Another attempt to bring peace to CSMA (I would say OT, but it seems to be the main topic!)
Snit
the debates are of the form:
Person A: You just said A!
Person B: No, I said B!
Person A: No, you said A!
Person B: No, I said B!
I think in many of these cases maybe the first comment was either worded
poorly or simply misunderstood. Once someone clarifies their views it
should be accepted - at least in most cases. I admit I have been guilty of
not accepting someone's revision or clarification I the past, and I beleive
so have Edwin, Sandman, Carroll and Adams - each of the folks I have
recently been debating with.
To help to alleviate this I propose we each get to ask each other up to 10
questions - questions where there seems to be some disagreement or confusion
about what someone thinks. Let the person who answers clarify and then
accept that if they stated otherwise in the past they have either grown,
worded something poorly, were mis-understood or whatever... in other words,
work toward letting the past go and accept the person as they are now with
their current views.
To do this, though, we need to understand what the current views are... so I
have compiled a list of up to 10 questions for each of you... I think I only
made it to the full 10 for Carroll. Still, for each of you I will accept up
to 10 questions and I will answer them fully. Only reasonable questions
should be asked - nothing overly personal (where do you live), nothing that
has an implied insult (why are you a moron!), etc. If you think any of my
questions are not reasonable state why and we can skip it. With that said,
you should do what you can to answer as many of the questions as you can -
as I will.
Ok, here are the questions for each of you... I suspect you will each run -
but I sincerely hope I am wrong. I would *love* to see you each stay
focused on this and work with me to end the BS in CSMA.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin:
* MS and Apple had a very public deal which dealt Office and $150 Million.
What else do you think was included in that deal?
* Is Snit is "happy as a Clam" with MS Office?
* Who authored the following quotes:
"why was I born with a coat hanger embedded in my skull?"
"I am just getting hungry or looking for attention:
I eat dog shit to get attention."
"Thank you all for giving me attention... does anybody have
some mouthwash?"
"I can stop thinking about having sex with monkeys"
* Should modern Macs be considered Macs? If not, why not?
* Do you think I ever advocated PPC chips over Intel chips? If so, when?
If you do not know, stating so is a reasonable answer.
* Name one advantage present with portable apps that a portable OS does not
share
* What is the best work-flow in Windows for converting a file from an
arbitrary program to a PDF, naming it, and attaching it to an email? Do you
believe that work flow is as streamlined or as easy as the one you have been
shown for the one I use on my Mac:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/tmp/mailpdf/>?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sandman:
* When did you start getting his sandman.net site to (mostly) consistently
validate?
* Does the WayBackMachine archive have any examples of your sandman.net
homepage code that validates correctly - CSS *or* HTML? If so, please link
to it.
* Are you working in learning Photoshop CS3? Were you when you had the
beta?
* What is the purpose of alt-text for images? Do you think it is a benefit
or a detriment to have spacer images with alt text of things such as
"space", "left" and "right"?
* How do you think you can end the practice of selling weapons on the black
market to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals?
* What is the purpose of a beta release of software?
* In your database of posts you collect from CSMA, are you able to find and
read specific sets of posts, such as all posts that are from (or mention) a
specific user?
* Which determines if someone is a troll - their actions or what others say
about them (or some third option if you feel that is a false dichotomy)?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carroll:
* Did I ever state that Sandman's work was not pro because one of his sites
didn't validate correctly?
* Being that I have never called myself an "IT Teacher" and have corrected
you on many occasions, why do you call me an "IT Teacher"?
* What made you think I was not aware of the Command+Control+Option+8
feature on a Mac? If you never did think that then noting such would be a
reasonable answer.
* What is the most recent post of yours, Steve, where you did not lie about
me or, at best, post material which is deceptive about me?
* threats of violence, accusations of rape and other sex crimes, and even
accusations of taking debates out of CSMA and bringing them to unwanted
emails to loved ones and making unwanted phone calls - *none* of these
things are appropriate. Do you agree or disagree? Why?
* Did you ever state in CSMA or otherwise tell me *when* you got married
(assuming you did get married)?
* Did John ever blame Sandman for the expiration of *any* beta software that
you know of?
* Have you ever commented on problems you attributed to a Linksys router?
* Is it possible for someone who does not use PDFs much to understand that
Apple likely has more PDF options than Windows?
* What is the purpose of a beta release of software?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adams:
* Do you accept the logic of the symmetric property of equality - that if
one thing is identical to another then it is a reciprocal association?
* In this OS X path, ~/Library/Preferences, what does the tilde represent?
* If person A posts derogatory comments about person B in their every post,
even if only in their .sig, whose fault is that?
* Are incest and sex synonymous? Are they identical?
* Do different OS X version numbers refer to different versions?
* Can a non-powered USB hub only support non-powered devices?
--
€ Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
€ Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
I am willing to work with you to bring peace to csma. How about
signing a mutual deal that we must honor in order to minimize
potential problems? Doesn't that sound like a good idea?
> I would *love* to see you each stay focused on this and work with me
> to end the BS in CSMA.
I would love to end the BS as well. I think the first step would be to
let the past go. Start on a clean slate. Treat each others with
respect and behave in an honest and honorable way. I hope you will
join me in reaching an agreement to do just that.
Will you sign a deal with me?
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
mr-1EDE87.09...@News.Individual.NET on 5/17/07 12:31 AM:
At this time: no - I do not believe you are sincere in your reasons for
wanting me to sign *any* agreement. I may be willing to re-visit that
decision later.
There: your question has been answered - I hope you will you now do the
right thing and answer the questions you snipped. Please note I answered
your question even though you snipped mine.
Sandman:
* When did you start getting his sandman.net site to
(mostly) consistently validate?
* Does the WayBackMachine archive have any examples of your
sandman.net homepage code that validates correctly - CSS
*or* HTML? If so, please link to it.
* Are you working in learning Photoshop CS3? Were you when
you had the beta?
* What is the purpose of alt-text for images? Do you think
it is a benefit or a detriment to have spacer images with
alt text of things such as "space", "left" and "right"?
* How do you think you can end the practice of selling
weapons on the black market to keep weapons out of the hands
of criminals?
* What is the purpose of a beta release of software?
* In your database of posts you collect from CSMA, are you
able to find and read specific sets of posts, such as all
posts that are from (or mention) a specific user?
* Which determines if someone is a troll - their actions or
what others say about them (or some third option if you feel
that is a false dichotomy)?
Again: I hope you are willing and able to step up to the plate and give
reasoned answers. Note that none of these questions would be considered
offensive by most people, though I do realize that based on your past public
claims you may find yourself uncomfortable with some of them.
--
€ A partial subset is not synonymous with the whole
€ A person's actions speak more about him than what others say
€ Apple doesn't provide as many options as the rest of the PC industry
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> I would *love* to see you each stay focused on this and work with me
> >> to end the BS in CSMA.
> >
> > I would love to end the BS as well. I think the first step would be to
> > let the past go. Start on a clean slate. Treat each others with
> > respect and behave in an honest and honorable way. I hope you will
> > join me in reaching an agreement to do just that.
> >
> > Will you sign a deal with me?
>
> At this time: no - I do not believe you are sincere in your reasons for
> wanting me to sign *any* agreement.
My reasons are to bring peace to csma. I want the BS to end and I want
to make a deal out of it instead of just a spoken wish. WIth a deal,
we are both bound to behave in a way that is in the best interest for
peace. If either breaks the deal, the loser is csma. If neither breaks
the deal, the winner is csma. You have nothing to lose to sign a deal
that will ensure your honesty in csma. Just for convenience, I will
show you the agreement again. I am open to comments and modifications
of the deal:
---
Code of Honesty:
1) Be specific. Use the specific example of what it is you that is
bothering you. Vague complaints are hard to agree on, especially
in a forum like this.
2) Don't generalize. Avoid words like "never" or "always." Such
generalizations are usually inaccurate and will heighten tensions.
3) Don't stockpile. Storing up lots of grievances over time is
counterproductive. It's almost impossible to deal with numerous old
problems for which interpretations may differ. Try to deal with
problems as they arise.
4) Agree to let the past go...
Dishonesty examples:
- Creative snipping
- Deliberate misinterpretation
- Diversion
- Having an agenda
- Lying
- Role Reversal
- Insults
- Forging posts and material
- Thread hijacking
- Projection
- Unsubstantiated accusations
- Antagonizing through other media
- Antagonizing threads
- Ignoring evidence
- Obfuscation
It should be clear that this agreement is valid for all posts made by
the signers, not merely those between the signers. Agreeing to this
displays ones commitment to "end the BS" (as worded by one possible
signer) and end ongoing and past disputes to embrace common
understanding, patience and tolerance.
After signing, the signers should refrain from entering discussions
that are, and opt-out of discussion that are becoming, offensive or
destructive, regardless of who is the instigator. This unless the
signer feels confident that he or she can continue participation
without engaging in the elevated level of argumentation.
---
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-1EDE87.09...@News.Individual.NET on 5/17/07 12:31 AM:
>
> > In article <C2714054.81844%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> > I am willing to work with you to bring peace to csma. How about
> > signing a mutual deal that we must honor in order to minimize
> > potential problems? Doesn't that sound like a good idea?
> >
> >> I would *love* to see you each stay focused on this and work with me
> >> to end the BS in CSMA.
> >
> > I would love to end the BS as well. I think the first step would be to
> > let the past go. Start on a clean slate. Treat each others with
> > respect and behave in an honest and honorable way. I hope you will
> > join me in reaching an agreement to do just that.
> >
> > Will you sign a deal with me?
> >
> At this time
... you should be asleep? Yes, you're up until 2 in the morning again, Snit!
How can you post to csma all day and then all night as well... day after day?
--
"None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit
"I do not KF people" - Snit
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
"You should take one of my IT classes some day." - Snit
nospamatall
> The silly debates are once again getting out of hand. I notice that much of
> the debates are of the form:
>
> Person A: You just said A!
> Person B: No, I said B!
> Person A: No, you said A!
> Person B: No, I said B!
>
> I think in many of these cases maybe the first comment was either worded
> poorly or simply misunderstood. Once someone clarifies their views it
> should be accepted - at least in most cases. I admit I have been guilty of
> not accepting someone's revision or clarification I the past, and I beleive
> so have Edwin, Sandman, Carroll and Adams - each of the folks I have
> recently been debating with.
>
Snit
5/17/07 8:31 AM:
I would prefer not... but I would like to keep it in this thread, so folks
who do not want to read it can avoid it easily.
So far Sandman has made it clear he has no desire to answer the questions...
in fact he snips them in his responses. I suspect the others I mentioned
will do the same: I am happy to answer reasonable questions to get things
cleared up and to stop having the same debates happen over and over and
over. Sandman - and likely the others - do not share that wish with me.
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ The word "ouch" is not a sure sign of agreement.
Sandman
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> In article <C271596F.81864%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> > "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> > mr-1EDE87.09...@News.Individual.NET on 5/17/07 12:31 AM:
> >
> > > In article <C2714054.81844%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > > Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I am willing to work with you to bring peace to csma. How about
> > > signing a mutual deal that we must honor in order to minimize
> > > potential problems? Doesn't that sound like a good idea?
> > >
> > >> I would *love* to see you each stay focused on this and work with me
> > >> to end the BS in CSMA.
> > >
> > > I would love to end the BS as well. I think the first step would be to
> > > let the past go. Start on a clean slate. Treat each others with
> > > respect and behave in an honest and honorable way. I hope you will
> > > join me in reaching an agreement to do just that.
> > >
> > > Will you sign a deal with me?
> > >
> > At this time
>
> ... you should be asleep? Yes, you're up until 2 in the morning again, Snit!
> How can you post to csma all day and then all night as well... day after day?
Actually, with all his posts added upp for each hour in one month:
0 am: 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 am: 39 ++++++++++++++++
2 am: 7 +++
3 am: 0
4 am: 0
5 am: 0
6 am: 16 ++++++
7 am: 32 +++++++++++++
8 am: 93 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
9 am: 137 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
10 am: 101 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
11 am: 69 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
12 am: 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 pm: 89 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 pm: 111 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3 pm: 71 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4 pm: 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5 pm: 100 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
6 pm: 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
7 pm: 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
8 pm: 69 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
9 pm: 62 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
10 pm: 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
11 pm: 112 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
He posts the most at 8-10 am. I'm assuming this is the time people get
to work in the states as it is here in Sweden. This is the period I
post the most as well. (see below) You get to work, check your email
and stuff like that. He posts a little less during 11-12 am, but then
I suppose he is free for lunch and posts again in 1-2 pm. Another
spike in 5 pm when he gets home (I'm assuming) and then again at 11 pm.
The pattern isn't all that out of the ordinary - morning, lunch,
evening and before bed. I mean, for doing things like checking mail
and stuff, usenet sort of falls into that category. But it's pretty
amazing that he's able to keep the posts flowing pretty steadily in
the hours between as well. And looking at an entire month, only three
hours are completely empty from posts.
These are my stats:
0 am: 5 ++
1 am: 0
2 am: 0
3 am: 0
4 am: 0
5 am: 0
6 am: 0
7 am: 40 ++++++++++++++++
8 am: 125 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
9 am: 96 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
10 am: 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
11 am: 40 ++++++++++++++++
12 am: 20 ++++++++
1 pm: 13 +++++
2 pm: 18 +++++++
3 pm: 21 ++++++++
4 pm: 19 ++++++++
5 pm: 44 ++++++++++++++++++
6 pm: 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
7 pm: 84 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
8 pm: 40 ++++++++++++++++
9 pm: 22 +++++++++
10 pm: 41 ++++++++++++++++
11 pm: 42 +++++++++++++++++
My pattern is more like when waking up and when coming home at night,
and some miscellaneous postings in between. I have at least six hours
that are completely post-free :)
These are your stats:
0 am: 2 +
1 am: 0
2 am: 0
3 am: 0
4 am: 0
5 am: 0
6 am: 0
7 am: 16 ++++++
8 am: 30 ++++++++++++
9 am: 34 ++++++++++++++
10 am: 21 ++++++++
11 am: 25 ++++++++++
12 am: 31 ++++++++++++
1 pm: 26 ++++++++++
2 pm: 27 +++++++++++
3 pm: 30 ++++++++++++
4 pm: 28 +++++++++++
5 pm: 18 +++++++
6 pm: 30 ++++++++++++
7 pm: 21 ++++++++
8 pm: 24 ++++++++++
9 pm: 10 ++++
10 pm: 14 ++++++
11 pm: 5 ++
You don't seem to have any pattern! :-D
(all bars are related to the longest bar (Snit's 137 posts in one
hour))
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> So far Sandman has made it clear he has no desire to answer the questions...
But I have made it clear that I am eager to end the BS. I think going
back to past issue is the wrong way to end the BS. My idea was that we
should agree to not be dishonest to each others and to others, and in
so effectively ending the BS. For reasons unknown, you have not been
willing to join me in this goal.
I just want you to know that I am ready when you are! Thanks!
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
Probably because I work out of my studio in my home... I can post all day long
at any time (and get paid for a large part of it ;)
> (all bars are related to the longest bar (Snit's 137 posts in one
> hour))
137 posts in one hour? That has to be a mistake.
MuahMan
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
news:mr-697554.19...@News.Individual.NET...
It will never end ever. You are both lonely, sad, old men with no personal
lives whatsoever. The attention you seek in here is still attention even
though it's 100% negative attention. Just admit you love arguing over
nothing because at least while you are typing your 2000th response to a
question nobody cares about you feel like someone is listening.
Snit
Now add the sock puppets you and Steve use.
Oh.
LOL!
Sandman runs in 3... 2... 1...
--
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ Dreamweaver and GoLive are professional web development applications
€ Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros
Jolly Roger
> The silly debates are once again getting out of hand.
There's an extremely simple solution to that problem. Add a rule to
your kill file to kill all threads started by Snit, Sandman, or DORKY
zero. This cuts out most of the noise in one fell swoop. I've tested
it, and it works! : )
--
JR
Steve Carroll
> "nospamatall" <nospa...@iol.ie> stated in post f2hsg7$el9$3...@aioe.org on
> 5/17/07 8:31 AM:
>
> > Snit wrote:
> >> The silly debates are once again getting out of hand. I notice that much
> >> of
> >> the debates are of the form:
> >>
> >> Person A: You just said A!
> >> Person B: No, I said B!
> >> Person A: No, you said A!
> >> Person B: No, I said B!
> >>
> >> I think in many of these cases maybe the first comment was either worded
> >> poorly or simply misunderstood. Once someone clarifies their views it
> >> should be accepted - at least in most cases. I admit I have been guilty
> >> of
> >> not accepting someone's revision or clarification I the past, and I
> >> beleive
> >> so have Edwin, Sandman, Carroll and Adams - each of the folks I have
> >> recently been debating with.
> >>
> > Any chance you could do it on email?
>
> I would prefer not... but I would like to keep it in this thread, so folks
> who do not want to read it can avoid it easily.
Geez... do you really think this guy is as stupid as you need him to be to
believe the lie you just told? Trust me... while you may have partially fooled
him about some things here or there... he isn't likely to fall for what he
already knows is a lie. He's seen you do exactly the opposite of what you claim
you'd like to do ( "keep it in this thread") too many times. We've all seen...
Snit
2007051716102011272-jollyroger@REMOVEpoboxcom on 5/17/07 2:10 PM:
I am once again getting bored with the debates... and now that it has once
again been made completely clear that Sandman and Carroll and Adams will not
even try to defend their BS but will merely run the fun is sorta going out
of it for me.
They do this over and over - they spew lies and accusations... I call them
on it... they spend some time piling lies to cover their first lies... and
then when that pile of lies collapses on them they just run and lie and
obfuscate and do anything they can other than be honest and honorable.
My favorite is when they whine that since I respond to their trolling posts
so much that means I am not advocating the Mac as much as I could otherwise
do... in other words they admit, accidentally, that they are trying to
reduce Mac advocacy. They are weird... even for trolls.
Sandman
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
:)
> > (all bars are related to the longest bar (Snit's 137 posts in one
> > hour))
>
> 137 posts in one hour? That has to be a mistake.
Oops! Worded that badly. That's a accumulated posts for the entire
month - for that hour. I.e. when you add up all the 9-10 am posts he's
done the entire month, you end up with 137. Sorry for the confusion.
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Jolly Roger" <jolly...@R.E.M.O.V.E.pobox.com> stated in post
> 2007051716102011272-jollyroger@REMOVEpoboxcom on 5/17/07 2:10 PM:
>
> > On 2007-05-17 01:12:20 -0500, Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> said:
> >
> >> The silly debates are once again getting out of hand.
> >
> > There's an extremely simple solution to that problem. Add a rule to
> > your kill file to kill all threads started by Snit, Sandman, or DORKY
> > zero. This cuts out most of the noise in one fell swoop. I've tested
> > it, and it works! : )
>
> I am once again getting bored with the debates...
Tell me... are you SO delusional that you *really* don't recognize you try to
sell this same BS line about 2-3 times a month? You usually accompany it with a
lie about how you are not going to respond blah...blah...blah. At least you
refrained from telling that particular lie here. Put down the crack pipe.
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
Hmmm... now I'm wondering how many posts Snit has posted in his busiest hour in
csma;)
Snit
noone-58973E....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/17/07 3:27 PM:
Your lying is noted, Steve. Note how I, not you, have asked to have
misunderstandings cleared up and to allow you, and others, to explain
yourself where you have not been understood. I also asked for you to do the
same to/for me - ask me reasonable questions where you think I should clear
my views up. Once again I show that I am honest and honorable... and none
of you are able to show that about yourselves. The reasons why are very,
very clear: none of you see yourselves as being honest and honorable... your
actions define who you are - you specifically want to spew BS accusations
and attribute straw men to me. As you do, above. So be it, at least you
are so far gone in your current melt down that you do not even try to hide
your BS.
--
€ Nuclear arms are arms
€ OS X's Command+Scroll wheel function does not exist in default XP
€ Technical competence and intelligence are not the same thing
Jolly Roger
> I am once again getting bored with the debates...
That's funny, considering you are one of the ones starting and
prolonging them to begin with.
--
JR
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
I keep telling you... people just aren't as stupid as you need them to be.
Snit
I respond to their trolling... how is that *starting* anything?
--
€ Different version numbers refer to different versions
€ Macs are Macs and Apple is still making and selling Macs
€ The early IBM PCs and Commodores shipped with an OS in ROM
Jolly Roger
> "Jolly Roger" <jolly...@R.E.M.O.V.E.pobox.com> stated in post
> 200705171750087987-jollyroger@REMOVEpoboxcom on 5/17/07 3:50 PM:
>
>> On 2007-05-17 17:36:22 -0500, Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> said:
>>
>>> I am once again getting bored with the debates...
>>
>> That's funny, considering you are one of the ones starting and
>> prolonging them to begin with.
>
> I respond to their trolling... how is that *starting* anything?
: ) Sorry bud, I'm not falling for it. Go argue with someone who cares.
--
JR
Snit
While I do sometimes bring up topics they are running from, when do you
think I have actually started any of the debates? Really, I would like to
know.
Look at this thread: I am trying to *end* the debates. I would love to have
them ask me questions that they think I have answered poorly or in ways that
they do not understand... and I would like them to offer reasoned answers
and let their views be known. That, hopefully, would go a long way toward
building understanding and reducing the silly debates.
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Now add the sock puppets you and Steve use.
Which ones, specifically? Don't forget to substantiate, or you're just
making unsubstantiated accusations, which is very dishonest.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
> >> The silly debates are once again getting out of hand.
> >
> > There's an extremely simple solution to that problem. Add a rule to
> > your kill file to kill all threads started by Snit, Sandman, or DORKY
> > zero. This cuts out most of the noise in one fell swoop. I've tested
> > it, and it works! : )
>
> I am once again getting bored with the debates... and now that it has once
> again been made completely clear that Sandman and Carroll and Adams will not
> even try to defend their BS
True, in a sense. I'm not interested in reiterating old stuff. I
rather start on a clean slate, without the BS, enforced by an
agreement between the two of us (for starters, maybe more could join
later?).
For some reasons, you're not willing to take any steps to end the BS,
you want what you call "BS" to be brought forward and reiterated.
That's the exact opposite of ending the BS.
Ending the BS would be to agree to be honest, which my deal aims to
do. For reasons unknown you won't join it with me, and you keep
evading my proposal.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C2720633.818F9%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> Now add the sock puppets you and Steve use.
>
> Which ones, specifically?
All.
Sandman
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> Oops! Worded that badly. That's a accumulated posts for the entire
>> month - for that hour. I.e. when you add up all the 9-10 am posts
>> he's done the entire month, you end up with 137. Sorry for the
>> confusion.
>
> Hmmm... now I'm wondering how many posts Snit has posted in his
> busiest hour in csma;)
Counting from 2006-01-01, the number is 35, which was achieved at
2006-08-07 between 23 pm and midnight (do you say 24 pm or 0 am?)
35 2006-08-07 23:00
32 2006-10-13 16:00
26 2006-08-29 15:00
25 2006-08-08 06:00
25 2006-07-17 15:00
25 2006-08-08 04:00
25 2007-04-21 01:00
21 2006-07-05 23:00
21 2007-02-13 07:00
20 2006-08-08 00:00
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> I respond to their trolling... how is that *starting* anything?
> >
> > : ) Sorry bud, I'm not falling for it. Go argue with someone who cares.
>
> While I do sometimes bring up topics they are running from, when do you
> think I have actually started any of the debates?
192 times in the last year, that's more than one every other day:
001 2006-05-25 OT: Public challenge for Ca...
<C09B71EE.4F748%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
002 2006-05-25 OT: Public challenge for Ca...
<C09B3274.4F675%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
003 2006-05-26 OT: Public challenge for Ca...
<C09C87B5.4F8E1%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
004 2006-05-28 OT Article: No fun? Are you...
<C09E9BF9.4FCE4%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
005 2006-05-30 OT: Summary of Carroll and ...
<C0A0F271.5000A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
006 2006-05-31 OT: Summary of Carroll and ...
<C0A22B20.501D7%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
007 2006-05-31 OT: Public challenge for Ca...
<C0A22AE2.501D6%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
008 2006-06-01 Friendly request for Sandman
<C0A47E97.504B5%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
009 2006-06-02 Friendly request for Sandman
<C0A5D5D4.505BF%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
010 2006-06-02 Friendly request for Sandman
<C0A59F86.5057C%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
011 2006-06-02 CSMA Trolling Summaries: Ju...
<C0A5AC69.5059B%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
012 2006-06-04 Friendly request for Sandman
<C0A84667.50C2A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
013 2006-06-13 OT: Public challenge for Ca...
<C0B3B906.518DC%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
014 2006-06-16 CSMA Trolling Summaries: Ju...
<C0B82F69.51EB2%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
015 2006-06-16 CSMA Trolling Summaries: Ju...
<C0B81B71.51E97%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
016 2006-06-16 OT: Public challenge for Ca...
<C0B76A13.51DB5%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
017 2006-06-18 OT: Question for Sandman
<C0BAAF9A.52270%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
018 2006-06-19 CSMA Trolling Summaries: Ju...
<C0BC4151.52463%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
019 2006-06-21 Re: Networking with PCs
<C0BE0E86.526B1%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
020 2006-06-29 Re: Web Design Facts, final...
<C0C98863.5367E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
021 2006-07-02 Apple Ad debate
<C0CCD88A.539C4%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
022 2006-07-01 CSMA Trolling Summaries: Ju...
<C0CC0CF1.538DD%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
023 2006-07-03 Re: CSMA Trolling Summaries...
<C0CE0F0F.53BD1%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
024 2006-07-03 CSMA Trolling Summaries: Ju...
<C0CDA22B.53B2D%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
025 2006-07-04 Widget Debate
<C0CF4394.53EBE%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
026 2006-07-04 Widget Debate: Update 1
<C0CFB866.53F4A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
027 2006-07-05 Widget Debate: Update 2
<C0D05F26.54092%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
028 2006-07-05 Question for Steve Carroll
<C0D0392B.54047%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
029 2006-07-05 Widget Debate: Update 1
<C0D0336D.54032%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
030 2006-07-05 Steve Carroll's admission
<C0D11B4D.5416D%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
031 2006-07-05 Dreamweaver Debate
<C0D10EBE.54150%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
032 2006-07-05 Dreamweaver Debate
<C0D0886F.540ED%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
033 2006-07-05 Question for Steve Carroll
<C0D06CA9.540C2%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
034 2006-07-05 Question for Steve Carroll
<C0D069E7.540B4%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
035 2006-07-05 Widget Debate: Update 2b
<C0D06284.5409B%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
036 2006-07-06 Question for Steve Carroll:...
<C0D1EEA6.54342%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
037 2006-07-06 Widget Debate: Update 3
<C0D1E803.5432D%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
038 2006-07-06 Steve Carroll repeats the s...
<C0D1D124.54312%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
039 2006-07-06 Question for Steve Carroll:...
<C0D1CEAC.5430C%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
040 2006-07-07 OT: Public challenge for Ca...
<C0D2E0D4.544D8%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
041 2006-07-07 Steve Carroll panics *again*.
<C0D2F582.54507%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
042 2006-07-07 Sandman's website debate
<C0D4189E.5470E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
043 2006-07-08 Sandman's Website Debate: U...
<C0D52430.547E5%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
044 2006-07-09 Widget Debate: Update 3
<C0D65CD1.5494F%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
045 2006-07-09 Tim Adams' Quote Debate
<C0D65CC9.5494F%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
046 2006-07-09 Steve Carroll: undisputed b...
<C0D65CC4.5494F%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
047 2006-07-09 Question for Steve Carroll:...
<C0D65CC0.5494F%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
048 2006-07-09 Apple Ad Quote Debate
<C0D65CAA.5494F%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
049 2006-07-09 Sandman's Website Debate: U...
<C0D65814.5493D%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
050 2006-07-08 Tim Adams' Quote Debate
<C0D4460B.54747%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
051 2006-07-09 Dreamweaver Debate: Update 3
<C0D65810.5493D%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
052 2006-07-08 Apple Ad Quote Debate
<C0D445FF.54747%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
053 2006-07-08 Widget Debate: Update 3
<C0D445F3.54747%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
054 2006-07-08 Question for Steve Carroll:...
<C0D445D5.54747%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
055 2006-07-07 Steve Carroll: undisputed b...
<C0D2E060.544D4%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
056 2006-07-12 Dreamweaver Debate: Update 3
<C0D9F3EE.54C3D%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
057 2006-07-12 Sandman's Website Debate: U...
<C0D9F409.54C3D%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
058 2006-07-12 Tim Adams' Quote Debate
<C0D9F40F.54C3D%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
059 2006-07-12 Widget Debate: Update 3
<C0D9F421.54C3D%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
060 2006-07-12 Article: Adobe targeting tr...
<C0DA882A.54C9E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
061 2006-07-13 Holy cow!
<C0DAC361.54D01%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
062 2006-07-13 Dreamweaver Debate: Update 4
<C0DAD0CE.54D14%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
063 2006-07-14 Dreamweaver Debate: Update 4
<C0DD44E7.54FFB%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
064 2006-07-14 Sandman's Website Debate: U...
<C0DD44F2.54FFB%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
065 2006-07-15 Sandman and I each win - ba...
<C0DE11C3.55121%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
066 2006-07-15 Sandman's Website Debate: U...
<C0DE11EC.55124%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
067 2006-07-15 Dreamweaver Debate: Update 4
<C0DE11F5.55124%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
068 2006-07-15 Dreamweaver Debate: Update 4
<C0DE2664.55142%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
069 2006-07-15 Sandman's Website Debate: U...
<C0DE2667.55142%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
070 2006-07-15 Question for Steve Carroll:...
<C0DE268D.55143%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
071 2006-07-15 Apple Ad Quote Debate
<C0DE26A7.55144%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
072 2006-07-16 PDF Debate Summary
<C0DFCFB5.552C8%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
073 2006-07-16 Sandman's Trolling Site Deb...
<C0DFCFE7.552C9%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
074 2006-07-16 PSD Debate Summary
<C0E00321.55313%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
075 2006-07-17 Hi Sandman
<C0E034EF.55382%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
076 2006-07-17 Funny quote from Sandman's ...
<C0E042A2.5539B%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
077 2006-07-17 PSD Debate Summary
<C0E04326.5539D%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
078 2006-07-17 Sandman's Website Debate: U...
<C0E07F0C.5542C%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
079 2006-07-17 Dreamweaver Debate: Update 4
<C0E07F08.5542C%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
080 2006-07-17 Sandman's Trolling Site Deb...
<C0E0EA82.554E9%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
081 2006-07-17 Sandman's Trolling Site Deb...
<C0E125A3.5554C%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
082 2006-07-18 Apple Ad Quote Debate
<C0E18EB8.5565B%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
083 2006-07-18 Dreamweaver Debate: Update 4
<C0E18EBC.5565B%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
084 2006-07-18 PSD Debate Summary
<C0E18EC1.5565B%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
085 2006-07-18 Sandman's Trolling Site Deb...
<C0E18EC5.5565B%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
086 2006-07-18 Sandman's Website Debate: U...
<C0E18EC9.5565B%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
087 2006-07-18 Tim Adams' Quote Debate
<C0E18ECE.5565B%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
088 2006-07-18 Widget Debate: Update 3
<C0E18ED4.5565B%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
089 2006-07-20 Dreamweaver Debate: Update 4
<C0E4949A.55B0D%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
090 2006-07-20 PSD Debate Summary
<C0E4949E.55B0D%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
091 2006-07-20 Sandman's Trolling Site Deb...
<C0E494A1.55B0D%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
092 2006-07-20 Sandman's Website Debate: U...
<C0E494A4.55B0D%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
093 2006-07-20 Challenge for Sandman
<C0E49D52.55B14%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
094 2006-07-21 OT: Public challenge for Ca...
<C0E64C76.55E71%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
095 2006-07-24 Steve Carroll dreams I am a...
<C0E9CC41.560B1%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
096 2006-07-24 Debate on actual guilt vs. ...
<C0E9CC4B.560B1%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
097 2006-07-24 Steve Carroll: more questio...
<C0E9CCCD.560B2%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
098 2006-07-26 Widget Debate: Update 4
<C0ECCB9F.56404%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
099 2006-07-28 OT: Info for Sandman - your...
<C0EFC599.56B77%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
100 2006-08-02 Steve Carroll: undisputed b...
<C0F62646.57A00%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
101 2006-08-03 Steve Carroll: undisputed b...
<C0F7781E.57CE6%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
102 2006-08-03 Widget Debate: Update 6
<C0F77CE2.57CFC%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
103 2006-08-05 Short Summary of Widget debate
<C0F98A2A.5829B%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
104 2006-08-05 Question for Wally.
<C0FA0B60.5836B%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
105 2006-08-11 Sandman's Website Debate: U...
<C1018ACE.595C3%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
106 2006-08-11 Dreamweaver Debate: Update 4
<C1018AD4.595C3%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
107 2006-08-11 PSD Debate Summary
<C1018AD8.595C3%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
108 2006-08-11 Sandman's Trolling Site Deb...
<C1018ADC.595C3%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
109 2006-08-11 More Leopard Features
<C102104C.59716%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
110 2006-08-13 OT: Public challenge for Ca...
<C104E22C.59E35%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
111 2006-08-15 Sandman's Website Debate: U...
<C1074183.5A4CA%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
112 2006-08-15 Dreamweaver Debate: Update 4
<C1074186.5A4CA%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
113 2006-08-15 PSD Debate Summary
<C107418B.5A4CA%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
114 2006-08-15 Sandman's Trolling Site Deb...
<C107418E.5A4CA%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
115 2006-08-18 Ping: Sandman - hey, learn ...
<C10A5FAE.5AD6E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
116 2006-08-19 Kudos to Sandman
<C10BE07E.5B197%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
117 2006-08-19 Congrats To Sandman for get...
<C10C9D63.5B28A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
118 2006-08-24 OT Quiz - how pathetic is S...
<C1129266.5C1EF%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
119 2006-08-24 OT Quiz II - how pathetic i...
<C11294A2.5C1FF%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
120 2006-08-24 A discussion on white space
<C1131BC0.5C379%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
121 2006-08-24 Absolute proof I am honest ...
<C1136DC8.5C49E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
122 2006-08-27 OT: Public service message ...
<C1162B09.5CD25%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
123 2006-08-27 A reminder why Snit is bein...
<C1164925.5CD7B%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
124 2006-08-28 Widget Debate: Update 6
<C117A7A1.5D0CF%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
125 2006-08-30 Facts that piss off trolls
<C11A70D0.5D91F%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
126 2006-08-31 Public notice to Sandman: Y...
<C11BEA4B.5DCD3%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
127 2006-09-01 A gift for Steve Carroll
<C11D0FA7.5DFB0%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
128 2006-09-03 Wishing Sandman well
<C11FE805.5E82A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
129 2006-09-05 Wishing Sandman well
<C1228625.5F285%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
130 2006-09-05 Public notice to Sandman: Y...
<C122864F.5F286%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
131 2006-09-05 OT: More website suggestion...
<C1228C09.5F28B%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
132 2006-09-20 Facts that piss off trolls
<C136EC36.604EB%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
133 2006-09-30 Question for Steve Carroll
<C1435388.61099%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
134 2006-09-30 Widget Debate: Update 6
<C1440DAA.610E6%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
135 2006-10-07 OT: Foxtrot
<C14D03DA.61F17%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
136 2006-10-08 OT: Questions for Steve Car...
<C14DD238.6206A%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
137 2006-10-08 OT: Questions for Steve Car...
<C14E6C32.620D5%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
138 2006-10-08 OT: Questions for Steve Car...
<C14E6C64.620D6%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
139 2006-10-08 OT: Questions for Steve Car...
<C14E8B45.620F7%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
140 2006-10-08 OT: Questions for Steve Car...
<C14EAC66.6212A%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
141 2006-10-09 OT: Questions for Steve Car...
<C14EC5C9.6214D%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
142 2006-10-09 OT: Questions for Steve Car...
<C14EC89C.6214F%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
143 2006-10-11 Ping: Edwin - will you plea...
<C1516E52.6246A%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
144 2006-10-11 Question for Steve Carroll
<C151CAC5.628B2%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
145 2006-10-11 Widget Debate: Update 7
<C151CF3F.628BB%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
146 2006-10-11 Article: Jury awards $11.3M...
<C15288FB.62994%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
147 2006-10-11 Widget Debate: Update 7
<C151CF82.628BD%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
148 2006-10-13 OT: Public challenge for Ca...
<C1544610.62BDE%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
149 2006-10-13 Steve Carroll's admission
<C1544680.62BE2%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
150 2006-10-13 Steve Carroll: undisputed b...
<C154637C.62C1B%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
151 2006-10-13 Steve Carroll: undisputed b...
<C154EDD0.62C83%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
152 2006-10-13 Steve Carroll's admission
<C154EDD9.62C84%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
153 2006-10-13 OT: Public challenge for Ca...
<C154EDE3.62C8D%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
154 2006-10-27 Apple Ad Quote Debate
<C16793B8.63E61%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
155 2006-10-29 Apple Ad Quote Debate
<C1696F1D.63F9D%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
156 2006-11-10 End of the crippled compute...
<C179F920.64EB1%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
157 2006-11-13 Why does Tim Adams deny MSX...
<C17D0452.6526B%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
158 2006-11-19 Leopard vs Vista 4: Naked S...
<C185308B.65C12%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
159 2006-11-22 Tim Adams' Quote Debate
<C189C559.6608E%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
160 2006-11-25 A challenge for Sandman
<C18CF5DF.66978%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
161 2006-11-27 Tim Adams' Quote Debate
<C18FBC07.66F5F%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
162 2006-11-27 Sandman's Website Debate: U...
<C18FBC0B.66F5F%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
163 2006-11-27 PSD Debate Summary
<C18FBC0D.66F5F%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
164 2006-11-27 A challenge for Sandman
<C19051F9.67058%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
165 2006-12-24 Smackin' down Sandman's bra...
<C1B4188C.6CF19%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
166 2007-01-02 OT: Question about CSS on s...
<C1BFFF22.6E23B%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
167 2007-01-04 Ping: Sandman - why do the ...
<C1C1BA1F.6E58F%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
168 2007-01-05 OT: Giving Sandman one more...
<C1C31B57.6E82B%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
169 2007-01-05 OT: Sandman adds robot.txt ...
<C1C3BBA1.6E939%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
170 2007-01-09 OT: Examples of Sandman's l...
<C1C87202.6F482%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
171 2007-01-09 Steve Jobs Retires
<C1C91C2E.6F5E7%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
172 2007-01-11 Notice to Sandman
<C1CBBC53.6FD9C%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
173 2007-01-26 I forgive Steve Mackay
<C1DF8133.730A4%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
174 2007-02-11 Sandman's next goal?
<C1F3E679.76FDA%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
175 2007-02-13 A post to point to in respo...
<C1F67E4F.77736%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
176 2007-02-15 OT: Iraq War Plan Assumed O...
<C1FA140A.78003%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
177 2007-02-26 Re: If Wintel PCs are so go...
<C2078E53.79328%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
178 2007-02-26 Note to Sandman: please sto...
<C20888F8.79479%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
179 2007-03-03 OT: Scoring the contest
<C20EF195.79F25%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
180 2007-03-04 OT: Public challenge for Ca...
<C2108498.7A0DD%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
181 2007-03-05 A note on Steve Carroll's f...
<C211D618.7A258%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
182 2007-04-17 Retractions
<C24962F4.7D883%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
183 2007-04-26 Question for Sandman about ...
<C2559AD5.7E807%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
184 2007-04-27 Helping each other in CSMA
<C2569FA9.7E91D%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
185 2007-04-28 Exercise in finding truth
<C258C39F.7EBFA%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
186 2007-04-28 The silly debates between m...
<C2590A38.7EC2E%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
187 2007-05-06 The 50 Most Innovative Comp...
<C2624F6F.7F769%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
188 2007-05-07 OT: Movie recommendation
<C264DE66.7FA88%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
189 2007-05-10 OT: The shame
<C26892E1.807C4%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
190 2007-05-13 OT: Good Morning Sandman
<C26BFA50.80F49%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
191 2007-05-14 OT: Good night Sandman
<C26D4D51.81126%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
192 2007-05-17 Another attempt to bring pe...
<C2714054.81844%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C27226F6.81943%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>>> The silly debates are once again getting out of hand.
>>>
>>> There's an extremely simple solution to that problem. Add a rule to
>>> your kill file to kill all threads started by Snit, Sandman, or DORKY
>>> zero. This cuts out most of the noise in one fell swoop. I've tested
>>> it, and it works! : )
>>
>> I am once again getting bored with the debates... and now that it has once
>> again been made completely clear that Sandman and Carroll and Adams will not
>> even try to defend their BS
>
> True, in a sense.
Take a look at this thread:
I noted how many of the debates revolve around people purposely or
accidentally acting as each others spokesperson - attributing ideas to
others which the "other" may not have meant, merely poorly worded, has
changed their minds, or whatever. I asked each of you some simple and fair
questions and invited you to ask me comparable questions.
None of you took me up on it. None of you were willing to clarify your
positions nor state what views of mine you find questionable.
That, really, says all that needs to be said.
> I'm not interested in reiterating old stuff.
I can see where the "old stuff" would be an embarrassment to you. OK.
> I rather start on a clean slate, without the BS,
I am willing to give you one - until or unless you reference your
accusations against me I shall not reference the ones I have made against
you.
This does not mean I am not interested in your opinion or your views... and
note that *none* of my questions to you involved any sort of accusation. If
you think I have some fact wrong or make some faulty assumption in my
questions I have no problem with you noting so. Here are the questions
again:
* When did you start getting his sandman.net site to
(mostly) consistently validate?
* Does the WayBackMachine archive have any examples of your
sandman.net homepage code that validates correctly - CSS
*or* HTML? If so, please link to it.
* Are you working in learning Photoshop CS3? Were you when
you had the beta?
* What is the purpose of alt-text for images? Do you think
it is a benefit or a detriment to have spacer images with
alt text of things such as "space", "left" and "right"?
* How do you think you can end the practice of selling
weapons on the black market to keep weapons out of the hands
of criminals?
* What is the purpose of a beta release of software?
* In your database of posts you collect from CSMA, are you
able to find and read specific sets of posts, such as all
posts that are from (or mention) a specific user?
* Which determines if someone is a troll - their actions or
what others say about them (or some third option if you feel
that is a false dichotomy)?
Note, I merely am stating I truly am curious as to your views - but as I
state above, I can understand why you would be embarrassed to talk about
your views based on your actions in the past.
> enforced by an agreement between the two of us (for starters,
> maybe more could join later?).
I asked you to join an agreement. You did... and it did no good. I see no
point in discussing *any* additions at this time.
>
> For some reasons, you're not willing to take any steps to end the BS,
> you want what you call "BS" to be brought forward and reiterated.
> That's the exact opposite of ending the BS.
Which of those questions are "BS"? I truly am curious as to your views...
you have been very unclear about your views on those things in the past.
To help end the BS I think it is helpful to gain understanding. You prefer
to just ask for a clean slate - and I will grant that. As I note above: as
long as you do not refer to your past accusations against me I shall not
refer to mine against you.
This does *not* mean I will hide the truth, but I will not go out of my way
to bring your past actions to the fore of any conversation.
Fair enough - you have the "clean slate" you asked for?
> Ending the BS would be to agree to be honest, which my deal aims to
> do. For reasons unknown you won't join it with me, and you keep
> evading my proposal.
Evading? I have been very, very direct in my response: I am *not*
interested.
To summarize:
* I accept that you want a "clean slate" and grant you one, meaning
- I will not bring up your past disreputable actions as long as you
do not talk about your old accusations against me.
- This does not mean I will lie for you but I will not bring your
*past* actions to the fore of any discussion as long as you hold
up your end of not talking about your past accusations.
- If you insist on brining up old debates your clean slate shall be
taken from you - any and all actions of your past are fair game
to talk about.
* I still would like to get answers to the questions I list above,
and as long as you are holding to your end of the above deal I will
not bring up any inconsistencies from your past statements or claims
regarding those topics. Answering those questions, however, is not
mandatory for the granting of the clean slate you asked for - just a
request to fulfill my curiosity.
* I will, of course, be open to answering similar questions from you if
you are curious of my views.
Fair enough?
--
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ One can be actually guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> Now add the sock puppets you and Steve use.
> >
> > Which ones, specifically?
>
> All.
"You snipped my sentences to pieces and then pretended the second part
of a sentence did not exist as you responded to the first."
This is what you ran from:
Which ones, specifically? Don't forget to substantiate, or you're just
making unsubstantiated accusations, which is very dishonest.
If you stop being dishonest, I will stop pointing out your dishonesty.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> I am once again getting bored with the debates... and now that it
>>> has once again been made completely clear that Sandman and Carroll
>>> and Adams will not even try to defend their BS
>>
>> True, in a sense.
>
> Take a look at this thread:
>
> I noted how many of the debates revolve around people purposely or
> accidentally acting as each others spokesperson - attributing ideas to
> others which the "other" may not have meant, merely poorly worded, has
> changed their minds, or whatever. I asked each of you some simple and fair
> questions and invited you to ask me comparable questions.
Obviously we weren't as interested in dragging up old BS as you are. I
know I am more interested in ending the BS, not repeating it as you
did.
> None of you took me up on it. None of you were willing to clarify your
> positions nor state what views of mine you find questionable.
>
> That, really, says all that needs to be said.
Indeed it does. You want to drag up old issues, I would rather not.
> > I'm not interested in reiterating old stuff.
>
> I can see where the "old stuff" would be an embarrassment to you. OK.
If that's how you want to see it.
> > I rather start on a clean slate, without the BS,
>
> I am willing to give you one - until or unless you reference your
> accusations against me I shall not reference the ones I have made against
> you.
Huh? You *just* made an unsubstantiated accusation against me, here:
<C2720633.818F9%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
> This does not mean I am not interested in your opinion or your views... and
> note that *none* of my questions to you involved any sort of accusation. If
> you think I have some fact wrong or make some faulty assumption in my
> questions I have no problem with you noting so. Here are the questions
> again:
Since you have failed to reach an agreement to end your BS, I can not
trust your motives for asking me any questions. If you were to sign
the deal to be honest, I would treat your questions with the same
respect as that from an honest person.
> Note, I merely am stating I truly am curious as to your views - but as I
> state above, I can understand why you would be embarrassed to talk about
> your views based on your actions in the past.
Your insistence on embarrassment shows that your motives are far from
benign.
> > enforced by an agreement between the two of us (for starters,
> > maybe more could join later?).
>
> I asked you to join an agreement. You did... and it did no good.
When did this happen?
> I see no point in discussing *any* additions at this time.
So you don't want the BS to end?
> > For some reasons, you're not willing to take any steps to end the BS,
> > you want what you call "BS" to be brought forward and reiterated.
> > That's the exact opposite of ending the BS.
>
> Which of those questions are "BS"?
Every single one.
> To help end the BS I think it is helpful to gain understanding.
No, it is helpful to mutually agree to let the past be and start with
a fresh start.
> You prefer to just ask for a clean slate - and I will grant that.
> As I note above: as long as you do not refer to your past
> accusations against me I shall not refer to mine against you.
Will you just make new ones, like this one:
<C2720633.818F9%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
> This does *not* mean I will hide the truth, but I will not go out of my way
> to bring your past actions to the fore of any conversation.
Your entire list of "questions" aim to do that very thing, bring the
past up again.
> Fair enough - you have the "clean slate" you asked for?
We'll see if you can be trusted.
> > Ending the BS would be to agree to be honest, which my deal aims to
> > do. For reasons unknown you won't join it with me, and you keep
> > evading my proposal.
>
> Evading? I have been very, very direct in my response: I am *not*
> interested.
>
> To summarize:
> * I accept that you want a "clean slate" and grant you one, meaning
> - I will not bring up your past disreputable actions as long as you
> do not talk about your old accusations against me.
> - This does not mean I will lie for you but I will not bring your
> *past* actions to the fore of any discussion as long as you hold
> up your end of not talking about your past accusations.
> - If you insist on brining up old debates your clean slate shall be
> taken from you - any and all actions of your past are fair game
> to talk about.
> * I still would like to get answers to the questions I list above,
> and as long as you are holding to your end of the above deal I will
> not bring up any inconsistencies from your past statements or claims
> regarding those topics. Answering those questions, however, is not
> mandatory for the granting of the clean slate you asked for - just a
> request to fulfill my curiosity.
> * I will, of course, be open to answering similar questions from you if
> you are curious of my views.
>
> Fair enough?
I would rather have you agree to end your BS as per my earlier
suggestion of a deal. I can't understand why you wouldn't want to end
the BS. Your above list concerns only one issue between you and I, my
deal includes the behaviour of both of us to all posters in csma. It's
no secret what deal has the better impact on "peace to CSMA" as you
call it.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C2724485.81982%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I respond to their trolling... how is that *starting* anything?
>>>
>>> : ) Sorry bud, I'm not falling for it. Go argue with someone who cares.
>>
>> While I do sometimes bring up topics they are running from, when do you
>> think I have actually started any of the debates?
>
> 192 times in the last year, that's more than one every other day:
Didn't you just ask for a "clean slate"?
> 001 2006-05-25 OT: Public challenge for Ca...
> <C09B71EE.4F748%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
I was asking Steve to back up the claims from the debates he has already
started. For the record: Steve was never able to back up his accusations.
> 002 2006-05-25 OT: Public challenge for Ca...
> <C09B3274.4F675%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
A repeat of the request, above. I have given Steve chance after chance to
support his accusations. He *never* does... always opting to run instead.
In any case, my asking Steve to back up his accusations is not me *starting*
a debate.
> 003 2006-05-26 OT: Public challenge for Ca...
> <C09C87B5.4F8E1%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
Again asking Steve to back up his accusations. Notice a pattern? Steve
accuses me of things... I ask him to support his accusations... he never
does. I ask again... he and, apparently you, blame me for *starting* the
debate. Weird.
> 004 2006-05-28 OT Article: No fun? Are you...
> <C09E9BF9.4FCE4%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
A reference to a story about Disneyland. It did reference someone named
"Tim Adams", and there is a "Tim Adams" in CSMA. The Tim from the story,
*gasp* wanted two glasses of wine! Hardly fighting words!
>
> 005 2006-05-30 OT: Summary of Carroll and ...
> <C0A0F271.5000A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
*Another* request for Steve to back up his accusations. He did not.
>
> 006 2006-05-31 OT: Summary of Carroll and ...
> <C0A22B20.501D7%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
*Another* request for folks, including Steve, to back up accusations...
>
> 007 2006-05-31 OT: Public challenge for Ca...
> <C0A22AE2.501D6%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
Yet *another* example of my asking Steve to back up his accusations. I am
seeing a strong pattern here. :)
>
> 008 2006-06-01 Friendly request for Sandman
> <C0A47E97.504B5%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
Me offering constructive criticisms to you about your website. I not only
do not ridicule you for it, I offer to help you make your site better... and
I did. As I have noted: helping people is really what CSMA should be all
about.
<snip />
> 191 2007-05-14 OT: Good night Sandman
> <C26D4D51.81126%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
*Gasp!* Me wishing someone good night! The horror!
> 192 2007-05-17 Another attempt to bring pe...
> <C2714054.81844%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
My asking for the silliness to end, offering to answer any reasonable
questions people may have of me, and my asking reasonable questions.
OK, I did not check out all 192 posts you point to, but of the 10 I did
check out, *none* are examples of me starting a debate - most are examples
of me asking Steve to back up his accusations... in other words asking him
to back up the claims he has made in the debates he has started.
You should check your data better before posting it!
Snit
I want you to count *all* your sock puppets. And just as I take Apple's
words over yours, I take the word of individual.net over yours. Again, no
offense meant by that, I just do.
Snit
> In article <C27292F6.819BC%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I am once again getting bored with the debates... and now that it
>>>> has once again been made completely clear that Sandman and Carroll
>>>> and Adams will not even try to defend their BS
>>>
>>> True, in a sense.
>>
>> Take a look at this thread:
>>
>> I noted how many of the debates revolve around people purposely or
>> accidentally acting as each others spokesperson - attributing ideas to
>> others which the "other" may not have meant, merely poorly worded, has
>> changed their minds, or whatever. I asked each of you some simple and fair
>> questions and invited you to ask me comparable questions.
>
> Obviously we weren't as interested in dragging up old BS as you are. I
> know I am more interested in ending the BS, not repeating it as you
> did.
I am truly interested in the answers to the questions I asked. As I noted,
though, I am willing to give you the "clean slate" you asked for even if you
do not answer those questions. I think most people can figure out why you
are so reluctant... and I will not harp on those reasons.
>> None of you took me up on it. None of you were willing to clarify your
>> positions nor state what views of mine you find questionable.
>>
>> That, really, says all that needs to be said.
>
> Indeed it does. You want to drag up old issues, I would rather not.
I would like to reach a place of understanding... for reasons of your own
you and the others I referenced would prefer to *not* be understood. I
shall not state the reasons why - I think anyone can figure that out for
themselves. But let us move forward... I shall not talk about this again
(past this post) as long as you live up to the "clean slate" deal.
>>> I'm not interested in reiterating old stuff.
>>
>> I can see where the "old stuff" would be an embarrassment to you. OK.
>
> If that's how you want to see it.
OK.
>>> I rather start on a clean slate, without the BS,
>>
>> I am willing to give you one - until or unless you reference your
>> accusations against me I shall not reference the ones I have made against
>> you.
>
> Huh? You *just* made an unsubstantiated accusation against me, here:
>
> <C2720633.818F9%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
In light of your "clean slate" I will not re-post the evidence.
>
>> This does not mean I am not interested in your opinion or your views... and
>> note that *none* of my questions to you involved any sort of accusation. If
>> you think I have some fact wrong or make some faulty assumption in my
>> questions I have no problem with you noting so. Here are the questions
>> again:
>
> Since you have failed to reach an agreement to end your BS, I can not
> trust your motives for asking me any questions. If you were to sign
> the deal to be honest, I would treat your questions with the same
> respect as that from an honest person.
If that is what you need to state to excuse your not answering I will let it
be... at least as long as you are living up to your end of the "clean slate"
you asked for.
>> Note, I merely am stating I truly am curious as to your views - but as I
>> state above, I can understand why you would be embarrassed to talk about
>> your views based on your actions in the past.
>
> Your insistence on embarrassment shows that your motives are far from
> benign.
The reasons you will not answer the questions are clear. I am leaving them
unstated to help build the peace, but let us not pretend we do not both know
the reasons. I will let it go, however, and not ask you to answer those
questions again - as long as you hold to your end of the "clean slate".
>>> enforced by an agreement between the two of us (for starters,
>>> maybe more could join later?).
>>
>> I asked you to join an agreement. You did... and it did no good.
>
> When did this happen?
You agreed to join on 04 April 2007
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/5316b38d16219c83>
"Hey! I want to join that code!"
Did you not really want to join? I did add you to the list of those who
have: <http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/csma/honor/>. If that is in error
I will promptly remove your name from the list.
>> I see no point in discussing *any* additions at this time.
>
> So you don't want the BS to end?
Incorrect.
>>> For some reasons, you're not willing to take any steps to end the BS,
>>> you want what you call "BS" to be brought forward and reiterated.
>>> That's the exact opposite of ending the BS.
>>
>> Which of those questions are "BS"?
>
> Every single one.
Incorrect. I truly am curious... though, as I stated, I shall not ask them
again as long as you hold to your end of a "clean slate".
>> To help end the BS I think it is helpful to gain understanding.
>
> No, it is helpful to mutually agree to let the past be and start with
> a fresh start.
I would like both... understanding *and* a moving forward... but I have
accepted your "clean slate".
>> You prefer to just ask for a clean slate - and I will grant that.
>> As I note above: as long as you do not refer to your past
>> accusations against me I shall not refer to mine against you.
>
> Will you just make new ones, like this one:
> <C2720633.818F9%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
I talk about that, above.
>> This does *not* mean I will hide the truth, but I will not go out of my way
>> to bring your past actions to the fore of any conversation.
>
> Your entire list of "questions" aim to do that very thing, bring the
> past up again.
The questions are based on comments you have made in the past that do not
make sense... at least to me. I am asking for clarification... so in that,
yes, the questions deal with the past... but that is not the same thing as
making any sort of accusation pr wanting to push any form of BS...
>> Fair enough - you have the "clean slate" you asked for?
>
> We'll see if you can be trusted.
Of course I can... but wouldn't I say that even if I could not? :)
I have discussed, repeatedly, why I shall not enter into that "deal" with
you. I have accepted your "clean slate" deal, though... as long as you
agree to reciprocate.
> I can't understand why you wouldn't want to end the BS.
Please stop pretending that the only way to show wanting the BS to end is to
agree to enter into that one "deal" you made... that is dishonest of you.
Since I am granting you a "clean slate" I will let this act of yours go...
consider the topic dealt with and done.
> Your above list concerns only one issue between you and I, my deal includes
> the behaviour of both of us to all posters in csma. It's no secret what deal
> has the better impact on "peace to CSMA" as you call it.
As noted above, we have discussed your deal far too much. Can you let it go
now?
--
€ It is OK to email yourself files and store them there for a few weeks
€ No legislation supercedes the Constitution (unless it amends it)
€ Apple's video format is not far from NTSC DVD and good enough for most
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > Obviously we weren't as interested in dragging up old BS as you are. I
> > know I am more interested in ending the BS, not repeating it as you
> > did.
>
> I am truly interested in the answers to the questions I asked.
They still constitute old issues, which you insist on dragging up, and
claiming that they are somehow "embarassing" to me. That is dragging
up old BS. Claiming that they are embarrassing to me is pretending to
be my spokesperson and dishonest.
> >> That, really, says all that needs to be said.
> >
> > Indeed it does. You want to drag up old issues, I would rather not.
>
> I would like to reach a place of understanding...
Which we could, if you would stop focusing on old issues and sign an
agreement that lets that past be in the past and build on mutual
understanding on future issues, instead of old BS. Since you have yet
to sign such a deal, I can't trust you not to continue your BS should
I treat your questions with the same respect I show an honest person.
> >> I am willing to give you one - until or unless you reference your
> >> accusations against me I shall not reference the ones I have made against
> >> you.
> >
> > Huh? You *just* made an unsubstantiated accusation against me, here:
> >
> > <C2720633.818F9%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
>
> In light of your "clean slate" I will not re-post the evidence.
Which means it will remain a dishonest unsubstantiated accusation,
just as I said. Stop making unsubstantiated accusations and you will
appear to be more honest.
> > Since you have failed to reach an agreement to end your BS, I can not
> > trust your motives for asking me any questions. If you were to sign
> > the deal to be honest, I would treat your questions with the same
> > respect as that from an honest person.
>
> If that is what you need to state to excuse your not answering I will let it
> be... at least as long as you are living up to your end of the "clean slate"
> you asked for.
I see you have no intention to agree to end the BS.
> >> Note, I merely am stating I truly am curious as to your views - but as I
> >> state above, I can understand why you would be embarrassed to talk about
> >> your views based on your actions in the past.
> >
> > Your insistence on embarrassment shows that your motives are far from
> > benign.
>
> The reasons you will not answer the questions are clear
You are not my spokesperson. And I have stated the reasons.
"Once someone clarifies their views it should be accepted"
-- Snit
> I am leaving them unstated to help build the peace, but let us not
> pretend we do not both know the reasons.
Since I've told you what the reasons are, you are very dishonest to
imply that they are something else.
> >>> enforced by an agreement between the two of us (for starters,
> >>> maybe more could join later?).
> >>
> >> I asked you to join an agreement. You did... and it did no good.
> >
> > When did this happen?
>
> You agreed to join on 04 April 2007
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/5316b38d16219c83>
>
> "Hey! I want to join that code!"
>
> Did you not really want to join? I did add you to the list of those who
> have: <http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/csma/honor/>. If that is in error
> I will promptly remove your name from the list.
Uh, ok. I thought that code was invalid since you don't live by it.
This very thread is an example of it.
> >> You prefer to just ask for a clean slate - and I will grant that.
> >> As I note above: as long as you do not refer to your past
> >> accusations against me I shall not refer to mine against you.
> >
> > Will you just make new ones, like this one:
> > <C2720633.818F9%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
>
> I talk about that, above.
Yes, I wanted to know if you would use the word "past" as a loophole
for making fresh unsubstantiated accusations, as you just did.
> > Your entire list of "questions" aim to do that very thing, bring the
> > past up again.
>
> The questions are based on comments you have made in the past that do not
> make sense... at least to me.
I.e. it constitutes bringing up the past. There are tons of statements
from you that I can't make any sense out of, but I dont' want to drag
up old BS, I want to end the BS.
> > I would rather have you agree to end your BS as per my earlier
> > suggestion of a deal.
>
> I have discussed, repeatedly, why I shall not enter into that "deal" with
> you. I have accepted your "clean slate" deal, though... as long as you
> agree to reciprocate.
>
> > I can't understand why you wouldn't want to end the BS.
>
> Please stop pretending that the only way to show wanting the BS to end is to
> agree to enter into that one "deal" you made...
No, to enter *a* deal. I have said many times that I am open to
comments and modifications to the deal. That is just my proposal. The
difference between my approach and yours is that mine covrs ALL posts
from you and me, not just the ones between us.
>> Your above list concerns only one issue between you and I, my deal
>> includes the behaviour of both of us to all posters in csma. It's
>> no secret what deal has the better impact on "peace to CSMA" as you
>> call it.
>
> As noted above, we have discussed your deal far too much. Can you let it go
> now?
No, I will continue to propose a deal between the two of us that would
attempt to bring peace to CSMA.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > This is what you ran from:
> >
> > Which ones, specifically? Don't forget to substantiate, or you're just
> > making unsubstantiated accusations, which is very dishonest.
> >
> > If you stop being dishonest, I will stop pointing out your dishonesty.
>
> I want you to count *all* your sock puppets.
That is a dishonest remark since it is an unsubstantiated accusation.
It is also in violation with this:
1) Be specific. Use the specific example of what it is you that is
bothering you. Vague complaints are hard to agree on, especially
in a forum like this.
2) Don't generalize. Avoid words like "never" or "always." Such
generalizations are usually inaccurate and will heighten tensions.
You are failing to be specific and you are generalizing by saying
"all" instead of specifying which ones you are in reference to.
You are breaking your own code of honesty very often. How come?
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>>> I respond to their trolling... how is that *starting* anything?
> >>>
> >>> : ) Sorry bud, I'm not falling for it. Go argue with someone who cares.
> >>
> >> While I do sometimes bring up topics they are running from, when do you
> >> think I have actually started any of the debates?
> >
> > 192 times in the last year, that's more than one every other day:
>
> Didn't you just ask for a "clean slate"?
Didn't you want an answer to your question? I answered it. I thought
that I was the one most suited to answer it since I ould actually look
it up.
> > 001 2006-05-25 OT: Public challenge for Ca...
> > <C09B71EE.4F748%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>
> I was asking Steve to back up the claims from the debates he has already
> started. For the record: Steve was never able to back up his accusations.
I.e. you started the debate.
> > 002 2006-05-25 OT: Public challenge for Ca...
> > <C09B3274.4F675%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>
> A repeat of the request, above. I have given Steve chance after chance to
> support his accusations. He *never* does... always opting to run instead.
> In any case, my asking Steve to back up his accusations is not me *starting*
> a debate.
I.e. you started the debate.
> > 003 2006-05-26 OT: Public challenge for Ca...
> > <C09C87B5.4F8E1%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>
> Again asking Steve to back up his accusations. Notice a pattern? Steve
> accuses me of things... I ask him to support his accusations... he never
> does. I ask again... he and, apparently you, blame me for *starting* the
> debate. Weird.
I.e. you started the debate.
> > 005 2006-05-30 OT: Summary of Carroll and ...
> > <C0A0F271.5000A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>
> *Another* request for Steve to back up his accusations. He did not.
I.e. you started the debate.
> > 006 2006-05-31 OT: Summary of Carroll and ...
> > <C0A22B20.501D7%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>
> *Another* request for folks, including Steve, to back up accusations...
I.e. you started the debate.
> > 007 2006-05-31 OT: Public challenge for Ca...
> > <C0A22AE2.501D6%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>
> Yet *another* example of my asking Steve to back up his accusations. I am
> seeing a strong pattern here. :)
I.e. you started the debate.
> > 008 2006-06-01 Friendly request for Sandman
> > <C0A47E97.504B5%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>
> Me offering constructive criticisms to you about your website.
I.e. you started the debate.
> <snip />
Dishonestly snipping, as usual.
> > 191 2007-05-14 OT: Good night Sandman
> > <C26D4D51.81126%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
>
> *Gasp!* Me wishing someone good night! The horror!
I.e. you started the debate.
> > 192 2007-05-17 Another attempt to bring pe...
> > <C2714054.81844%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
>
> My asking for the silliness to end, offering to answer any reasonable
> questions people may have of me, and my asking reasonable questions.
I.e. you started the debate.
> OK, I did not check out all 192 posts you point to, but of the 10 I did
> check out, *none* are examples of me starting a debate
I'll give you the one with Disneyland (though I'll take your word for
it) but every other one is you starting the debate. Either for the
first time or dragging it up again.
> most are examples of me asking Steve to back up his accusations...
> in other words asking him to back up the claims he has made in the
> debates he has started.
So you restart them.
> You should check your data better before posting it!
My data is fine. But thanks anyway.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <noone-00A6B7....@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>>> Oops! Worded that badly. That's a accumulated posts for the entire
>>> month - for that hour. I.e. when you add up all the 9-10 am posts
>>> he's done the entire month, you end up with 137. Sorry for the
>>> confusion.
>>
>> Hmmm... now I'm wondering how many posts Snit has posted in his
>> busiest hour in csma;)
>
> Counting from 2006-01-01, the number is 35, which was achieved at
> 2006-08-07 between 23 pm and midnight (do you say 24 pm or 0 am?)
>
>
> 35 2006-08-07 23:00
Can you explain why the Google archive does not agree with your count? I
checked and I posted 35 times *that day*... not in any any one hour. The
most I posted in any one hour *on that day* was six posts.
> 32 2006-10-13 16:00
> 26 2006-08-29 15:00
> 25 2006-08-08 06:00
> 25 2006-07-17 15:00
> 25 2006-08-08 04:00
> 25 2007-04-21 01:00
> 21 2006-07-05 23:00
> 21 2007-02-13 07:00
> 20 2006-08-08 00:00
I did not double check the other days, but I suspect your data is no more
accurate for them.
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>> Oops! Worded that badly. That's a accumulated posts for the entire
> >>> month - for that hour. I.e. when you add up all the 9-10 am posts
> >>> he's done the entire month, you end up with 137. Sorry for the
> >>> confusion.
> >>
> >> Hmmm... now I'm wondering how many posts Snit has posted in his
> >> busiest hour in csma;)
> >
> > Counting from 2006-01-01, the number is 35, which was achieved at
> > 2006-08-07 between 23 pm and midnight (do you say 24 pm or 0 am?)
> >
> >
> > 35 2006-08-07 23:00
>
> Can you explain why the Google archive does not agree with your count? I
> checked and I posted 35 times *that day*... not in any any one hour. The
> most I posted in any one hour *on that day* was six posts.
Yes, I can explain that. It seems I didn't account for the time
difference. The posts are saved in local time in my database and I
just did a raw query, not a script. The real list, with 9 hours
subtracted from each date, is:
35 2006-08-07 14:00
32 2006-10-13 07:00
26 2006-08-29 06:00
25 2006-08-07 21:00
25 2006-07-17 06:00
25 2006-08-07 19:00
25 2007-04-20 16:00
21 2006-07-05 14:00
21 2007-02-12 22:00
20 2006-08-07 15:00
But, looking at the data, I see that I have duplicates for that day in
the database. I know that for older posts, there are duplicates, and
that's why I generally don't make queries for data older than
2007-01-01. You can disregard these numbers. Sorry. I will clean up
the database and come back. Sorry for the confusion.
> > 32 2006-10-13 16:00
> > 26 2006-08-29 15:00
> > 25 2006-08-08 06:00
> > 25 2006-07-17 15:00
> > 25 2006-08-08 04:00
> > 25 2007-04-21 01:00
> > 21 2006-07-05 23:00
> > 21 2007-02-13 07:00
> > 20 2006-08-08 00:00
>
> I did not double check the other days, but I suspect your data is no more
> accurate for them.
--
Sandman[.net]
Edwin
> The silly debates are once again getting out of hand. I notice that much of
> the debates are of the form:
You've got to be out of your mind, Snit. You're the worst troll
this group has ever seen. You're a liar and a forger, and you've
almost destroyed this group single-handedly.
For you to post a list of out of context arguments, and lies, and
forgeries about your enemies labled as a "peace effort" has to be one
of the craziest stunts you've pulled.
It's all about your sick need for attention, your need to be center
stage at all times. You'd publicly eat dog turd if you thought it
would make people look at you.
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <C2729BB6.819F2%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>> I respond to their trolling... how is that *starting* anything?
> > >>>
> > >>> : ) Sorry bud, I'm not falling for it. Go argue with someone who
> > >>> : cares.
> > >>
> > >> While I do sometimes bring up topics they are running from, when do you
> > >> think I have actually started any of the debates?
> > >
> > > 192 times in the last year, that's more than one every other day:
> >
> > Didn't you just ask for a "clean slate"?
>
> Didn't you want an answer to your question?
Whoa! Where'd you get that idea? Snit doesn't want people to answers his
questions based on realities that have occurred... he wants to tell them what
those realities are in a light where he comes out 'honest and honorable' (in
other words, a light that doesn't exist). Surely you've seen this? Along with
the stuff you just listed, we're talking about a guy who has also admitted to
(after having been caught red handed) using sock puppets and forging IDs of
other people... a guy who has a list of nym-shifted names longer than any poster
ever to post to csma. A guy who has done a bunch of stuff I recently listed...
only to see him deny it has already been proven. Snit just doesn't live within
the bounds of reality as the rest of the world knows it to be.
Snit
> In article <C2729BB6.819F2%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> I respond to their trolling... how is that *starting* anything?
>>>>>
>>>>> : ) Sorry bud, I'm not falling for it. Go argue with someone who cares.
>>>>
>>>> While I do sometimes bring up topics they are running from, when do you
>>>> think I have actually started any of the debates?
>>>
>>> 192 times in the last year, that's more than one every other day:
>>
>> Didn't you just ask for a "clean slate"?
>
> Didn't you want an answer to your question? I answered it. I thought
> that I was the one most suited to answer it since I ould actually look
> it up.
And I did look it up... and you were wrong. You repeatedly make the claim
that it should be considered that someone "started the debate" if they:
1) Ask someone to substantiate accusations
2) Offer someone constructive criticism
With the first, this goes directly against what you posted just minutes
before the post I am replying to:
That is a dishonest remark since it is an unsubstantiated accusation.
You hold a double standard - when you believe *I* have an unsubstantiated
accusation, you deem me to be in the wrong... but when I *ask* Steve to
substantiate his claims you *again* deem me wrong. This is absurd!
With the second: it is only starting a debate if the person receiving the
constructive criticism takes it incorrectly. You, apparently, did.
Below you also call me dishonest for not commenting about *ten* of the 192
posts you referenced. Sorry, Sandman, when none of the 10 I checked show
what you wanted them to show I am not going to look at the other 182. You
simply were wrong. So be it.
Even though this is past the point of you asking for a clean slate I shall
grant you a *new* clean slate and let this go. I would hope you would do
the same - let this accusation of yours go: your support his not been shown
to be good... and it never will be. Just move on.
Your data may be fine - but your interpretation is absurd.
--
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The path "~/users/username/library/widget" is not common on any OS
€ The term "all widgets" does not specify a specific subgroup of widgets
Snit
Do you want the clean slate you asked for?
Snit
No problem.
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ The word "ouch" is not a sure sign of agreement.
Snit
1179497178.1...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com on 5/18/07 7:06 AM:
Funny how you think I am like you. I am not. And I notice you post not a
shred of evidence.
Remember: I, not you, am the one who asked you questions to give you a
chance to explain yourself and invited you to ask me questions for any views
of mine you think I should clear up.
In the end the facts are clear: you and the others I noted in this thread do
not want your ideas and views to be known - nor do you really care about my
views, you prefer to falsely attribute views and acts to me and then whine
about them. You are not happy that I am honest and honorable and take the
time to point out your BS.
You can easily prove me wrong... or at least show you are not looking to
stay that way: answer my questions and ask me any reasonable questions you
wish. Let's make sure we really understand each other and not just act as
each others' spokesperson. Here are my questions to you:
* MS and Apple had a very public deal which dealt Office and
$150 Million. What else do you think was included in that
deal?
* Is Snit is "happy as a Clam" with MS Office?
* Who authored the following quotes:
"why was I born with a coat hanger embedded in my skull?"
"I am just getting hungry or looking for attention:
I eat dog shit to get attention."
"Thank you all for giving me attention... does anybody have
some mouthwash?"
"I can stop thinking about having sex with monkeys"
* Should modern Macs be considered Macs? If not, why not?
* Do you think I ever advocated PPC chips over Intel chips?
If so, when? If you do not know, stating so is a reasonable
answer.
* Name one advantage present with portable apps that a
portable OS does not share
* What is the best work-flow in Windows for converting a
file from an arbitrary program to a PDF, naming it, and
attaching it to an email? Do you believe that work flow is
as streamlined or as easy as the one you have been shown for
the one I use on my Mac:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/tmp/mailpdf/>?
Sandman opted to not answer the questions but to instead ask for a clean
slate - and I granted him that. I would be willing to do the same thing for
you...
--
€ Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
€ Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
Snit
noone-AD361C....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/18/07 7:40 AM:
> In article <mr-6CEC73.10...@News.Individual.NET>,
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <C2729BB6.819F2%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
>> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> I respond to their trolling... how is that *starting* anything?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> : ) Sorry bud, I'm not falling for it. Go argue with someone who
>>>>>> : cares.
>>>>>
>>>>> While I do sometimes bring up topics they are running from, when do you
>>>>> think I have actually started any of the debates?
>>>>
>>>> 192 times in the last year, that's more than one every other day:
>>>
>>> Didn't you just ask for a "clean slate"?
>>
>> Didn't you want an answer to your question?
>
> Whoa! Where'd you get that idea? Snit doesn't want people to answers his
> questions based on realities that have occurred... he wants to tell them what
> those realities are in a light where he comes out 'honest and honorable' (in
> other words, a light that doesn't exist). Surely you've seen this? Along with
> the stuff you just listed, we're talking about a guy who has also admitted to
> (after having been caught red handed) using sock puppets and forging IDs of
> other people... a guy who has a list of nym-shifted names longer than any
> poster ever to post to csma. A guy who has done a bunch of stuff I recently
> listed... only to see him deny it has already been proven. Snit just doesn't
> live within the bounds of reality as the rest of the world knows it to be.
But you *still* deny you are filled with hate and having a melt-down. LOL!
As it turned out, Steve, most of the time Sandman claimed I was *starting* a
debate I was merely asking you to back up your accusations. And you ran...
*every* time.
Kinda telling, eh? LOL! Will be funny to see how you try to twist that to
make it sound like it is *my* fault for asking you to actually back up your
accusations.
By the way, I note that you have not shown any desire to actually understand
my views *or* to make your views understood. Here were my questions for
you:
* Did I ever state that Sandman's work was not pro because
one of his sites didn't validate correctly?
* Being that I have never called myself an "IT Teacher" and
have corrected you on many occasions, why do you call me an
"IT Teacher"?
* What made you think I was not aware of the
Command+Control+Option+8 feature on a Mac? If you never did
think that then noting such would be a reasonable answer.
* What is the most recent post of yours, Steve, where you
did not lie about me or, at best, post material which is
deceptive about me?
* Threats of violence, accusations of rape and other sex
crimes, and even accusations of taking debates out of CSMA
and bringing them to unwanted emails to loved ones and
making unwanted phone calls - *none* of these things are
appropriate. Do you agree or disagree? Why?
* Did you ever state in CSMA or otherwise tell me *when* you
got married (assuming you did get married)?
* Did John ever blame Sandman for the expiration of *any*
beta software that you know of?
* Have you ever commented on problems you attributed to a
Linksys router?
* Is it possible for someone who does not use PDFs much to
understand that Apple likely has more PDF options than
Windows?
* What is the purpose of a beta release of software?
Note that I also invited you to ask me questions so you can better
understand my views and not just assume your past understanding is correct.
You do not want to really understand or to be understood - that does not fit
your agenda. This thread shows that to be completely true... you just want
to push your silly accusations and then *never* back them up.
--
€ There is no known malware that attacks OS X in the wild
€ There are two general types of PCs: Macs and PCs (odd naming conventions!)
€ Mac OS X 10.x.x is a version of Mac OS
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Said the guy who leaves a constant trail of garbage that proves exactly what I
said up above. Even if I, as you say, "hated" you, a condition that is not
evidence, how would it change a single thing I wrote? It wouldn't... so your
claim that I hate you is nothing more than a juvenile, irrelevant smokescreen...
which is why we find you claiming it on my behalf. But the truth will not be
hieend... too bad for you that people's feelings don't enter into what we can
and have looked at regarding your actions on this newsgroup. For example...
you're SO delusional that when you forged posts using my name you said you were
"completely honest about doing so... " - as if that could ever be an honest
action... Rick G wrote:
"Snit, this is just a variant of the times when you posted using Steve Carroll's
name. Karma and all that, I suppose".
"When I posted using Steve's name, I was completely honest about doing so..."
<BD883648.8A69%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
This lie of yours, where you pretend you didn't admit you forged IDs, has been
pointed out by me numerous times... to your repeated denials... as you are doing
again in this thread. Here are a few of those times...
<noone-FB7D8A....@newsgroups.comcast.net>
<noone-97D49B....@newsgroups.comcast.net>
<fretwizz-23B288...@netnews.comcast.net>
You wanted support for the fact that you forged IDs, you know have it *again*.
Of course, you will lie and pretend that it was never offered... as is your way.
See how you can't run from reality YET? LOL!
------
Snit
Some definitions of "forgery":
Forgery is the process of making or adapting objects or
documents (see false document), with the intention to
deceive. The similar crime of fraud is the crime of
deceiving another, including through the use of objects
obtained through forgery. Copies, studio replicas, and
reproductions are not considered forgeries, though they may
later become forgeries through knowing and willful
mis-attributions.
A false signature or material alteration with intent to
defraud
the making of a fake document or the altering of a real one
with the intent to commit fraud.
An illegal facsimile record, document or work of art or
literature that has been created and presented as a genuine
record, document or work of art of another author in order
to deceive the potential owners, experts and the public.
A fraudulently altered genuine document. Often confused with
counterfeit.
Forgery would mean to forge or impersonate something/someone
to make it as if real and true. This is widely done in email
forgery/user impersonation. These include forgeries of your
name and E-mail address in messages to others, or of other
people's identities in mail to you. Both can be extremely
unpleasant, or even damaging, if the recipient gets fooled.
Note that as soon as you admitted that I made it very clear I was following
your lead of labeling trolling posts with the name "Steve Carroll" you - if
you are honest - admitted I was not forging *anything*. It would only be a
forgery if I were doing something to deceive others.... as you have
repeatedly done when you posted with my name.
Oh, that's right: you expect me to believe you and not individual.net and
the other evidence against you.
Whatever - you are a liar...
So the facts, as shown by you:
1) You set a pattern of how to post to alert people a post was a
trolling post.
2) I followed your example.
3) You whined.
Oh well.
With that said, I did decide there was a chance people would get confused as
to who was posting with your main trolling handle - so I stopped. I did not
want people to get confused and think there might be any forgery
happening... though you claim you *did* get confused... which is funny - you
are the only person who could not figure out which of the "Steve Carroll"
posts were not by you!
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > Didn't you want an answer to your question? I answered it. I thought
> > that I was the one most suited to answer it since I ould actually look
> > it up.
>
> And I did look it up... and you were wrong. You repeatedly make the claim
> that it should be considered that someone "started the debate" if they:
>
> 1) Ask someone to substantiate accusations
> 2) Offer someone constructive criticism
No, my criteria was clear. You started a debate by posting a new
thread about an issue you were having with someone. You can call it
"restarting" the debate f you will, but you were the instigator of the
debates in those threads. Had you not posted the threads, the debates
had not started.
Above you misrepresented my views when you claimed to be my
spokesperson. I would prefer if you wouldn't do that.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Why did you dishonestly ignore everything I posted?
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> A false signature or material alteration with intent to
> defraud
>
Yup... that one fits, thanks. Too bad you didn't admit to doing it until *after*
you got caught, eh? I really expected you to put up more of a fight with
reality... you know... as you usually do. Wanna talk about your nymshifting now?
Snit
>> Some definitions of "forgery":
>>
>>
>> A false signature or material alteration with intent to
>> defraud
>>
> Yup... that one fits, thanks.
Show the "intent to defraud". Should be a challenge since you have already
quoted me stating how I was making it very clear I was following your lead.
As I noted: I did decide there was a risk of confusion so I stopped - but
*you* are the only person who got confused as to which posts were yours.
That is funny. You post with so many sock puppets that you cannot even keep
straight which are your posts!
OK, here are the questions you have been running from:
* Did I ever state that Sandman's work was not pro because
one of his sites didn't validate correctly?
* Being that I have never called myself an "IT Teacher" and
have corrected you on many occasions, why do you call me an
"IT Teacher"?
* What made you think I was not aware of the
Command+Control+Option+8 feature on a Mac? If you never did
think that then noting such would be a reasonable answer.
* What is the most recent post of yours, Steve, where you
did not lie about me or, at best, post material which is
deceptive about me?
* threats of violence, accusations of rape and other sex
crimes, and even accusations of taking debates out of CSMA
and bringing them to unwanted emails to loved ones and
making unwanted phone calls - *none* of these things are
appropriate. Do you agree or disagree? Why?
* Did you ever state in CSMA or otherwise tell me *when* you
got married (assuming you did get married)?
* Did John ever blame Sandman for the expiration of *any*
beta software that you know of?
* Have you ever commented on problems you attributed to a
Linksys router?
* Is it possible for someone who does not use PDFs much to
understand that Apple likely has more PDF options than
Windows?
* What is the purpose of a beta release of software?
If you want to focus on other questions then start your own thread. Let's
work to keep this one focused!
> Too bad you didn't admit to doing it until *after* you got caught, eh?
Support? But please, Steve, take it to another thread where it is on
topic...
> I really expected you to put up more of a fight with reality... you know... as
> you usually do. Wanna talk about your nymshifting now?
If you want to start a thread with that as a topic please do. In that
thread shall we talk about your sock puppetry and forging of my name - acts
you deny though individual.net, as well as other evidence, leads no doubt
that you are guilty of.
Something tells me you will never start that thread... nor get back to the
topic of this one. LOL!
--
€ Different version numbers refer to different versions
€ Macs are Macs and Apple is still making and selling Macs
€ The early IBM PCs and Commodores shipped with an OS in ROM
Snit
I am giving you a chance for your clean slate. Your above info is just
repeats of your same comments. Ok, I get it:
* You will insist on calling my trying to end the BS via building
understanding a bad thing - I disagree but have agreed to not
ask you the questions as long as you agree to holding your end
of the "clean slate" deal.
* You want to focus on the past when it comes to discussions of your
poor behavior (or alleged poor behavior, if you prefer). This is
in direct contradiction of your claim to not want to bring up the
past! Comments about your past behavior are in the Google archive
if you want to see them. If you really want I can point you to
the but that goes against the "clean slate" deal...
* You want me to join into some other agreement with you other than
the clean slate deal we have, I believe, both agreed to (you asked
for it, I agreed to it). I have stated I am not interested, pointed
you to a past agreement we both "signed" when you asked me to, and
have noted it did not do much good to end the bickering. Hopefully
your idea of the "clean slate" will do so. I sincerely hope so.
Those topics have been beaten to death... there is really nothing to add.
If you want to know my vies on them read those bullet points ... or my past
comments.
Up until now the time for the "clean slate" has been a bit murky... we are
in multiple threads and multiple discussions. Let us consider it started
*now*... (or, perhaps, started again) - fair enough? You have the clean
slate you asked for.
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-EAF773....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/18/07 12:35 PM:
>
> >> Some definitions of "forgery":
> >>
> >>
> >> A false signature or material alteration with intent to
> >> defraud
> >>
> > Yup... that one fits, thanks.
>
> Show the "intent to defraud". Should be a challenge since you have already
> quoted me stating how I was making it very clear I was following your lead.
Sure... and you'll show how I forged your ID any minute now... LOL!
My having quoted yet another of your lies (this time about you following my lead
- total bullshit) won''t help you here. Put the crack pipe down, Snit..., you
didn't admit to using my ID until *after* you posted using it... and the
admission only came about *after* you were busted. Regardless of whatever
delusion you are undergoing, there is no legimate reason to post using someone's
else's name. So... wanna talk about your nymshifting now?
Snit
>> Some definitions of "forgery":
>>
>>
>> A false signature or material alteration with intent to
>> defraud
>>
> Yup... that one fits, thanks.
Show the "intent to defraud". Should be a challenge since you have already
quoted me stating how I was making it very clear I was following your lead.
As I noted: I did decide there was a risk of confusion so I stopped - but
ed
news:mr-4378A9.21...@News.Individual.NET...
> In article <C272EAC0.81A23%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
if you both want to end the bs, why not just both shut the f* up, and don't
bring it up again, with no conditions on what the other one does? i suspect
both of you are talking out your ass when you say you want the bs to end,
and if neither of you accept my challenge here, that will be very clear, eh?
Snit
dOn3i.3353$4Y....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net on 5/18/07 1:13 PM:
What, specifically, do you not want brought up again? Sandman has asked for
a clean slate and I have granted him one - as long as he does the same for
me. If he holds to the "deal" then the old BS should not be brought up
again.
ed
news:C27357EB.81AA2%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> "ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> stated in post
> dOn3i.3353$4Y....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net on 5/18/07 1:13 PM:
>
>> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
>> news:mr-4378A9.21...@News.Individual.NET...
>>> In article <C272EAC0.81A23%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
>>> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>> if you both want to end the bs, why not just both shut the f* up, and
>> don't
>> bring it up again, with no conditions on what the other one does? i
>> suspect
>> both of you are talking out your ass when you say you want the bs to end,
>> and if neither of you accept my challenge here, that will be very clear,
>> eh?
>
> What, specifically, do you not want brought up again? Sandman has asked
> for
> a clean slate and I have granted him one - as long as he does the same for
> me. If he holds to the "deal" then the old BS should not be brought up
> again.
don't bring up any crap from the past. like even stuff from this thread
(like you just did). just let it die. and notice how you lay a conditional
on sandmand's behavior, even though that's one of the things i suggested you
let drop. sheesh.
Snit
If Sandman brings up the past I hold open the option to respond to his
comments. Other than that I think you have what you want.
Same "deal" goes for Carroll and Adams... if they do not bring up the past I
shall not either.
I will not, however, let them selectively bring up the past, expect me to
talk about their selected topics from the past, and create some "rule" where
I cannot talk about other things from the past. That would be silly.
Fair enough?
--
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ One can be actually guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-786BE1....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/18/07 1:11 PM:
>
> >> Some definitions of "forgery":
> >>
> >>
> >> A false signature or material alteration with intent to
> >> defraud
> >>
> > Yup... that one fits, thanks.
>
> Show the "intent to defraud".
So, you're claiming that you posted using my ID... and didn't cop to it until
*after* you got busted... but your goal wasn't to defraud? Yeah... that sounds
like something you'd figure people are stupid enough to believe... you're
obviously that stupid. Your bizarre moral relativism aside, forging IDs is
wrong, Snit... it's no different than taking anything else that doesn't belong
to you. If I took money from your house and didn't admit to having done it until
after it was shown I was the person who did it, do you really think I could use
the defense of 'show that I did it with the intent of keeping the money and not
telling you I was the one who stole it'? I know you said you mother had drinking
problems... but didn't she at least teach you this much? What about your father?
Where was he while you turned into the deviant we see before us? So... you wanna
talk about your nymshifting now?
--
Elizabot v2.0.3
Hey don't forget about the newsgroup he made for you:
http://groups.google.com/group/altstevecarrollisatroll?lnk=sg&hl=en
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > Why did you dishonestly ignore everything I posted?
>
> I am giving you a chance for your clean slate.
Only if by "clean slate" you will dishonestly ignore my posts. You do
this all the time, ignore my entire post and then try to "summarize"
it with your own words, which is very dishonest. You are not my
spokesperson and I don't recognize you as a valid entity to summarize
my arguments and views.
And I don't think your "clean slate" has proven very valuable. For
starters. I am not here to cut a deal between you and I. I want to cut
a deal that is best for CSMA, not me. I want whatever deal you and I
agree upon should affect every post from you and me, not just the post
between us. Your insistance on calling it "my clean slate" shows that
you're not interested in something that would benefit csma as a whole.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> if you both want to end the bs, why not just both shut the f* up, and don't
> bring it up again, with no conditions on what the other one does? i suspect
> both of you are talking out your ass when you say you want the bs to end,
> and if neither of you accept my challenge here, that will be very clear, eh?
I've done that in the past (i.e. ignored Snot). In some cases it has
increased the amount of BS from him. I really think it would be more
effective if we had to agree to a set of ground rules. I am prepared
to do it, Snit isn't (yet).
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <dOn3i.3353$4Y....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>,
> "ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>
>> if you both want to end the bs, why not just both shut the f* up, and don't
>> bring it up again, with no conditions on what the other one does? i suspect
>> both of you are talking out your ass when you say you want the bs to end,
>> and if neither of you accept my challenge here, that will be very clear, eh?
>
> I've done that in the past (i.e. ignored Snot).
Your derogatory name alteration is noted.
> In some cases it has increased the amount of BS from him. I really think it
> would be more effective if we had to agree to a set of ground rules. I am
> prepared to do it, Snit isn't (yet).
Please do not speak for me.
Snit
What you snipped:
----------
----------
You complain that my summary is not fair. Please be specific... and do not
just dishonestly snip it in your reply. If you do, of course, it is fair to
note your actions, being that you would be doing them *after* your clean
slate was started. Your slate does not get to be wiped clean repeatedly!
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> if you both want to end the bs, why not just both shut the f* up,
>>> and don't bring it up again, with no conditions on what the other
>>> one does? i suspect both of you are talking out your ass when you
>>> say you want the bs to end, and if neither of you accept my
>>> challenge here, that will be very clear, eh?
>>
>> I've done that in the past (i.e. ignored Snot).
>
> Your derogatory name alteration is noted.
My sincerest apologies, that was a mistake. You know I don't have the
habit of altering your nick.
> > In some cases it has increased the amount of BS from him. I really think it
> > would be more effective if we had to agree to a set of ground rules. I am
> > prepared to do it, Snit isn't (yet).
>
> Please do not speak for me.
That was the impression I got when you declined to join. Sorry if I
was mistaken.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C273F501.81B2B%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>>> if you both want to end the bs, why not just both shut the f* up,
>>>> and don't bring it up again, with no conditions on what the other
>>>> one does? i suspect both of you are talking out your ass when you
>>>> say you want the bs to end, and if neither of you accept my
>>>> challenge here, that will be very clear, eh?
>>>
>>> I've done that in the past (i.e. ignored Snot).
>>
>> Your derogatory name alteration is noted.
>
> My sincerest apologies, that was a mistake. You know I don't have the
> habit of altering your nick.
Apology accepted.
>>> In some cases it has increased the amount of BS from him. I really think it
>>> would be more effective if we had to agree to a set of ground rules. I am
>>> prepared to do it, Snit isn't (yet).
>>
>> Please do not speak for me.
>
> That was the impression I got when you declined to join. Sorry if I
> was mistaken.
Fair enough. As I have noted, I have accepted the "ground rules" of
granting you the clean slate you asked for - in return for a reciprocation
of same.
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>> Why did you dishonestly ignore everything I posted?
> >>
> >> I am giving you a chance for your clean slate.
> >
> > Only if by "clean slate" you will dishonestly ignore my posts. You do
> > this all the time, ignore my entire post and then try to "summarize"
> > it with your own words, which is very dishonest. You are not my
> > spokesperson and I don't recognize you as a valid entity to summarize
> > my arguments and views.
> >
> > And I don't think your "clean slate" has proven very valuable. For
> > starters. I am not here to cut a deal between you and I. I want to cut
> > a deal that is best for CSMA, not me. I want whatever deal you and I
> > agree upon should affect every post from you and me, not just the post
> > between us. Your insistance on calling it "my clean slate" shows that
> > you're not interested in something that would benefit csma as a whole.
>
> What you snipped:
I snipped your summary since it does not summarize the issue. I
explained that above, which you ignored. Not very honest of you.
Remember, you're the one that started ignoring content in this thread:
I wrote a lengthy response to your post:
<mr-DBA2EA.10...@News.Individual.NET>
You ignored it completely:
<C272E656.81A1E%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
You may state whatever reasons you want for ignoring my post, but you
may not try to make it seem like me ignoring parts of your posts after
that is out of the place.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > That was the impression I got when you declined to join. Sorry if I
> > was mistaken.
>
> Fair enough. As I have noted, I have accepted the "ground rules" of
> granting you the clean slate you asked for - in return for a reciprocation
> of same.
I have not asked for a clean slate that apply only to me. You are the
one who turned my request around to make it seem like I did. I want
*you* to start on a clean slate in *csma*, not *for me*. My request
concerns csma, not me. That's why I devices my agreement, which you
have yet to accept, that way.
--
Sandman[.net]
New Bee
> In article <C2714054.81844%C...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
>
> Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> I am willing to work with you to bring peace to csma. How about
> signing a mutual deal that we must honor in order to minimize
> potential problems? Doesn't that sound like a good idea?
No, this just sounds like more of your games. You would quit what
you're doing if you wanted peace.
Sandman
New Bee <New.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I am willing to work with you to bring peace to csma. How about
> > signing a mutual deal that we must honor in order to minimize
> > potential problems? Doesn't that sound like a good idea?
>
> No, this just sounds like more of your games. You would quit what
> you're doing if you wanted peace.
Huh. Ok, what am I doing? I just got the feeling that you may just
have responded to the wrong person.
--
Sandman[.net]
John
"Elizabot v2.0.3" <Eliz...@NOspySPAMmac.com> wrote in message
news:134t068...@news.supernews.com...
>
> Hey don't forget about the newsgroup he made for you:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/altstevecarrollisatroll?lnk=sg&hl=en
I would have thought it would be called alt.troll.dumbshit!
New Bee
> In article <1179574693.095027.181...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
> New Bee <New.BeeZ...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I am willing to work with you to bring peace to csma. How about
> > > signing a mutual deal that we must honor in order to minimize
> > > potential problems? Doesn't that sound like a good idea?
>
> > No, this just sounds like more of your games. You would quit what
> > you're doing if you wanted peace.
>
> Huh. Ok, what am I doing? I just got the feeling that you may just
> have responded to the wrong person.
Sorry. I meant to reply to Snit.
Elizabot v2.0.3
No, that would be the group someone would make for you, if anybody cared.
Snit
What questions or comments, specifically, do you think I have not responded
to? You keep stating the same things over and over and over. I keep
responding. It is boring. When I summarize my views you get bent out of
shape, snip them entirely, and then insist there was something dishonest in
my comments - though you cannot point to what!
You asked for a clean slate.
I granted it.
Can you not move forward now?
Snit
> In article <C2740032.81B31%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>> That was the impression I got when you declined to join. Sorry if I
>>> was mistaken.
>>
>> Fair enough. As I have noted, I have accepted the "ground rules" of
>> granting you the clean slate you asked for - in return for a reciprocation
>> of same.
>
> I have not asked for a clean slate that apply only to me.
You cannot ask for a clean slate for others, not without acting as their
spokesperson. I granted you your clean slate and asked for reciprocation.
You keep focusing on the debate that lead to your request. It is bizarre.
> You are the one who turned my request around to make it seem like I did.
In this thread, where I asked you and I (and others) to try to reach some
level of understanding, you objected and stated you would prefer to just
start with a clean slate:
<mr-1EDE87.09...@News.Individual.NET >
I would love to end the BS as well. I think the first step
would be to let the past go. Start on a clean slate. Treat
each others with respect and behave in an honest and
honorable way. I hope you will join me in reaching an
agreement to do just that.
I granted your clean slate.
Can you now move forward and let the past go?
> I want *you* to start on a clean slate in *csma*, not *for me*. My request
> concerns csma, not me. That's why I devices my agreement, which you have yet
> to accept, that way.
I have accepted your request for a clean slate. Oddly, you do not seem to
accept that.
John
"Elizabot v2.0.3" <Eliz...@NOspySPAMmac.com> wrote in message
No. Steve Carroll has definitely established himself as an habitual
dumbshit who trolls and trolls.
Snit
kbSdnbyui5YTmtLb...@netlojix.com on 5/19/07 7:19 AM:
I have her in my KF... I might peek to see if she is back to her old games.
Sigh.
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> What you snipped:
> >
> > I snipped your summary since it does not summarize the issue. I
> > explained that above, which you ignored. Not very honest of you.
> > Remember, you're the one that started ignoring content in this thread:
> >
> > I wrote a lengthy response to your post:
> > <mr-DBA2EA.10...@News.Individual.NET>
> >
> > You ignored it completely:
> > <C272E656.81A1E%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
> <
> > You may state whatever reasons you want for ignoring my post, but you
> > may not try to make it seem like me ignoring parts of your posts after
> > that is out of the place.
> >
> What questions or comments, specifically, do you think I have not responded
> to?
Every single one in that post. Especially considering your dishonest
summary that in no way summarized my views on the topic.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Come on, Sandman, you are being evasive.
In that post you talk, *again*, about you think my trying to end the BS via
building understanding is a bad thing (you repeatedly comment that you think
it is focused on "old BS"). You repeatedly talk about you wanting me to
make some deal with you - a topic that has been beaten to death but one you
are having a very, very hard time letting go of... odd considering how you
are so insistent on not focusing on the past. You also ask me to talk about
the past and give details about your past behavior and the evidence for
it... *another* example of you focusing on the past when it suites your
desires but *not* when I ask you questions to help lead to better
understanding (questions that have no implied accusations!)
In short: you are finding it very hard to be consistent in your comments
about how you want to handle past events, you are unable to let go of the
topic of you and I "signing" some "deal" (other than the "clean slate" I
granted you *and* the other deal we both "signed":
<http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/csma/honor/>).
You also talk about your fears of the word "past" being used as a loophold -
I have no idea what you are even talking about.
So, to get back to my question: what comment of yours do you think I have
not responded to? Please, Sandman, try to answer in an open an honest
way... and not with evasion and snipping... as you did in the post I
responded to. If you cannot act in an honest and honorable way, do not
expect me to respond. Let us just consider this thread dead and I will,
*again* grant you yet another "clean slate" and let us both move forward.
--
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The path "~/users/username/library/widget" is not common on any OS
€ The term "all widgets" does not specify a specific subgroup of widgets
Snit
> In article <C272EAC0.81A23%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>> Didn't you want an answer to your question? I answered it. I thought
>>> that I was the one most suited to answer it since I ould actually look
>>> it up.
>>
>> And I did look it up... and you were wrong. You repeatedly make the claim
>> that it should be considered that someone "started the debate" if they:
>>
>> 1) Ask someone to substantiate accusations
>> 2) Offer someone constructive criticism
>
> No, my criteria was clear. You started a debate by posting a new
> thread about an issue you were having with someone. You can call it
> "restarting" the debate f you will, but you were the instigator of the
> debates in those threads. Had you not posted the threads, the debates
> had not started.
>
> Above you misrepresented my views when you claimed to be my
> spokesperson. I would prefer if you wouldn't do that.
>
I do not accept the idea that starting a thread is a reasonable criteria.
Renaming threads or even just posting in an old thread can be used to start
debates... and new threads can be in response to other posts. Heck, if I
just changed names of old threads would you have considered those exact same
posts as *not* being starting or restarting a debate? Seems silly!
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > I have not asked for a clean slate that apply only to me.
>
> You cannot ask for a clean slate for others, not without acting as their
> spokesperson.
You really should look up the word "spokesperson". Asking you to start
from a clean slate is not being the spokesperson of others. You are
dishonestly twisting my words in spite of me explaining my view.
> You keep focusing on the debate that lead to your request. It is bizarre.
I find it insulting that you call my focus "bizarre". I focus on
finding an agreement with you that will benefit csma, not only me and
you.
> > You are the one who turned my request around to make it seem like I did.
>
> In this thread, where I asked you and I (and others) to try to reach some
> level of understanding, you objected and stated you would prefer to just
> start with a clean slate:
>
> <mr-1EDE87.09...@News.Individual.NET >
> I would love to end the BS as well. I think the first step
> would be to let the past go. Start on a clean slate. Treat
> each others with respect and behave in an honest and
> honorable way. I hope you will join me in reaching an
> agreement to do just that.
>
> I granted your clean slate.
The above text is not a request for a "clean slate" for *me*. It's a
request that *you* and *I* should start on a clean slate for the
benefit of *csma*, not each other.
> > I want *you* to start on a clean slate in *csma*, not *for me*. My request
> > concerns csma, not me. That's why I devices my agreement, which you have yet
> > to accept, that way.
>
> I have accepted your request for a clean slate.
I have not requested a clean slate that applies only to me.
> Oddly, you do not seem to accept that.
I don't accept that as meeting my request. I think it's good that you
in some way want to star fresh, and I commend you for it. I just want
you to be clear that you are misrepresenting my request.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
New Bee <New.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
That's what I thought. Apology accepted. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-4378A9.21...@News.Individual.NET on 5/18/07 12:33 PM:
>
> > In article <C272EAC0.81A23%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> Didn't you want an answer to your question? I answered it. I thought
> >>> that I was the one most suited to answer it since I ould actually look
> >>> it up.
> >>
> >> And I did look it up... and you were wrong. You repeatedly make the claim
> >> that it should be considered that someone "started the debate" if they:
> >>
> >> 1) Ask someone to substantiate accusations
> >> 2) Offer someone constructive criticism
> >
> > No, my criteria was clear. You started a debate by posting a new
> > thread about an issue you were having with someone. You can call it
> > "restarting" the debate f you will, but you were the instigator of the
> > debates in those threads. Had you not posted the threads, the debates
> > had not started.
> >
> > Above you misrepresented my views when you claimed to be my
> > spokesperson. I would prefer if you wouldn't do that.
>
> I do not accept the idea that starting a thread is a reasonable criteria.
> Renaming threads or even just posting in an old thread can be used to start
> debates... and new threads can be in response to other posts. Heck, if I
> just changed names of old threads would you have considered those exact same
> posts as *not* being starting or restarting a debate? Seems silly!
It seems to me that you want to fall back to an unmeasurable way of
"starting debates". By starting threads aimed at specific persons, you
are effectively starting a debate. You seem to want to claim that all
of these threads of yours were merely "continuing" debates that
someone else started. You do realise that I can successfully claim
that I have never started any debate with you then?
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
I do not want the "measure" to be something completely unrelated to actually
starting debates! That would be absurd. And, of course, since I have
granted you a clean slate and you have agreed it should not just apply to
you, then really we should just end this here.
If you wanted to leave the clean slate behind, though, for whatever reason,
then I would hope you would look at individual posts and *content*, not just
starting threads (especially when leaving out renaming of threads!)
As I noted, when I looked at 10 of the posts you pointed to, *most* were
merely examples of my asking Steve to back up his accusations - something he
repeatedly fails to do (though, I grant, he did try recently - the *best* he
could do was to misrepresent my actions from, I believe 2004! I will grant
that my actions he pointed to were not exactly stellar and I did cease
them... but why can't he point to *anything* more recent and why does he
feel the need to misrepresent such things? Bizarre.
> By starting threads aimed at specific persons, you
> are effectively starting a debate.
A silly criteria... for reasons I have stated.
> You seem to want to claim that all of these threads of yours were merely
> "continuing" debates that someone else started. You do realise that I can
> successfully claim that I have never started any debate with you then?
You can claim what you want... but I would hope you would strive to be
honest. If you want to leave the clean slate behind I would prefer to look
at helping each other to understand each others views (the very reason I
started this thread!) and not look to see who is to *blame* for any debates
or misunderstandings. If, however, you are insistent on *that*, and can
explain how my pointing to examples of you (or others) starting debates
would somehow be likely to lead to greater peace I am open to that as well.
In other words I am being *extremely* flexible, but I do not want to play
the blame game if it is not going to be likely to make things better. If it
helps you to hold to the clean slate to believe that before the clean slate
I started every debate CSMA *ever* had, you can hold that view. I would
ask, however, that you not spread such unsupportable claims or try to
support claims with data that does not do so.
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>> You may state whatever reasons you want for ignoring my post, but you
> >>> may not try to make it seem like me ignoring parts of your posts after
> >>> that is out of the place.
> >>>
> >> What questions or comments, specifically, do you think I have not responded
> >> to?
> >
> > Every single one in that post. Especially considering your dishonest
> > summary that in no way summarized my views on the topic.
>
> Come on, Sandman, you are being evasive.
Only if you agree to evading my post first, Michael. Remember, you're
treated the way you treat others. I didn't ignore your post, You
ignored mine. If you want to call me evasive, you have to admit that
you begun evading.
> In that post you talk, *again*, about you think my trying to end the BS via
> building understanding is a bad thing (you repeatedly comment that you think
> it is focused on "old BS").
Yes, your list of questions are all based on old issues you are having
with people. They are all things you want to use to provoke the poster
with, using as a springboard to further your agenda. I know you won't
agree with this and I don't expect you to. But the answer to any of
those questions won't further any "understanding", it will only start
the debates again and you know it.
> You repeatedly talk about you wanting me to
> make some deal with you - a topic that has been beaten to death but one you
> are having a very, very hard time letting go of...
Of course. I will never let go of pursuing a deal that would benefit
csma. I only wants what's best for csma, not what's best for your
"understanding".
> odd considering how you
> are so insistent on not focusing on the past. You also ask me to talk about
> the past and give details about your past behavior and the evidence for
> it...
Eh?
> *another* example of you focusing on the past when it suites your
> desires but *not* when I ask you questions to help lead to better
> understanding (questions that have no implied accusations!)
I'm not sure if you even know yourself what you're talking about. I
know I don't.
> In short: you are finding it very hard to be consistent in your comments
> about how you want to handle past events, you are unable to let go of the
> topic of you and I "signing" some "deal" (other than the "clean slate" I
> granted you *and* the other deal we both "signed":
> <http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/csma/honor/>).
Asking you to sign a deal to be honest is hardly bringing up the past,
Michael. It's a very current and ongoing request.
> You also talk about your fears of the word "past" being used as a loophold -
> I have no idea what you are even talking about.
I have never expressed any fear, Michael. You're dishonestly
misrepresenting my views.
> So, to get back to my question: what comment of yours do you think I have
> not responded to?
Every single one in this post:
<mr-DBA2EA.10...@News.Individual.NET>
> Please, Sandman, try to answer in an open an honest way...
As always.
> and not with evasion and snipping... as you did in the post I
> responded to
You started it, Michael. I showed it to you, yet here you still try to
make it seem like I'm the one ignoring stuff. I am treating you the
way you treat me. Remember that.
> If you cannot act in an honest and honorable way, do not
> expect me to respond. Let us just consider this thread dead and I will,
> *again* grant you yet another "clean slate" and let us both move forward.
Stop insisting on granting *me* anything. I want you to grant *CSMA* a
clean slate from you. You can only hope that CSMA will grant you one
back. This has *nothing* to do with me. I am just one of the people in
csma that want you to enter an agreement to be honest and honorable.
Why can't you do it?
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Your claim there is dishonest, Sandman, as shown by the fact you cannot
point to a single question, comment, or concern of yours that has not been
responded to fully! The *best* you can do is whine that I have not
responded to your comments over and over - as if I have some obligation to
follow you as you play games!
>> If you cannot act in an honest and honorable way, do not
>> expect me to respond. Let us just consider this thread dead and I will,
>> *again* grant you yet another "clean slate" and let us both move forward.
>
> Stop insisting on granting *me* anything. I want you to grant *CSMA* a
> clean slate from you. You can only hope that CSMA will grant you one
> back. This has *nothing* to do with me. I am just one of the people in
> csma that want you to enter an agreement to be honest and honorable.
> Why can't you do it?
>
1) What question or comment, specifically, do you think I have evaded?
Pointing to a post which I have now repeatedly responded to does
not help to make your point!
2) I *get* the fact you do not like my list of questions where I asked
to gain better understanding of others views and requested they do
the same for me. You really do not need to keep repeating that.
When I do not respond each time to your talking about it that is not
evasion... it is me not joining you in beating a dead horse!
3) I have *repeatedly* told you why I am not interested in signing
*another* deal with you. You can accept or reject my reasons, but
try to be respectful of the fact that you have been given an answer.
Please stop beating that dead horse, too!
4) You specifically asked for a clean slate. It was granted. Now move
on!
--
€ There is no known malware that attacks OS X in the wild
€ There are two general types of PCs: Macs and PCs (odd naming conventions!)
€ Mac OS X 10.x.x is a version of Mac OS
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Nah... reality shows that "The *best* you can do is whine that I have not
responded to your comments over and over - as if I have some obligation to
follow you as you play games!".
> - something he repeatedly fails to do (though, I grant, he did try recently - the *best* he
> could do was to misrepresent my actions from, I believe 2004!
This is a lie. I just recently busted you and your bullshit regarding the XP
OS... you even apologized, though, you did it in your usual weasel fashion.
(the remainder of your post was snipped because you were caught, once again,
lying.
--
"None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit
"I do not KF people" - Snit
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
"You should take one of my IT classes some day." - Snit
Snit
noone-E1B741....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/20/07 9:15 AM:
>> I do not want the "measure" to be something completely unrelated to actually
>> starting debates! That would be absurd. And, of course, since I have
>> granted you a clean slate and you have agreed it should not just apply to
>> you, then really we should just end this here.
>>
>> If you wanted to leave the clean slate behind, though, for whatever reason,
>> then I would hope you would look at individual posts and *content*, not just
>> starting threads (especially when leaving out renaming of threads!)
>>
>> As I noted, when I looked at 10 of the posts you pointed to, *most* were
>> merely examples of my asking Steve to back up his accusations
>
> Nah... reality shows that "The *best* you can do is whine that I have not
> responded to your comments over and over - as if I have some obligation to
> follow you as you play games!".
Please note, Steve, that I have been very specific: if Sandman can state
what questions he thinks I have evaded I will happily respond.
I get no such sign of honesty from you. The best
>
>> - something he repeatedly fails to do (though, I grant, he did try recently -
>> the *best* he could do was to misrepresent my actions from, I believe 2004!
>
> This is a lie.
I can accept that your misrepresentation was a lie. The fact is you simply
will *never* support your accusations. Would you like a clean slate so that
you need not see all the accusations you have spewed in to CSMA? Sandman
has been trying to make sure not just he and I have a clean slate with each
other but that I give clean slates to others as well. I am open to that: I
am happy to give you a clean slate if you just ask. I will not give you
one, however, if you do not show you want one - even if others ask "for"
you.
> I just recently busted you and your bullshit regarding the XP OS... you even
> apologized, though, you did it in your usual weasel fashion.
What BS regarding XP? Please be specific...
Of course, we both know you will not be - this is just another example of
your spewing accusations you will *never* support. How many times will you
refer to your "catching" me doing some act you will not even specify? This
is just another of your idiotic games.
>> I will grant that my actions he pointed to were not exactly stellar and I did
>> cease them... but why can't he point to *anything* more recent and why does
>> he feel the need to misrepresent such things? Bizarre.
No comment on why you felt the need to misrepresent - or lie - about things.
OK.
--
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
€ Photoshop is an image editing application
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-E1B741....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/20/07 9:15 AM:
>
> >> I do not want the "measure" to be something completely unrelated to
> >> actually
> >> starting debates! That would be absurd. And, of course, since I have
> >> granted you a clean slate and you have agreed it should not just apply to
> >> you, then really we should just end this here.
> >>
> >> If you wanted to leave the clean slate behind, though, for whatever
> >> reason,
> >> then I would hope you would look at individual posts and *content*, not
> >> just
> >> starting threads (especially when leaving out renaming of threads!)
> >>
> >> As I noted, when I looked at 10 of the posts you pointed to, *most* were
> >> merely examples of my asking Steve to back up his accusations
> >
> > Nah... reality shows that "The *best* you can do is whine that I have not
> > responded to your comments over and over - as if I have some obligation to
> > follow you as you play games!".
>
> Please note, Steve, that I have been
... lying on this newsgroup for years? Yes, we're all very aware of that fact.
Donald L McDaniel
>The silly debates are once again getting out of hand. I notice that much of
>the debates are of the form:
>
>Person A: You just said A!
>Person B: No, I said B!
>Person A: No, you said A!
>Person B: No, I said B!
>
>I think in many of these cases maybe the first comment was either worded
>poorly or simply misunderstood. Once someone clarifies their views it
>should be accepted - at least in most cases. I admit I have been guilty of
>not accepting someone's revision or clarification I the past, and I beleive
>so have Edwin, Sandman, Carroll and Adams - each of the folks I have
>recently been debating with.
You know, snit, no one in this newsgroup (or at least the rabid MacDroids) is going to
listen to reason. This newsgroup is not about "reason". It's about "my opinion", and how
much "my opinion is better than yours."
In other words, these idiots are all swinging their dicks around, claiming theirs is
bigger than anyone's.
"Reason" does not enter into their thinking.
Surely you should have recognized and accepted this by now.
You're really intelligent (unlike a lot of the other Mac "advocates"), so hopefully, you
will take my words to heart.
Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread and newsgroup.
======================================================
Snit
ht7153l5lq6bkesbi...@4ax.com on 5/20/07 12:26 PM:
> On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:12:20 -0700, Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> The silly debates are once again getting out of hand. I notice that much of
>> the debates are of the form:
>>
>> Person A: You just said A!
>> Person B: No, I said B!
>> Person A: No, you said A!
>> Person B: No, I said B!
>>
>> I think in many of these cases maybe the first comment was either worded
>> poorly or simply misunderstood. Once someone clarifies their views it
>> should be accepted - at least in most cases. I admit I have been guilty of
>> not accepting someone's revision or clarification I the past, and I beleive
>> so have Edwin, Sandman, Carroll and Adams - each of the folks I have
>> recently been debating with.
>
> You know, snit, no one in this newsgroup (or at least the rabid MacDroids) is
> going to listen to reason. This newsgroup is not about "reason". It's about
> "my opinion", and how much "my opinion is better than yours."
I wish it would even get there! What I did in this thread was ask the folks
I most debate with to *state* their opinions on some facts we have debated.
Just state what it is they want to say and not be evasive. And, of course,
*ask* me questions about thing they think I have odd or clearly wrong ideas
about.
None of them were willing to. None. They show no interest in gaining
understanding. Sandman, at least, tried to explain why he felt gaining
understanding would be, in his view, a bad thing... and asked instead just
to have a clean slate. Fair enough - he does not want to try to explain
things from his past and wants to start over. I can understand why he would
want that. Had he left it at that I would have been happy - but instead he
is focusing on the past and asking me to sign some deal that we have talked
about far, far too much already. Let it go!
>
> In other words, these idiots are all swinging their dicks around, claiming
> theirs is bigger than anyone's.
Ok... your way of saying it was more concise, though a bit more crude. :)
>
> "Reason" does not enter into their thinking.
>
> Surely you should have recognized and accepted this by now. You're really
> intelligent (unlike a lot of the other Mac "advocates"), so hopefully, you
> will take my words to heart.
My biggest weakness in CSMA is in giving people chances over and over and
over - even when logic and experience shows they are unlikely to respond
well or honorably. They take advantage of this weakness of mine.
--
€ A partial subset is not synonymous with the whole
€ A person's actions speak more about him than what others say
€ Apple doesn't provide as many options as the rest of the PC industry
Mitch
McDaniel <ortho...@comcast.invalid> wrote:
> You know, snit, no one in this newsgroup (or at least the rabid MacDroids) is
> going to
> listen to reason. This newsgroup is not about "reason". It's about "my
> opinion", and how
> much "my opinion is better than yours."
Entirely wrong.
The newsgroup is about reason, having reasons, using reason.
It really is.
That the majority of posts is from people who are fighting over
nonsense and poor thinking doesn't change what it is for.
And I would argue that there are still plenty of people posting
reasoned and intelligent responses once you filter out those who think
this is a playground for attacking others.
To those, I suggest finding a real place to attack people in person.
Preferably people who are also looking for a real fight.
(But I doubt even one of these posters is willing.)
Snit
on 5/20/07 2:42 PM:
If only they would use their need to fight for good and not evil!
Steve Carroll
Donald L McDaniel <ortho...@comcast.invalid> wrote:
LOL!
> (unlike a lot of the other Mac "advocates"), so
> hopefully, you
> will take my words to heart.
>
>
> Donald L McDaniel
> Please reply to the original thread and newsgroup.
> ======================================================
--
Snit
> In article <ht7153l5lq6bkesbi...@4ax.com>,
> Donald L McDaniel <ortho...@comcast.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:12:20 -0700, Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The silly debates are once again getting out of hand. I notice that much of
>>> the debates are of the form:
>>>
>>> Person A: You just said A!
>>> Person B: No, I said B!
>>> Person A: No, you said A!
>>> Person B: No, I said B!
>>>
>>> I think in many of these cases maybe the first comment was either worded
>>> poorly or simply misunderstood. Once someone clarifies their views it
>>> should be accepted - at least in most cases. I admit I have been guilty of
>>> not accepting someone's revision or clarification I the past, and I beleive
>>> so have Edwin, Sandman, Carroll and Adams - each of the folks I have
>>> recently been debating with.
>>
>> You know, snit, no one in this newsgroup (or at least the rabid MacDroids) is
>> going to listen to reason. This newsgroup is not about "reason". It's about
>> "my opinion", and how much "my opinion is better than yours."
>>
>> In other words, these idiots are all swinging their dicks around, claiming
>> theirs is bigger than anyone's.
>>
>> "Reason" does not enter into their thinking.
>>
>> Surely you should have recognized and accepted this by now. You're really
>> intelligent
>
> LOL!
Steve: let me guess - your "friend" CSMA Moderator will never quote the
above.
Donald: As I noted - you have spoken well of me, Steve shall now target you
with his trolling for a while... trying to "scare you off". Oh well. Do
whatever you think is right.
>> (unlike a lot of the other Mac "advocates"), so hopefully, you will take my
>> words to heart.
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
If I were the moderator I would quote it... for its comedic value;)
> Donald: As I noted - you have spoken well of me, Steve shall now target you
> with his trolling for a while... trying to "scare you off". Oh well. Do
> whatever you think is right.
Spare me... who do you think is falling for this act.
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>>>> You may state whatever reasons you want for ignoring my post, but you
> >>>>> may not try to make it seem like me ignoring parts of your posts after
> >>>>> that is out of the place.
> >>>>>
> >>>> What questions or comments, specifically, do you think I have not
> >>>> responded
> >>>> to?
> >>>
> >>> Every single one in that post. Especially considering your dishonest
> >>> summary that in no way summarized my views on the topic.
> >>
> >> Come on, Sandman, you are being evasive.
> >
> > Only if you agree to evading my post first, Michael. Remember, you're
> > treated the way you treat others. I didn't ignore your post, You
> > ignored mine. If you want to call me evasive, you have to admit that
> > you begun evading.
You ignored this part after having tried to make it seem like I ignore
your posts. Dishonest.
> >> In that post you talk, *again*, about you think my trying to end the BS
> >> via
> >> building understanding is a bad thing (you repeatedly comment that you
> >> think
> >> it is focused on "old BS").
> >
> > Yes, your list of questions are all based on old issues you are having
> > with people. They are all things you want to use to provoke the poster
> > with, using as a springboard to further your agenda. I know you won't
> > agree with this and I don't expect you to. But the answer to any of
> > those questions won't further any "understanding", it will only start
> > the debates again and you know it.
You ignored this part after having tried to make it seem like I ignore
your posts. Dishonest.
> >> You repeatedly talk about you wanting me to
> >> make some deal with you - a topic that has been beaten to death but one
> >> you
> >> are having a very, very hard time letting go of...
> >
> > Of course. I will never let go of pursuing a deal that would benefit
> > csma. I only wants what's best for csma, not what's best for your
> > "understanding".
You ignored this part after having tried to make it seem like I ignore
your posts. Dishonest.
> >> odd considering how you
> >> are so insistent on not focusing on the past. You also ask me to talk
> >> about
> >> the past and give details about your past behavior and the evidence for
> >> it...
> >
> > Eh?
> >
> >> *another* example of you focusing on the past when it suites your
> >> desires but *not* when I ask you questions to help lead to better
> >> understanding (questions that have no implied accusations!)
> >
> > I'm not sure if you even know yourself what you're talking about. I
> > know I don't.
You ignored this part after having tried to make it seem like I ignore
your posts. Dishonest.
> >> In short: you are finding it very hard to be consistent in your comments
> >> about how you want to handle past events, you are unable to let go of the
> >> topic of you and I "signing" some "deal" (other than the "clean slate" I
> >> granted you *and* the other deal we both "signed":
> >> <http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/csma/honor/>).
> >
> > Asking you to sign a deal to be honest is hardly bringing up the past,
> > Michael. It's a very current and ongoing request.
You ignored this part after having tried to make it seem like I ignore
your posts. Dishonest.
> >> You also talk about your fears of the word "past" being used as a loophold
> >> -
> >> I have no idea what you are even talking about.
> >
> > I have never expressed any fear, Michael. You're dishonestly
> > misrepresenting my views.
You ignored this part after having tried to make it seem like I ignore
your posts. Dishonest.
> >> So, to get back to my question: what comment of yours do you think I have
> >> not responded to?
> >
> > Every single one in this post:
> > <mr-DBA2EA.10...@News.Individual.NET>
You ignored this part after having tried to make it seem like I ignore
your posts. Dishonest.
> >> Please, Sandman, try to answer in an open an honest way...
> >
> > As always.
You ignored this part after having tried to make it seem like I ignore
your posts. Dishonest.
> >> and not with evasion and snipping... as you did in the post I
> >> responded to
> >
> > You started it, Michael. I showed it to you, yet here you still try to
> > make it seem like I'm the one ignoring stuff. I am treating you the
> > way you treat me. Remember that.
>
> Your claim there is dishonest, Sandman, as shown by the fact you cannot
> point to a single question, comment, or concern of yours that has not been
> responded to fully!
Every single one in this post:
<mr-DBA2EA.10...@News.Individual.NET>
This is your game. You ask me a question, I answer it, you ignore my
entire post and then post as if I hadn't answered the question.
> > Stop insisting on granting *me* anything. I want you to grant *CSMA* a
> > clean slate from you. You can only hope that CSMA will grant you one
> > back. This has *nothing* to do with me. I am just one of the people in
> > csma that want you to enter an agreement to be honest and honorable.
> > Why can't you do it?
>
> 1) What question or comment, specifically, do you think I have evaded?
Every single one in this post:
<mr-DBA2EA.10...@News.Individual.NET>
> 2) I *get* the fact you do not like my list of questions where I asked
> to gain better understanding of others views and requested they do
> the same for me. You really do not need to keep repeating that.
> When I do not respond each time to your talking about it that is not
> evasion... it is me not joining you in beating a dead horse!
I don't keep repeating that. I keep commenting on your insistance to
bring up the past with those questions. Stop bringing up the past and
I will stop telling you that I am not interested in past issues.
> 3) I have *repeatedly* told you why I am not interested in signing
> *another* deal with you. You can accept or reject my reasons, but
> try to be respectful of the fact that you have been given an answer.
> Please stop beating that dead horse, too!
I won't stop asking you to sign an agreement that would aim to make
you honest and honorable.
> 4) You specifically asked for a clean slate. It was granted. Now move
> on!
From what? Your insistance to bring up past BS and dishonestly
"summarize" things?
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
> Please note, Steve, that I have been very specific: if Sandman can state
> what questions he thinks I have evaded I will happily respond.
I've done that four times. You keep evading.
--
Sandman[.net]