long time and I can tell you
> that it may not be someone so obvious. There are people (like Mayor, for
> instance) who are often vocal at points on certain things but remain
> sleepers while doing stuff behind the scenes on other things.
Yes, I suppose that is possible, after all, if the culprit was always
the one with the obvious motive, 2/3 of all fiction would be really
boring! :)
However, that being said, all options are open. Perhaps OJ really did do
it.
> In any
> event, it's not like Snit hasn't asked for what he gets. He begs for it
> and then whines when he gets it; people like that are always gonna be a
> target.
There's no denying that, but aren't you accommodating him by replying?
> > > Who else would care to help Steve Carroll in his desperate
> > > struggles to get revenge?
> >
> > I don't necessarily see any attempt to assist (or any desperation, for
> > that matter).
>
> I don't need any help in pointing out what a lying, delusional loon Snit
> is. Think about it... he has shown you several examples just tonight
> where he jumps to unfounded conclusions and you've called him on it.
I wasn't trying to claim you needed any help, just that the moderator's
posts did not offer any support to you in particular.
> That he has such a "fan club" is his own doing... unlike you, most
> people aren't quite as tolerant of his obvious bullshit.
Yeah, I realize that I'm quite tolerant of his 'antics', but that might
be the way to go. Very little he does gets a rise out of me, so perhaps
this feeds the cravings less than most?
TravelinMan
Rick G <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote:
> In article <BE65969F.C00C%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
> > "Rick G" <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote in post
> > Rick-59AFC7.0...@news.telus.net on 3/22/05 9:12 AM:
> >
> > > In article <Xns9621C87...@81.174.12.30>,
> > > Mike Dee <mik...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Rick G <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote in
> > >> news:Rick-5B8272.1...@news.telus.net:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi, Snit.
> > >>> Are you trying this again? Didn't this go over like a lead balloon
> > >>> last time?
> > >>
> > >> Hello Rick G. Time off university?
> > >
> > > Yeah, got a couple of free days, so I thought I'd see if anything had
> > > happened here in the interim. I was quite amazed that despite all the
> > > bluster, nothing changed.
> >
> > Let's see... what has changed:
> >
> > I have commented on how I am expecting a baby
>
> Interesting, I suppose you'll be in the journals, or at least your small
> town newspaper. Your wife refused to carry it, eh?
Maybe his wife is smarter than we give her credit for. After all, would
YOU carry snit's baby?
Snit
pan.2005.03.23....@hotmail.com on 3/22/05 8:02 PM:
>>>> IOW... it could be Snit.
>>>
>>> I suppose so, but I don't see any motive for it.
>>
>> It's an ego thing for snit. He posted as 'Evil John' several months ago
>> and then accused Steve of doing the posting.
I would love to see the support that shows I ever posted as John. Good luck
finding that wild goose.
>
> IIRC, sigmond<aka, Snit> also flamed snit. So this could very possibly be
> snit.
>
> Let us not forget, that snit did indeed post as sigmond. Went through
> months of smoke screens, coincidently just like this one...
Keep in mind that Elizabot recently posted "proof" that Sigmond could not be
Steve Carroll... nor me. Of course once this was pointed out the claims
were changed and now it seems that the cretin crew postulate multiple
Sigmonds. I have yet to be told if, in their world, I started the Sigmond
cult or am merely one of the members. Nor, really, do I know all of the
members... only Sigmond, sigmond, _sigmond, and Steve Sigmond. How many
more are there in the world of the cretin crew?
--
"So just killfile me and no one else. It'll cut down on the noise factor"
-- Steve Carroll
Rick G
Mike Dee <mik...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Rick G <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote in
> news:Rick-5B8272.1...@news.telus.net:
>
> >
> > Hi, Snit.
> > Are you trying this again? Didn't this go over like a lead balloon
> > last time?
>
> Hello Rick G. Time off university?
Yeah, got a couple of free days, so I thought I'd see if anything had
happened here in the interim. I was quite amazed that despite all the
bluster, nothing changed.
--
Tim Adams
Rick G <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote:
> In article <BE64EAED.BEBE%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
> > "Rick G" <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote in post
> > Rick-76F224.2...@news.telus.net on 3/21/05 9:04 PM:
> >
> > > In article <BE64E489.BE9E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Aha... so my original assumption may still be correct - that the
> > >> "different"
> > >> headers are the ones Steve claims are forged...
> > >
> > > Yeah, although I'm by no means an expert at post forging, it seems
> > > likely that the ones that don't look like the others would be the ones
> > > that aren't like the others.
> >
> > Tee hee... yeah... but Steve is hesitant to specify. Odd...
>
> Since you've gone to the trouble of creating a list of posts, and their
> respective posting times, it should be little trouble to go the rest of
> the way and *actually look at them*. Surely you're not saying that Steve
> is controlling your actions and forcing you not to examine them?
It would also be nice for him to add in all the times he posted within
this time. The you might see that snit also posted during that time
frame and could just as easily be forging other peoples posts.
IE: posting times only show that a person posted at a certain time.
Nothing more!
~snip
Snit
Nowhere-3387A6...@news1.west.earthlink.net on 3/22/05 10:49 AM:
I do not think I would want Rick to carry my baby - at least not until after
the birth.
Edwin
Snit wrote:
> "Rick G" <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote in post
>
> > In article <BE64D228.BE68%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> Would love to know how the "fake" Steve know to post one minute
before the
> >> "real" one... and why Steve runs from any questions as to which
are the
> >> "fake" posts.
> >>
> >> He is likely just playing the victim... his favorite role in life.
> >>
> >
> > Post hoc ergo propter hoc?
> >
> > Life's too short for such silliness.
>
> It is very coincidental that someone would "forge" one of Steve's
posts
> *one* minute before the "real" Steve started posting again. I am not
> claiming that this constitutes the level of proof needed to satisfy a
> logical proof,
So you admit you have nothing...
> but it surely is an odd coincidence...
... but you claim to have something anyway. Pure Snit Circus.
> Add to that the fact that Steve refuses to comment on which of the
posts are
> the ones he claims are "forged" -
Why should he help refine the forger's technique by telling how he
spots each and every forgery?
> there is no doubt he is hiding something.
One need not be hiding anything to not give in to the demands made in a
Snit Circus.
> In my timing research I made the assumption that Steve's "forger"
posted did
> not post showing his IP... but he will not verify even that.
>
> What is he hiding?
The information you... er... I mean 'the forger,' needs to be
successful in forgery.
> And why?
*chough*
Rick G
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Rick G" <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote in post
> Rick-F3EE18.2...@news.telus.net on 3/22/05 9:42 PM:
>
>
> > Yes, assuming that transitivity applies across identities.
> >
> > Of course, since I am not Snit, so there is a flaw in your reasoning
> > somewhere.
>
> Are you just figuring this out? :)
Well, she only just presented her thesis. I'm not a mind-reader,
although I do possess a certainty that you and I are very different
individuals.
>
> Seems there is a Sigmond, sigmond, _sigmond, Steve Sigmond, and now a
> Sigmond '05.
It remains to be proven that the poster Elizabot referred to as "(the
one from 2/05)" is not the same as any other incarnation of Sigmond.
Truthfully, it remains to be proven that there are incarnations of
Sigmond.
>
> No wonder Elizabot obsesses over me - she thinks I am a cult leader...
> >
> > Then, you would have a case that Snit is me, or that I am Snit.
>
> But would that prove that I am Rick G.?
Uhh, yes.
Elizabot v2.0.2
If Snit is Sigmond, and Sigmond (the one from 2/05) is you, Rick G.,
then doesn't it follow that you are Snit?
> If so, I can tell you I'm not, but other than that I don't see any way
> to demonstrate that I'm not.
>
> If not, then I'm not quite following your statement. Are you agreeing
> that Snit may be the moderator?
--
By responding to Elizabot v2.0.2 you implicitly agree to the TOS at:
http://elizabot.spymac.net/
Snit
> In article <1141set...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote:
>
>> Rick G wrote:
>>> In article <pan.2005.03.23....@hotmail.com>,
>>> Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>> IIRC, sigmond<aka, Snit> also flamed snit. So this could very possibly be
>>>> snit.
>>>>
>>>> Let us not forget, that snit did indeed post as sigmond. Went through
>>>> months of smoke screens, coincidently just like this one...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What a coincidence, eh? :)
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not certain about this, but when you say 'this could very possibly
>>> be snit.' are you thinking I'm Snit?
>>
>> If Snit is Sigmond, and Sigmond (the one from 2/05) is you, Rick G.,
>> then doesn't it follow that you are Snit?
>
> Yes, assuming that transitivity applies across identities.
>
> Of course, since I am not Snit, so there is a flaw in your reasoning
> somewhere.
Are you just figuring this out? :)
>
> You would still have to establish that Snit is Sigmond, I think that he
> has admitted it.
I was told that people would act reasonably and honorably if I admitted to
posting as Sigmond. I *then* posted a couple of posts under that name,
honestly admitted to doing so... and was double crossed.
Typical of the cretin crew... and of me - I trust, they double cross and
lie.
>
> And then you would need the link from Sigmond to Sigmond '05.
I still want to know how big Elizabot thinks the Sigmond Cult is.
Seems there is a Sigmond, sigmond, _sigmond, Steve Sigmond, and now a
Sigmond '05.
No wonder Elizabot obsesses over me - she thinks I am a cult leader...
>
> Then, you would have a case that Snit is me, or that I am Snit.
But would that prove that I am Rick G.?
>>
>>> If so, I can tell you I'm not, but other than that I don't see any way
>>> to demonstrate that I'm not.
>>>
>>> If not, then I'm not quite following your statement. Are you agreeing
>>> that Snit may be the moderator?
--
"He's guilty of committing the crime, not of breaking the law."
- CSMA Troll playing silly semantic games
Rick G
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 21:48:41 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
> > "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
> > pan.2005.03.23....@hotmail.com on 3/22/05 9:44 PM:
> >
> >> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:09:10 -0700, Snit wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
> >>> pan.2005.03.23....@hotmail.com on 3/22/05 8:02 PM:
> >>>
> >>>>>>> IOW... it could be Snit.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I suppose so, but I don't see any motive for it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's an ego thing for snit. He posted as 'Evil John' several months ago
> >>>>> and then accused Steve of doing the posting.
> >>>
> >>> I would love to see the support that shows I ever posted as John. Good
> >>> luck
> >>> finding that wild goose.
> >>>>
> >>>> IIRC, sigmond<aka, Snit> also flamed snit. So this could very possibly
> >>>> be
> >>>> snit.
> >>>>
> >>>> Let us not forget, that snit did indeed post as sigmond. Went through
> >>>> months of smoke screens, coincidently just like this one...
> >>>
> >>> Keep in mind that Elizabot recently posted "proof" that Sigmond could not
> >>> be
> >>> Steve Carroll... nor me.
> >>
> >> I don't follow this group close enough any longer. I'd also highly doubt
> >> she posted any proof that you weren't sigmond. I know for fact you were
> >> indeed sigmond. I posted proof you were sigmond. Are you trying to deny
> >> this again?
> >
> > Clearly you do not follow the group closely... Elizabot claimed to prove
> > that Sigmond posts from a country that neither Steve Carroll nor myself
> > live
> > in.
>
>
> Doubtful. If I was a betting man, I'd bet you're taking her comments out
> of context.
>
> But in any case, I see you didn't actually deny being sigmond. Good snit,
> good snit...
>
> >
> > Granted, Steve Carroll has claimed to have free flights, so I suppose
> > that does not rule him out.
>
> And what does this have to do with you being sigmond?
Well, I may as well admit this then - The last incarnation of Sigmond -
the one where Sigmond basically harassed Snit, back in February or so -
was me.
I knew that doing so would get Snit's attention immediately, and that
there was nothing he could do to deny it. I had some fun, mostly
laughing/trolling at him.
However, when somebody (sorry, I forgot who) reminded me about Sigmond's
history, I stopped it. Honestly, I'm somewhat surprised that nobody
picked up on this, except for Elizabot. I thought that they were fairly
obvious.
Snit
>>> IIRC, sigmond<aka, Snit> also flamed snit. So this could very possibly be
>>> snit.
>>>
>>> Let us not forget, that snit did indeed post as sigmond. Went through
>>> months of smoke screens, coincidently just like this one...
>>>
>>>
>>> What a coincidence, eh? :)
>>
>> I'm not certain about this, but when you say 'this could very possibly
>> be snit.' are you thinking I'm Snit?
>>
>> If so, I can tell you I'm not, but other than that I don't see any way
>> to demonstrate that I'm not.
>
> No, I don't believe you're snit. What i meant by "this could very possibly
> be snit" was refering to the forged post in question that snit is trying
> to say Steve did... Which I personally doubt he did. Why would he need to?
Why would anyone *need* to post any message to CSMA or COLA? Steve likely
did so to play the victim and to get me blamed... seems to be working.
>
>> If not, then I'm not quite following your statement. Are you agreeing
>> that Snit may be the moderator?
>
> That also... Snit has a victim mentality, the "moderator" posts play right
> in to that...
Why would I need to post as the moderator? LOL!
--
If A=B and B=C, then A=C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro
Where is the mathematical representation of your burden of proof?
Steve Carroll
Steve Mackay
> In article <pan.2005.03.23....@hotmail.com>,
> Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not certain about this, but when you say 'this could very possibly
> be snit.' are you thinking I'm Snit?
>
> If so, I can tell you I'm not, but other than that I don't see any way
> to demonstrate that I'm not.
No, I don't believe you're snit. What i meant by "this could very possibly
be snit" was refering to the forged post in question that snit is trying
to say Steve did... Which I personally doubt he did. Why would he need to?
> If not, then I'm not quite following your statement. Are you agreeing
Steve Mackay
> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
> pan.2005.03.23....@hotmail.com on 3/22/05 9:44 PM:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:09:10 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
>>> pan.2005.03.23....@hotmail.com on 3/22/05 8:02 PM:
>>>
>>>>>>> IOW... it could be Snit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suppose so, but I don't see any motive for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's an ego thing for snit. He posted as 'Evil John' several months ago
>>>>> and then accused Steve of doing the posting.
>>>
>>> I would love to see the support that shows I ever posted as John. Good luck
>>> finding that wild goose.
>>>>
>>>> IIRC, sigmond<aka, Snit> also flamed snit. So this could very possibly be
>>>> snit.
>>>>
>>>> Let us not forget, that snit did indeed post as sigmond. Went through
>>>> months of smoke screens, coincidently just like this one...
>>>
>>> Keep in mind that Elizabot recently posted "proof" that Sigmond could not be
>>> Steve Carroll... nor me.
>>
Steve Mackay
> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
> pan.2005.03.23....@hotmail.com on 3/22/05 8:02 PM:
>
>>>>> IOW... it could be Snit.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose so, but I don't see any motive for it.
>>>
>>> It's an ego thing for snit. He posted as 'Evil John' several months ago
>>> and then accused Steve of doing the posting.
>
> I would love to see the support that shows I ever posted as John. Good luck
> finding that wild goose.
>>
>> IIRC, sigmond<aka, Snit> also flamed snit. So this could very possibly be
>> snit.
>>
>> Let us not forget, that snit did indeed post as sigmond. Went through
>> months of smoke screens, coincidently just like this one...
>
> Keep in mind that Elizabot recently posted "proof" that Sigmond could not be
> Steve Carroll... nor me.
I don't follow this group close enough any longer. I'd also highly doubt
Snit
8:32 PM:
You can now explain why I want to play your excuses game.
Hint: I do not.
You have been busted quoting yourself and attributing it to me... like the
idiot Steve Carroll. The two of you are much alike...
--
I'm not sure I even know how to be honest - Steve Carroll
Rick G
"Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote:
> Rick G wrote:
> > In article <pan.2005.03.23....@hotmail.com>,
> > Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
>
> >>IIRC, sigmond<aka, Snit> also flamed snit. So this could very possibly be
> >>snit.
> >>
> >>Let us not forget, that snit did indeed post as sigmond. Went through
> >>months of smoke screens, coincidently just like this one...
> >>
> >>
> >>What a coincidence, eh? :)
> >
> >
> > I'm not certain about this, but when you say 'this could very possibly
> > be snit.' are you thinking I'm Snit?
>
> If Snit is Sigmond, and Sigmond (the one from 2/05) is you, Rick G.,
> then doesn't it follow that you are Snit?
Yes, assuming that transitivity applies across identities.
Of course, since I am not Snit, so there is a flaw in your reasoning
somewhere.
You would still have to establish that Snit is Sigmond, I think that he
has admitted it.
And then you would need the link from Sigmond to Sigmond '05.
Then, you would have a case that Snit is me, or that I am Snit.
>
> > If so, I can tell you I'm not, but other than that I don't see any way
> > to demonstrate that I'm not.
> >
> > If not, then I'm not quite following your statement. Are you agreeing
> > that Snit may be the moderator?
--
Elizabot v2.0.2
> In article <BE6642C0.C285%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
>>"Rick G" <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote in post
>>Rick-F3EE18.2...@news.telus.net on 3/22/05 9:42 PM:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Yes, assuming that transitivity applies across identities.
>>>
>>>Of course, since I am not Snit, so there is a flaw in your reasoning
>>>somewhere.
>>
>>Are you just figuring this out? :)
>
>
> Well, she only just presented her thesis.
It wasn't a thesis. It was a simplistic if-then statement.
Regardless, your answer was "Yes, assuming that transitivity applies
across identities."
<snip>
--
I poop, but I am not a plumber." - Snit
Snit
Clearly you do not follow the group closely... Elizabot claimed to prove
that Sigmond posts from a country that neither Steve Carroll nor myself live
in.
Granted, Steve Carroll has claimed to have free flights, so I suppose that
does not rule him out.
--
"Reality can simply be snipped away" - Steve Carroll
Snit
>>>> Keep in mind that Elizabot recently posted "proof" that Sigmond could not
>>>> be
>>>> Steve Carroll... nor me.
>>>
>>> I don't follow this group close enough any longer. I'd also highly doubt
>>> she posted any proof that you weren't sigmond. I know for fact you were
>>> indeed sigmond. I posted proof you were sigmond. Are you trying to deny
>>> this again?
>>
>> Clearly you do not follow the group closely... Elizabot claimed to prove
>> that Sigmond posts from a country that neither Steve Carroll nor myself live
>> in.
>
> Doubtful. If I was a betting man, I'd bet you're taking her comments out
> of context.
Rick G. has now admitted to posting as Sigmond.
>
> But in any case, I see you didn't actually deny being sigmond. Good snit,
> good snit...
Do you mean Sigmond, sigmond, _sigmond, Steve Sigmond, or Sigmond '05?
>>
>> Granted, Steve Carroll has claimed to have free flights, so I suppose
>> that does not rule him out.
>
> And what does this have to do with you being sigmond?
Which one?
--
"stop forcing me to confront truths I can't deal with." - Steve Carroll
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
> pan.2005.03.23....@hotmail.com on 3/22/05 8:02 PM:
>
> >>>> IOW... it could be Snit.
> >>>
> >>> I suppose so, but I don't see any motive for it.
> >>
> >> It's an ego thing for snit. He posted as 'Evil John' several months ago
> >> and then accused Steve of doing the posting.
>
> I would love to see the support that shows I ever posted as John. Good luck
> finding that wild goose.
Yet you still don't deny having done so. That is just as much proof as
the timelines proof.
> >
> > IIRC, sigmond<aka, Snit> also flamed snit. So this could very possibly be
> > snit.
> >
> > Let us not forget, that snit did indeed post as sigmond. Went through
> > months of smoke screens, coincidently just like this one...
>
> Keep in mind that Elizabot recently posted "proof" that Sigmond could not be
> Steve Carroll... nor me. Of course once this was pointed out the claims
> were changed and now it seems that the cretin crew postulate multiple
> Sigmonds. I have yet to be told if, in their world, I started the Sigmond
> cult or am merely one of the members. Nor, really, do I know all of the
> members... only Sigmond, sigmond, _sigmond, and Steve Sigmond. How many
> more are there in the world of the cretin crew?
--
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
that your an idiot and don't know how to properly attribute a quote? I
shouldn't need to. Look at the line that ends in - snit above. A
statement about a person called snit. Now look at my sig. A quote about
the same person and properly attributed to the author.
Your welcome.
Snit
6:48 AM:
> In article <BE662BE6.C214%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
>> pan.2005.03.23....@hotmail.com on 3/22/05 8:02 PM:
>>
>>>>>> IOW... it could be Snit.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose so, but I don't see any motive for it.
>>>>
>>>> It's an ego thing for snit. He posted as 'Evil John' several months ago
>>>> and then accused Steve of doing the posting.
>>
>> I would love to see the support that shows I ever posted as John. Good luck
>> finding that wild goose.
>
> Yet you still don't deny having done so. That is just as much proof as
> the timelines proof.
Your "logic" is just amazing, Tim...
So you do not recall my making a denial - so let's just say I have not.
If I *did* make a denial now, would you accept that as proof?
If not, which is almost certainly the case - being that you are a card
carrying member of the cretin crew - then your above claim is utter and
complete BS that holds no value.
Do you see the flaw in your logic? Are you willing to admit to it? Or will
you deny the obvious flaw in a sick attempt to impress your cretin crew
buddies?
--
I TRIED to lie again but that guy is just too smart for me. - Steve Carroll
>
>>>
>>> IIRC, sigmond<aka, Snit> also flamed snit. So this could very possibly be
>>> snit.
>>>
>>> Let us not forget, that snit did indeed post as sigmond. Went through
>>> months of smoke screens, coincidently just like this one...
>>
>> Keep in mind that Elizabot recently posted "proof" that Sigmond could not be
>> Steve Carroll... nor me. Of course once this was pointed out the claims
>> were changed and now it seems that the cretin crew postulate multiple
>> Sigmonds. I have yet to be told if, in their world, I started the Sigmond
>> cult or am merely one of the members. Nor, really, do I know all of the
>> members... only Sigmond, sigmond, _sigmond, and Steve Sigmond. How many
>> more are there in the world of the cretin crew?
_________________________________________
Snit
6:53 AM:
>>>>>>> As I've clearly stated - I've never attributed a quote to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://snipurl.com/dl8z
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong - I copied a quote from your message. I used your handle to
>>>>> clearly show you the quote you had taken out of context. IF I was
>>>>> attributing a quote to you I wouldn't have included the space - space.
>>>>
>>>> Your silly attempts to justify your dishonesty do not wash - you clearly
>>>> are
>>>> attributing the quote to me when you state:
>>>
>>> You may now explain why I do a proper quote with attribute as my sig
>>> file but don't to do it in a post.
>>> You might also note that the other times I called you on quoting me out
>>> of context, I removed the quotes to further remove all doubt as to it
>>> being a 'quote' of yours.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "I'm a troll that pisses off many CSMA regulars" - snit
>>>>
>>>
>>> ~snip
>>
>> You can now explain why I want to play your excuses game.
>>
>> Hint: I do not.
>>
>> You have been busted quoting yourself and attributing it to me... like the
>> idiot Steve Carroll. The two of you are much alike...
>
> that your an idiot and don't know how to properly attribute a quote? I
> shouldn't need to. Look at the line that ends in - snit above. A
> statement about a person called snit. Now look at my sig. A quote about
> the same person and properly attributed to the author.
>
> Your welcome.
You failed to explain why I would want to play your excuses game.
You are clearly making an attribution... a dishonest one, where you are
attributing your own quote to me.
The sad thing is that not only have you done so, but you then added to your
lie by denying it, and now have started dishonestly snipping posts to run
from it.
Not very clever on your part, Tim...
... but sure to please your cretin crew buddies... after all, they reward
dishonesty, a lack of integrity, and such silly games. It is what the
cretin crew is all about.
Rick G
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
> pan.2005.03.23....@hotmail.com on 3/22/05 11:04 PM:
>
> >>>> Keep in mind that Elizabot recently posted "proof" that Sigmond could
> >>>> not
> >>>> be
> >>>> Steve Carroll... nor me.
> >>>
> >>> I don't follow this group close enough any longer. I'd also highly doubt
> >>> she posted any proof that you weren't sigmond. I know for fact you were
> >>> indeed sigmond. I posted proof you were sigmond. Are you trying to deny
> >>> this again?
> >>
> >> Clearly you do not follow the group closely... Elizabot claimed to prove
> >> that Sigmond posts from a country that neither Steve Carroll nor myself
> >> live
> >> in.
> >
> > Doubtful. If I was a betting man, I'd bet you're taking her comments out
> > of context.
>
> Rick G. has now admitted to posting as Sigmond.
I posted as Sigmond in Feb 2005 because I knew it'd get your attention,
and that there was nothing you could do to deny it was you.
It probably drove you crazy trying to determine who had stolen your
puppet. Crying 'Wolf!' only works if the other people are willing to
believe you.
Yobo_Obyo
Edwin
Snit wrote:
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in post
> 1111509869....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com on 3/22/05 9:44
AM:
>
> >
> > Snit wrote:
> >> "Rick G" <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote in post
> >> Rick-BCFBAB.1...@news.telus.net on 3/21/05 7:42 PM:
> >>
> >>> In article <BE64D228.BE68%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> >>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Would love to know how the "fake" Steve know to post one minute
before the
> >>>> "real" one... and why Steve runs from any questions as to which
are the
> >>>> "fake" posts.
> >>>>
> >>>> He is likely just playing the victim... his favorite role in
life.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Post hoc ergo propter hoc?
> >>>
> >>> Life's too short for such silliness.
> >>>
> >> It is very coincidental that someone would "forge" one of Steve's
posts *one*
> >> minute before the "real" Steve started posting again. I am not
claiming that
> >> this constitutes the level of proof needed to satisfy a logical
proof,
> >>
> > So you admit you have nothing...
>
conclude
> such.
You admit above you have no logical proof. So you just insulted
yourself.
> Is there anything hidden in your trolling, below, that you wanted a
response
> to?
I see lies and insults are all you have when you're cornered by the
truth.
> --
> Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated
walrus with
> walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
>
>
>
> >
> >> but it surely is an odd coincidence...
> >
> > ... but you claim to have something anyway. Pure Snit Circus.
> >
> >> Add to that the fact that Steve refuses to comment on which of the
posts are
> >> the ones he claims are "forged" -
> >>
> > Why should he help refine the forger's technique by telling how he
spots each
> > and every forgery?
> >
> >> there is no doubt he is hiding something.
> >>
> > One need not be hiding anything to not give in to the demands made
in a Snit
> > Circus.
> >
> >> In my timing research I made the assumption that Steve's "forger"
posted did
> >> not post showing his IP... but he will not verify even that.
> >>
> >> What is he hiding?
> >>
> > The information you... er... I mean 'the forger,' needs to be
successful in
> > forgery.
> >
> >> And why?
> >>
> > *chough*
> >
>
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
> pan.2005.03.23....@hotmail.com on 3/22/05 9:46 PM:
>
> >>> IIRC, sigmond<aka, Snit> also flamed snit. So this could very possibly be
> >>> snit.
> >>>
> >>> Let us not forget, that snit did indeed post as sigmond. Went through
> >>> months of smoke screens, coincidently just like this one...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> What a coincidence, eh? :)
> >>
> >> I'm not certain about this, but when you say 'this could very possibly
> >> be snit.' are you thinking I'm Snit?
> >>
> >> If so, I can tell you I'm not, but other than that I don't see any way
> >> to demonstrate that I'm not.
> >
> > No, I don't believe you're snit. What i meant by "this could very possibly
> > be snit" was refering to the forged post in question that snit is trying
> > to say Steve did... Which I personally doubt he did. Why would he need to?
>
> Why would anyone *need* to post any message to CSMA or COLA?
Have you sniffed so much glue that you've forgotten your original post
in this thread already gave what you considered my 'motive'?
"and of course that post was some nasty things about me that Steve does
not want to take the blame for"
It doesn't occur to you that I already have (as have many others)
exposed you far better than any of these people you keep claiming are
me?
> Steve likely
> did so to play the victim and to get me blamed... seems to be working.
Horsecrap. I said I didn't know if it was you... but you've done this
before so it very well may be you. In any event, if people suspect you
that's your own doing. Why would people bother to believe you are
capable of ID theft, Snit? Gee, it couldn't be because you have done it
in the past, could it?
> >> If not, then I'm not quite following your statement. Are you agreeing
> >> that Snit may be the moderator?
> >
> > That also... Snit has a victim mentality, the "moderator" posts play right
> > in to that...
>
> Why would I need to post as the moderator? LOL!
Who said anything about need? You want to keep yourself in the
limelight. For all your whining about wanting the "madness to end",
every action you do to the contrary proves you don't want it to end...
and you do a LOT of actions that prove this on a daily basis. I'm
working towards keeping you in the limelight, too. See? We're working
together for the same goal.
--
"Wish that people could be more honest and reasonable ... but that is not
likely to happen." - Snit - http://tinyurl.com/68q8n
Steve
Snit
>>>>>> Post hoc ergo propter hoc?
>>>>>
>>>>> Life's too short for such silliness.
>>>>>
>>>> It is very coincidental that someone would "forge" one of Steve's posts
>>>> *one* minute before the "real" Steve started posting again. I am not
>>>> claiming that this constitutes the level of proof needed to satisfy a
>>>> logical proof,
>>>>
>>> So you admit you have nothing...
>>>
>> No, but I can see where someone with a weak grasp of logic would conclude
>> such.
>>
> You admit above you have no logical proof. So you just insulted yourself.
When you figure out the difference between absolute proof and support,
please re-read your posts in this thread and you will understand how silly
and illogical you are being.
Until then I strongly doubt there is any chance of us reaching any form of
agreement.
>
>> Is there anything hidden in your trolling, below, that you wanted a response
>> to?
>>
> I see lies and insults are all you have when you're cornered by the truth.
More trolling from you, but not even you can find any meaningful question...
OK. So you are just trolling... I have no problem with that idea. It is to
be expected from you.
--
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/bid1
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
Steve Mackay
I don't follow this group close enough any longer to have noticed the
latest Sigmond saga..
Snit
> In article <BE66BCFC.C3DA%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
>> pan.2005.03.23....@hotmail.com on 3/22/05 11:04 PM:
>>
>>>>>> Keep in mind that Elizabot recently posted "proof" that Sigmond could
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> Steve Carroll... nor me.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't follow this group close enough any longer. I'd also highly doubt
>>>>> she posted any proof that you weren't sigmond. I know for fact you were
>>>>> indeed sigmond. I posted proof you were sigmond. Are you trying to deny
>>>>> this again?
>>>>
>>>> Clearly you do not follow the group closely... Elizabot claimed to prove
>>>> that Sigmond posts from a country that neither Steve Carroll nor myself
>>>> live
>>>> in.
>>>
>>> Doubtful. If I was a betting man, I'd bet you're taking her comments out
>>> of context.
>>
>> Rick G. has now admitted to posting as Sigmond.
>
> I posted as Sigmond in Feb 2005 because I knew it'd get your attention,
> and that there was nothing you could do to deny it was you.
Of course I could deny it - and even point out that there was no evidence.
The lack of evidence to support a claim is not enough for many to deny that
they can positively proclaim it. Look at how often other posters are blamed
for being my sock puppets. All very silly, and only serves to chase new
posters off. That, really, is likely a big goal of the cretin crew - to
keep their little kingdom theirs. I challenge that because I am a frequent
poster who refuses to bow to their illogic.
>
> It probably drove you crazy trying to determine who had stolen your
> puppet. Crying 'Wolf!' only works if the other people are willing to
> believe you.
Who is crying "wolf"? I simply tell the truth and let the cretin crew lie
all they wish.
--
"So just killfile me and no one else. It'll cut down on the noise factor"
-- Steve Carroll
Elizabot v2.0.2
You were paying attention when you accused Steve Carroll of being that
Sigmond in particular. You even pulled up headers claiming that they had
proven something.
Admit your mistake and apologize.
--