Now is the time to be STRONG...
Edwin
Please... please....please...
... keep ignorning Snit!
He has made several trolls, desperately seeking attention.
You must not answer, no matter what.
Starve the Beast!
macsuc...@yahoo.com
Edwin wrote:
[toilet flush]
It's too late, Edwin. Not even you can stop the Snit Circus®.
Elizabot v2.0.2
LOL!
Jim Lee Jr.
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
Jealous that Snit is getting attention and you're not?
--
Microsoft and Windoze: The combination that made computing dangerous.
Apple and OS X: The combination that made computing insanely great.
"VISTA" an acronym for the top five Windows problems: Viruses,
Intrusions, Spyware, Trojans and Adware.
Steve Mackay
His entertainment value is rapidly diminishing.
Elizabot v2.0.2
Yeah, he's gone into his incoherent babling mode again.
Chad Symore
"Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in message
news:11nn48m...@corp.supernews.com...
Thank you for admitting that you can't understand what people are talking
about.
Chad Symore
"Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmil.com> wrote in message
news:y8Mef.389$js5...@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
LOL! Yeah, he has smacked you down pretty hard.
Steve Mackay
Sure thing, Snit.
Can we have another one of your puppet shows. Pretty Please!!!
TheLetterK
--
"There is nothing I understand." - Shit
Snit
1132169973.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com on 11/16/05 12:39 PM:
LOL... they are not capable of ignoring me. Ever since they found the
website with pics of my beautiful daughter they have been in an insane rage.
Watch as they sink lower and lower in their trolling... the newest BS is
Steve Carroll claiming I am emailing his unmarried "wife". How desperate
will they get?
--
Snit... why do I need to hide behind a sock puppet to post that stuff? -
Steve Carroll
Snit
y8Mef.389$js5...@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com on 11/16/05 12:55 PM:
Yeah, once your lies pile to high you at least have the sense to crawl under
a rock for awhile... Steve Carroll does not.
--
Steve Carroll flip flops:
*actually legally guilty* = *legally guilty*
There is no such thing as *actually* guilty in this context. There
is only guilty or not guilty.
Snit
11nn996...@corp.supernews.com on 11/16/05 1:14 PM:
Don't worry, she will back peddle.
--
For more info on the following, including quotes and Message IDs where
Elizabot does what I state, see: <http://snipurl.com/bots_obsession>
* Elizabot posted information about my child that, as far as is known,
can only be found in the print edition of my local paper. When asked
about it she refuses to say where she got the info and begs to know
details she missed.
* Elizabot posted information about me obtained from the college website
where I work, including what type of classes I teach and the days I work.
* Elizabot followed me around begging me to tell her how "incest" made
me feel - after pretending that I wanted to talk to her about
incest and she did not want to.
* When Elizabot found out my wife and I were expecting a child she
repeatedly whined that I would not discuss family planning
options with *her*!
* Elizabot posts more posts that deal with me that she does *anyone*
else by a long shot (likely 10x as many about or to me).
She is clearly obsessed with me.
* Elizabot repeatedly insinuated that I have called her on the phone
When I brought it up, she whined, "I have not brought up the phone
call issue in three months and only briefly at the time."
* Elizabot publicly accused me of being a rapist (with her as one of my
"victims")
* Elizabot fantasized I returned any romantic interest in her, "Reality
shows I rejected you in mid-December, 2003."
* Elizabot threatened to call the police and make false allegations if I
cross some imaginary line (what has she not accused me of? Rape and
perversion do not cross her line!)
* Elizabot tracked me down to my place of employment and made thinly
veiled threats to send her, um, "views" there.
* Elizabot, along with Steve Carroll, have tried to dishonestly and
repulsively tie my completely unrelated health concerns with my pointing
out their trolling, lying, and outrageous behavior.
* Elizabot has taken at least one image from my site (owned by someone
else) and edited it (including adding feminine hygiene products to the
image) and reposted links to it in a public forum (CSMA).
Snit
LOL. Pretty much.
--
"Yeah... sue me. LOL!!! Like I'm really gonna give a shit about breaking my
word" - Steve Carroll
Snit
Insert a link to Steve Mackay's PDF proof of his accusation here:
-----
-----
LOL!
Snit
fqOef.21573$xK1....@bignews7.bellsouth.net on 11/16/05 3:33 PM:
> Shit is a waste of space.
Yet Elizabot loves the pictures.
--
"He's guilty of committing the crime, not of breaking the law."
- Steve Carroll
Steve Mackay
> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmil.com> stated in post
> 63Oef.1624$vq1....@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com on 11/16/05 3:05 PM:
>
>> Chad Symore wrote:
>>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmil.com> wrote in message
>>> news:y8Mef.389$js5...@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>>>> Edwin wrote:
>>>>> Steve Carroll, Steve Mackay, Elizabot, Wally... what ever you do...
>>>>>
>>>>> Please... please....please...
>>>>>
>>>>> ... keep ignorning Snit!
>>>>>
>>>>> He has made several trolls, desperately seeking attention.
>>>>>
>>>>> You must not answer, no matter what.
>>>>>
>>>>> Starve the Beast!
>>>>>
>>>> I'm almost done with him.
>>>> His entertainment value is rapidly diminishing.
>>> LOL! Yeah, he has smacked you down pretty hard.
>>>
>>>
>> Sure thing, Snit.
>>
>> Can we have another one of your puppet shows. Pretty Please!!!
>
> Insert a link to Steve Mackay's PDF proof of his accusation here:
> -----
>
>
>
>
> -----
>
> LOL!
See I knew you'd bite! Thanks for not disappointing your audience snit.
You just can't help yourself.
What happened to your other puppet Yobo?
You running out of servers you can use that hide your IP?
Poor 'lil Snit. What a pathetic life you must lead to have to resort to
so many sockpuppets.
How's the food stamp supply doing there Snit?
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmil.com> stated in post
>> 63Oef.1624$vq1....@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com on 11/16/05 3:05 PM:
>>
>>> Chad Symore wrote:
>>>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmil.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:y8Mef.389$js5...@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>>>>> Edwin wrote:
>>>>>> Steve Carroll, Steve Mackay, Elizabot, Wally... what ever you do...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please... please....please...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ... keep ignorning Snit!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He has made several trolls, desperately seeking attention.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You must not answer, no matter what.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Starve the Beast!
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm almost done with him.
>>>>> His entertainment value is rapidly diminishing.
>>>> LOL! Yeah, he has smacked you down pretty hard.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Sure thing, Snit.
>>>
>>> Can we have another one of your puppet shows. Pretty Please!!!
>>
>> Insert a link to Steve Mackay's PDF proof of his accusation here:
>> -----
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>>
>> LOL!
>
> See I knew you'd bite!
Gee, you made a silly and unsupported accusation and I called you on it. At
least now you admit your goal was simply to see if I would respond, or, as
you say, "bite". Yes, Steve, I often respond when people make baseless
accusations against me. And that, Steve, is what this is about. You have
accused Chad and I of being the same person - and you have provided zero
support for your lie.
> Thanks for not disappointing your audience snit.
> You just can't help yourself.
> What happened to your other puppet Yobo?
Hoping I will bite on this baseless accusation of yours, too?
> You running out of servers you can use that hide your IP?
> Poor 'lil Snit. What a pathetic life you must lead to have to resort to
> so many sockpuppets.
Wow... you are so proud you got me to "bite" when you spewed your
unsupported accusations. You must be very, very proud.
> How's the food stamp supply doing there Snit?
Not going to bite. LOL!
--
"I hold the opinion that what a person snips isn't relevant to any
argument's credibility." - Steve Carroll
Steve Mackay
Fool out of Snit. Yes, I did. Thanks for noticing.
<snip>
>> How's the food stamp supply doing there Snit?
>
> Not going to bite. LOL!
That's okay, you couldn't afford to. Now go be a man, and get a part
time job. Stop taking those government handouts.
Snit
Wow - you can dishonestly snip!
>
> <snip>
>
>>> How's the food stamp supply doing there Snit?
>>
>> Not going to bite. LOL!
>
> That's okay, you couldn't afford to. Now go be a man, and get a part
> time job. Stop taking those government handouts.
You first.
--
"I did post as sigmond and create that sex webpage starring elizabot... what
of it?" - Steve Carroll
Steve Mackay
Continue to make a fool out of Snit. Well, yes, I can. It's so easy and
entertaining.
>>
>>>> How's the food stamp supply doing there Snit?
>>> Not going to bite. LOL!
>> That's okay, you couldn't afford to. Now go be a man, and get a part
>> time job. Stop taking those government handouts.
>
> You first.
LOL! I'm not the loser that's collecting food stamps. You are.
Lets see. Snit, I made more in the past 2 1/2 months, than you do in a year.
I've never taken any government handouts whatsoever. The closest I've
done to that is collect unemployment for 2 months back in the summer of
1989. I was single, had no bills besides rent at the time.
I support my family quite comfortably. Never had to collect food stamps.
Or resort to any kind of welfare to support my family.
So be a man for once in your life. Go out and get a real job so you can
support your family. All the time you waste in here could be spent much
more productively mikey...
Snit
Let's look at the game you are playing, Steve
1) You made an accusation against me (and someone else)
2) I asked for any support you have for your accusation
3) You admitted that you made your accusation just to
troll (get someone to "bite")
4) I called you on it...
5) You made completely unrelated accusations about, of all
things, personal finances... a topic that is completely
off topic. You then bragged about your personal finances
but, as is your norm, gave no support.
The reality is I do not care about your personal finances. But please note
that you have tried to make that a topic for the reason of running from the
simple fact that you were called on your trolling.
How honorable of you, eh?
So, to get back to the topic, do you or do you not have *any* support for
your accusation [we both know you do not, but it should be fun to watch you
continue to squirm].
--
"Might it have occurred to you that I have friends and/or relatives in
Arizona? Maybe they are all watching you." - Elizabot
Steve Mackay
Yup.
> 2) I asked for any support you have for your accusation
Why bother? You'll spend months constructing smoke screens, straw men,
and conspiracy theories to avoid it.
> 3) You admitted that you made your accusation just to
> troll (get someone to "bite")
No. I made them for my amusement. To show how simply pathetic you are.
> 4) I called you on it...
You didn't call me on anything.
> 5) You made completely unrelated accusations about, of all
> things, personal finances... a topic that is completely
> off topic. You then bragged about your personal finances
> but, as is your norm, gave no support.
Awww, poor snit. Being a pathetic looser
>
> The reality is I do not care about your personal finances. But please note
> that you have tried to make that a topic for the reason of running from the
> simple fact that you were called on your trolling.
Naah, Not trolling. Just poking some fun at a pathetic loser. All at
your expense. It's called entertainment. Aren't we having fun now Snit?
>
> How honorable of you, eh?
What the hell do *YOU*, of all people know about honor. You're a
pathetic, lying little weasel. You wouldn't know honor if it stared you
in the face mikey...
>
> So, to get back to the topic, do you or do you not have *any* support for
> your accusation [we both know you do not, but it should be fun to watch you
> continue to squirm].
Again, I've asked you why I should bother. You've yet to answer it.
We've been thru this before with the whole sigmond bit, and the email
you sent me.
In other words... been there done that. Got the T-shirt.
Now go be a man, and try and support your family.
Snit
>> Let's look at the game you are playing, Steve
>>
>> 1) You made an accusation against me (and someone else)
>
> Yup.
Thank you for admitting you made an accusation against me *and* someone else
- which means you know you accusation of sock puppetry was a lie.
>
>> 2) I asked for any support you have for your accusation
>
> Why bother?
To see what game you will play to run from your accusation. The game you
played was to brag about your personal finances and make accusations against
me based on your beliefs about mine.
> You'll spend months constructing smoke screens, straw men,
> and conspiracy theories to avoid it.
What makes you think I would act as you are acting now? Do you not see the
irony of this new accusation of yours?
It comes down to you made an accusation against two people that you have now
not only admitted was a dishonest accusation on your part you have admitted
you did it just to get attention... or to troll.
You have been caught lying and trolling... and then want to whine about me.
>
>> 3) You admitted that you made your accusation just to
>> troll (get someone to "bite")
>
> No. I made them for my amusement. To show how simply pathetic you are.
What do you find pathetic about my pointing out your lying and trolling?
Pathetic that I would still be doing so when it is so obvious you will just
continue to spend months constructing smoke screens, straw men, and
conspiracy theories to avoid it.
>
>> 4) I called you on it...
>
> You didn't call me on anything.
Sure I did - I called you on your lying and trolling. Have you not been
reading this thread?
>
>> 5) You made completely unrelated accusations about, of all
>> things, personal finances... a topic that is completely
>> off topic. You then bragged about your personal finances
>> but, as is your norm, gave no support.
>
> Awww, poor snit. Being a pathetic looser
Is that the best defense you have about your despicable actions... to call
*me* names based on your trolling? Can't you do better than that?
>
>> The reality is I do not care about your personal finances. But please note
>> that you have tried to make that a topic for the reason of running from the
>> simple fact that you were called on your trolling.
>
> Naah, Not trolling. Just poking some fun at a pathetic loser. All at
> your expense. It's called entertainment. Aren't we having fun now Snit?
Sure... I have enjoyed pointing out your lying and trolling... and watching
you run from your actions like the dishonest troll you are. If you do not
perform like the little trained monkey you are I might just give up on you
and stop responding, as I did with Steve and Elizabot when they sank to
their snip and run trolling. I will grant that you have only rarely been
sinking to that level so I am still humoring your BS.
>>
>> How honorable of you, eh?
>
> What the hell do *YOU*, of all people know about honor. You're a
> pathetic, lying little weasel. You wouldn't know honor if it stared you
> in the face mikey...
Gee, I point out your actions... am very specific and give a current and
relevant example... and you just whine and name call. Why not try to defend
your actions, or, better yet, why don't you just stop trolling and lying?
Really - work on being honest like I am. It would do you good.
>>
>> So, to get back to the topic, do you or do you not have *any* support for
>> your accusation [we both know you do not, but it should be fun to watch you
>> continue to squirm].
>
> Again, I've asked you why I should bother. You've yet to answer it.
Can you really not think of a reason people should support their
accusations? LOL... how pathetic of you. No bother - being that you have
already admitted your accusation was a lie.
> We've been thru this before with the whole sigmond bit, and the email
> you sent me.
What e-mail? The one you will not let me see the "evidence" for?
>
> In other words... been there done that. Got the T-shirt.
> Now go be a man, and try and support your family.
See how you troll... back to your silly accusations.\
In any case we have reached an end here - you have admitted your accusation
is not only something you will not support you have admitted it was a lie.
That, really, is all I wanted to hear from you. I doubt you have anything
other than baseless accusations to add... do you?
--
"I grasp it... I just don't understand" - Steve Carroll
ed
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:
> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmil.com> stated in post
> 0wTef.1684$vq1...@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com on 11/16/05 9:18 PM:
>> What the hell do *YOU*, of all people know about honor. You're a
>> pathetic, lying little weasel. You wouldn't know honor if it stared
>> you
>> in the face mikey...
>
> Gee, I point out your actions... am very specific and give a current
> and relevant example... and you just whine and name call. Why not
> try to defend your actions, or, better yet, why don't you just stop
> trolling and lying? Really - work on being honest like I am. It
> would do you good.
hey snit, since you seem to be giving much lip service to honesty and not
lying these days, would you like to go ahead and fess up to some of the lies
you've admitted to me in email, or perhaps you you won't mind me posting it
up? how about it? :D
<snip>
Snit
W3Uef.22269$dO2....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net on 11/16/05 9:56 PM:
> In news:BFA1569D.3A5D0%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:
>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmil.com> stated in post
>> 0wTef.1684$vq1...@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com on 11/16/05 9:18 PM:
> <snip>
>>> What the hell do *YOU*, of all people know about honor. You're a
>>> pathetic, lying little weasel. You wouldn't know honor if it stared
>>> you
>>> in the face mikey...
>>
>> Gee, I point out your actions... am very specific and give a current
>> and relevant example... and you just whine and name call. Why not
>> try to defend your actions, or, better yet, why don't you just stop
>> trolling and lying? Really - work on being honest like I am. It
>> would do you good.
>
> hey snit, since you seem to be giving much lip service to honesty and not
> lying these days,
It is not lip service... I truly would like Steve to stop lying and
trolling, which he has at times admitted (but also denied!)
<SNIP />
--
I listen and scratch my head... listen some more... pound it, (my head) on
the table for a awhile -- Steve Carroll
Sandman
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> Steve Carroll, Steve Mackay, Elizabot, Wally... what ever you do...
>
> Please... please....please...
>
> ... keep ignorning Snit!
>
> He has made several trolls, desperately seeking attention.
>
> You must not answer, no matter what.
>
> Starve the Beast!
I've been doing that for a long time. Feels good. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "ed" <news...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> stated in post
> W3Uef.22269$dO2....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net on 11/16/05 9:56 PM:
>
> > In news:BFA1569D.3A5D0%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:
> >> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmil.com> stated in post
> >> 0wTef.1684$vq1...@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com on 11/16/05 9:18 PM:
> > <snip>
> >>> What the hell do *YOU*, of all people know about honor. You're a
> >>> pathetic, lying little weasel. You wouldn't know honor if it stared
> >>> you
> >>> in the face mikey...
> >>
> >> Gee, I point out your actions... am very specific and give a current
> >> and relevant example... and you just whine and name call. Why not
> >> try to defend your actions, or, better yet, why don't you just stop
> >> trolling and lying? Really - work on being honest like I am. It
> >> would do you good.
> >
> > hey snit, since you seem to be giving much lip service to honesty and not
> > lying these days,
>
> It is not lip service...
Yeah... right... <rolls eyes>. In this thread you recently wrote:
"I might just give up on you and stop responding, as I did with Steve
and Elizabot when they sank to their snip and run trolling."
Go lock the medicine cabinet.
--
"I would not be a good liar, being that I have little if any practice." - Snit
ed
Snit wrote:
> "ed" <news...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> stated in post
> W3Uef.22269$dO2....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net on 11/16/05 9:56 PM:
>
> > In news:BFA1569D.3A5D0%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:
> >> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmil.com> stated in post
> >> 0wTef.1684$vq1...@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com on 11/16/05 9:18 PM:
> > <snip>
> >>> What the hell do *YOU*, of all people know about honor. You're a
> >>> pathetic, lying little weasel. You wouldn't know honor if it stared
> >>> you
> >>> in the face mikey...
> >>
> >> Gee, I point out your actions... am very specific and give a current
> >> and relevant example... and you just whine and name call. Why not
> >> try to defend your actions, or, better yet, why don't you just stop
> >> trolling and lying? Really - work on being honest like I am. It
> >> would do you good.
> >
> > hey snit, since you seem to be giving much lip service to honesty and not
> > lying these days,
>
> It is not lip service...
so if it's not lip service, the answer to the rest of my question is..?
(here's the rest of the question for ya "...would you like to go ahead
and fess up to some of the lies
you've admitted to me in email, or perhaps you you won't mind me
posting it
up? how about it? :D ").
<snip>
Steve Mackay
whole sigmond/pdf/"fuzzy jpeg" fiasco.
Just post the damn emails :)
ed
Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmil.com> typed:
> ed wrote:
<snip>
>>> It is not lip service...
>>
>> so if it's not lip service, the answer to the rest of my question
>> is..? (here's the rest of the question for ya "...would you like to
>> go ahead
>> and fess up to some of the lies
>> you've admitted to me in email, or perhaps you you won't mind me
>> posting it
>> up? how about it? :D ").
>>
>> <snip>
>>
> My guess is, he won't directly admit to lying. Much like he did with
> the whole sigmond/pdf/"fuzzy jpeg" fiasco.
>
> Just post the damn emails :)
nah, i said i wouldn't, so unless snit gives consent, i won't. i'm not sure
he deserves such consideration, but i got my own standards, regardless of
the person i'm dealing with... but, given that snit insists that his
comments about honesty aren't lip service, he should be giving consent any
time now, right snit? =D
Steve Mackay
> In news:UCuff.1905$vq1...@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com,
> Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmil.com> typed:
>> ed wrote:
> <snip>
>>>> It is not lip service...
>>> so if it's not lip service, the answer to the rest of my question
>>> is..? (here's the rest of the question for ya "...would you like to
>>> go ahead
>>> and fess up to some of the lies
>>> you've admitted to me in email, or perhaps you you won't mind me
>>> posting it
>>> up? how about it? :D ").
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>> My guess is, he won't directly admit to lying. Much like he did with
>> the whole sigmond/pdf/"fuzzy jpeg" fiasco.
>>
>> Just post the damn emails :)
>
> nah, i said i wouldn't, so unless snit gives consent, i won't. i'm not sure
> he deserves such consideration, but i got my own standards, regardless of
> the person i'm dealing with...
I respect that. I just want to see what he's actually admitted to :)
> but, given that snit insists that his
> comments about honesty aren't lip service, he should be giving consent any
> time now, right snit? =D
Yeah... RIGHT. He'll get right on that one!! :)
Which is why the irony meter went breaks every time he mentions honor
and honesty :)
Elizabot v2.0.2
So what are you afraid of? He never did bother to include you in his
"honor and honesty code" for nearly a year now. I'll vote for you that
you should be officially included, if you;d like, and I'll also vote to
dedicate that page solely to you! I mean, doncha feel left out? I'd bet
that Wally does. He has neither either links nor web pages dedicated to him.
-------
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/honor/
Honer and Honesty Code
The following people agree to treat each other with honor and honesty.
This does not imply that they will always agree, but that in
disagreements they will treat each other in ways that adhere to the
mutually agreed upon code.
The code is:
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.
These people have agreed to this pact, and should be held accountable to
treating each other based on the code.
CSMA Name Date Link
Snit 15 May 2004 Author
ed 30 Nov 2004 Pending arrival on Google
-------
I suppose you are not allowed to nag snit about his slowness on checking
Google to make sure your post has arrived, as that may be considered to
violate parts 3 & 4 of the code.
Gee, it must suck to be you -- stuck in snit's netherworld. To be
considered neither honest, nor dishonest; neither honorable nor
dishonorable in snit's eyes.
One must ask how you've lived with yourself over the last year. ;-)
BTW, did he specifically state that you couldn't forward the email to
someone else? Or that you couldn't forward a jpeg of said email?
Wally
v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote:
<snip>
> doncha feel left out? I'd bet that Wally does. He has neither either links nor
> web pages dedicated to him.
Oh! THAT fact had completely slipped my mind <gnash-gnash> ;=)
<snip>
--
"With enough glue... anything is possible" - Snit
Steve Carroll
"ed" <news...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
Realistically, what would posting them change? It is rather curious that
you've saved such emails...
ed
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> typed:
i don't delete much email at all as disk space is cheap... why's that
particularly curious?
Snit
> why's that particularly curious?
I personally find nothing odd about keeping older e-mails, but I know
many people who habitually delete them to keep things tidy.
In any case, enough claims of my life have been spewed into CSMS - some
with grains of truth, most complete fabrications - I have no desire to
have you make anything private between us become public.
I will reconsider this on two conditions, one for you and one for Steve
Carroll who jumped in... if you admit to the trolling and dishonesty I
have pointed out about you (if you want we can limit that to just one
example - say <http://snipurl.com/EdTrolling>, agree it is OK for me to
post the e-mails you sent me, and if Steve Carroll admits he was out
and out lying about his BS accusation about my e-mailing his unmarried
"wife" (the one he has not even shown he really has!) I will agree to
let you post any and all e-mails we may have shared...
I have no desire to have what I sent you in private become public...
and with these reasonable stipulations I will clearly never have to -
face it, you and Steve will never agree to be honest. You and he will
lie and back peddle and do all you can to run from my reasonable and
clear request... and while you will never agree to my reasonable and
clear request you will show shock that I am not granting you my
permission to go against your word yet again. Heck, maybe you will
even use my lack of granting you permission as an excuse to break your
word again... would not surprise me.
Steve Carroll
"Snit" <brockmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > i don't delete much email at all as disk space is cheap...
> > why's that particularly curious?
>
> I personally find nothing odd about keeping older e-mails, but I know
> many people who habitually delete them to keep things tidy.
>
> In any case, enough claims of my life have been spewed into CSMS - some
> with grains of truth, most complete fabrications - I have no desire to
> have you make anything private between us become public.
Nothing would change if he did.
> I will reconsider this on two conditions, one for you and one for Steve
> Carroll who jumped in... if you admit to the trolling and dishonesty I
> have pointed out about you (if you want we can limit that to just one
> example - say <http://snipurl.com/EdTrolling>, agree it is OK for me to
> post the e-mails you sent me, and if Steve Carroll admits he was out
> and out lying about his BS accusation about my e-mailing his unmarried
> "wife" (the one he has not even shown he really has!) I will agree to
> let you post any and all e-mails we may have shared...
>
> I have no desire to have what I sent you in private become public...
> and with these reasonable stipulations
Lock the medicine chest.
> I will clearly never have to -
Gee, this one was SO hard to see through, Snit;)
You're right, putting ed under the conditions you have (with the
involvement of a 3rg party) you'll "clearly never have to". Somehow,
you've missed the part where ed is asking you for permission because
you've *claimed* to be honest...
Snit:"
Really - work on being honest like I am. It would do you good."
ed:
"hey snit, since you seem to be giving much lip service to honesty and
not lying these days, would you like to go ahead and fess up to some of
the lies you've admitted to me in email, or perhaps you you won't mind
me posting it up? how about it?"
Snit:
"It is not lip service..."
See, this is the part where you are supposed to prove what you're
claiming... and ed has offered to help you do that.
Here's a clue for you: Only those challenging you for the record of
-most kf'd- are interested in 'being honest like you are'.
> face it, you and Steve will never agree to be honest. You and he will
> lie and back peddle and do all you can to run from my reasonable and
> clear request... and while you will never agree to my reasonable and
> clear request you will show shock that I am not granting you my
> permission to go against your word yet again.
I seriously doubt he's shocked that... when honesty is concerned, a
claim of it is all anyone will ever see from you.
> Heck, maybe you will
> even use my lack of granting you permission as an excuse to break your
> word again... would not surprise me.
You're clearly delusional and this post proves it... not that most of
your other ones didn't.
Steve Carroll
"Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote:
I wonder how honest and honorable Snit's motives are for emailing all
the people that he has. He claims to prefer facts to consensus
thinking... but I suspect his goal with all the personal emails is to
build a consensus that shows how he is the good guy who is constantly
being attacked. If this is his game, he should take note that he
couldn't accomplish the task in public as too many people have seen all
the trolling threads he starts... doing so in email is doomed to fail
for the same reason.
Tim Adams
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
I find it amusing that snit wants Ed to _lie_ by saying he (Ed) was trolling and
dishonest. All the time claiming he (snit) isn't a troll and dishonest.
--
I've a friend who has a pet rock that's smarter then snit
Tim
ed
Snit wrote:
> > i don't delete much email at all as disk space is cheap...
> > why's that particularly curious?
>
> I personally find nothing odd about keeping older e-mails, but I know
> many people who habitually delete them to keep things tidy.
>
> In any case, enough claims of my life have been spewed into CSMS - some
> with grains of truth, most complete fabrications - I have no desire to
> have you make anything private between us become public.
that's bullshit since you've posted at least 2 or 3 emails of mine.
> I will reconsider this on two conditions, one for you and one for Steve
> Carroll who jumped in... if you admit to the trolling and dishonesty I
> have pointed out about you (if you want we can limit that to just one
> example - say <http://snipurl.com/EdTrolling>, agree it is OK for me to
> post the e-mails you sent me, and if Steve Carroll admits he was out
> and out lying about his BS accusation about my e-mailing his unmarried
> "wife" (the one he has not even shown he really has!) I will agree to
> let you post any and all e-mails we may have shared...
so in order for you to consent to me posting your emails where you
admit to lying, you want me to agree to say i did something i don't
agree i did? i.e. you want me to lie in order to get you to consent to
allowing the truth? that's an odd concept- but as a compromise, i will
readily agree that i've had many posts that *you* claim to see as
trolling, and i'll agree that in your view of reality they're trolling.
how's that?
as far as the condition for steve, i'm not sure why there should be a
stipulation in there that he do anything before you release your
consent for me to post up your emails... seems like an attempt to have
the whole situation go away...
> I have no desire to have what I sent you in private become public...
> and with these reasonable stipulations I will clearly never have to -
> face it, you and Steve will never agree to be honest. You and he will
> lie and back peddle and do all you can to run from my reasonable and
> clear request... and while you will never agree to my reasonable and
> clear request you will show shock that I am not granting you my
> permission to go against your word yet again. Heck, maybe you will
> even use my lack of granting you permission as an excuse to break your
> word again... would not surprise me.
please; i'm not the one who's posted up private emails previously, nor
am i the one who has many documented lies against them.
Snit
>> with grains of truth, most complete fabrications - I have no desire to
>> have you make anything private between us become public.
> Nothing would change if he did.
Sure - you and Elizabot are going to do what you can to make people's
private live's public - no matter how despicable it is. At least ed
has shown he will not sink to your level... at least he is not for now.
<SNIP />
> ed:
> "hey snit, since you seem to be giving much lip service to honesty and
> not lying these days, would you like to go ahead and fess up to some of
> the lies you've admitted to me in email, or perhaps you you won't mind
> me posting it up? how about it?"
>
> Snit:
> "It is not lip service..."
>
> See, this is the part where you are supposed to prove what you're
> claiming... and ed has offered to help you do that.
How would *any* e-mail prove *anyone* is honest? Here, give an example
text of what an e-mail would say that would show you to be honest. Bet
you cannot come up, based on the criteria you just set, for an e-mail
to even *hypothertically* show you to be honest.
Heck, keep in mind that I have said Ed can make this part of my private
life public if he does some simple things and if you admit to your
lies. As predicted you are running from that... as will he. You both
hold me to a higher standard than either of you are willing to display.
In your case all of this started when you failed to be able to
honestly refute my arguement about Bush. Here we are, years later, and
you are still mad that you cannot find a fatal flaw in my argument:
<http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/bush/>
And now, by your own rules: and you will fail to even offer a
hypothetical example of how you can be shown to be honest.
Do you realize how badly you need a basic logic class? :)
Snit
do the same) and I will release you from your agreement. There is
nothing else to add.
Snit
> he (snit) isn't a troll
Even in your lies, Tim, you have little fragments of truth. :)
Tim Adams
"Snit" <brockmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
More proof of just how much of a liar and a troll you are. As if more were
needed.
Snit
> More proof of just how much of a liar and a troll you are.
LOL! Ok, Tim, you never even have fragments of truth in what you say.
I will not argue against you on this point. :)
Snit
if you admit to the trolling and dishonesty I have
pointed out about you (if you want we can limit that
to just one example - say <http://snipurl.com/EdTrolling>
What Tim Adams's inability to compehenend leads him to believe:
I find it amusing that snit wants Ed to _lie_ by saying he
(Ed) was trolling and dishonest. All the time claiming he
(snit) isn't a troll and dishonest.
Please note I never suggested, stated, hinted, or requested Ed to lie
about *anything*.
I ask people to be honest, and Tim Adams reads that to mean the exact
*opposite* of what I said. At least Ed's attempt to run from being
honest acknowledged that others saw him as a liar.
Steve Carroll
"Snit" <brockmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> In any case, enough claims of my life have been spewed into CSMS - some
> >> with grains of truth, most complete fabrications - I have no desire to
> >> have you make anything private between us become public.
> > Nothing would change if he did.
>
> Sure - you and Elizabot are going to do what you can to make people's
> private live's public - no matter how despicable it is. At least ed
> has shown he will not sink to your level... at least he is not for now.
What delusion has you believing I've made your private life public? How
is it even possible for me to do that? When you and your wife post this
stuff on the internet... at that point it's no longer private... and
neither I, nor anyone else, had nothing to do with it. If you have
released emails of ed's without his permission then you are guilty of
what you are accusing me of here.
>
> <SNIP />
> > ed:
> > "hey snit, since you seem to be giving much lip service to honesty and
> > not lying these days, would you like to go ahead and fess up to some of
> > the lies you've admitted to me in email, or perhaps you you won't mind
> > me posting it up? how about it?"
> >
> > Snit:
> > "It is not lip service..."
> >
> > See, this is the part where you are supposed to prove what you're
> > claiming... and ed has offered to help you do that.
>
> How would *any* e-mail prove *anyone* is honest?
Irrelevant, which is why you brought it up. You said your honesty is not
lip service. By giving ed permission to show an email where you are
admitting to being dishonest you would be proving that your concept of
honesty isn't confined to just lip service. Hint: This is the claim I am
referring to above. Not a terribly difficult concept to grasp.
(snip delusion where Snit thinks he is being logical)
Steve Carroll
"ed" <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> please; i'm not the one who's posted up private emails previously, nor
> am i the one who has many documented lies against them.
Did Snit obtain your permission to post these emails?
Tim Adams
"Snit" <brockmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
to bad you don't even believe what you wrote above as you had to follow up with
another post trying to 'back up' your statements. How quaint, especially coming
from a troll like you.
Tim Adams
"Snit" <brockmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What Snit said:
> if you admit to the trolling and dishonesty I have
> pointed out about you (if you want we can limit that
> to just one example - say <http://snipurl.com/EdTrolling>
>
> What Tim Adams's inability to compehenend leads him to believe:
> I find it amusing that snit wants Ed to _lie_ by saying he
> (Ed) was trolling and dishonest. All the time claiming he
> (snit) isn't a troll and dishonest.
>
> Please note I never suggested, stated, hinted, or requested Ed to lie
> about *anything*.
Liar. You asked him to _admit to trolling and dishonesty_.
>
> I ask people to be honest, and Tim Adams reads that to mean the exact
> *opposite* of what I said. At least Ed's attempt to run from being
> honest acknowledged that others saw him as a liar.
--
Snit
> Do you realize how badly you need a basic logic class? :)
<SNIP />
It would have been more concise, Steve, for you just to admit you had
no idea. :)
Remember how your hatred for me started: I let my view of Bush be known
and, when asked, I offered support. Your inability to give a reasoned
refutation ate away at you. You started spewing all sorts of lies but
you never posted any meaningful flaw with my arguement. Here it is,
again, with some commentary on some of your BS comments and some more
reasoned ones: <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/bush/>.
And just think, if you can Steve, after so long the best you can do is
make BS accusations where you claim I e-mailed your unmarried wife (the
one you have not been able to even show you have!).
What made you fantasize about me e-mailing some significant other you
may or may not even have? Maybe you are merely trying to save your
wounded ego now and fantasize that you won your "wife's" heart even
though you want to beleive I care about her at all. Is that how you
are coping with Elizabot showing she does not obsess over you the way
you do over her?
ed
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> typed:
> In article <1132518888.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> "ed" <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
>
>> please; i'm not the one who's posted up private emails previously,
>> nor am i the one who has many documented lies against them.
>
> Did Snit obtain your permission to post these emails?
absolutely not.
Steve Carroll
"ed" <news...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
Snit just wrote to me:
"Sure - you and Elizabot are going to do what you can to make people's
private live's public - no matter how despicable it is. At least ed
has shown he will not sink to your level... at least he is not for now."
The facts show Snit and his wife made their lives public. If what you
are saying is true, he did what he is accusing others of because the
emails between the two of you were private; by posting it without your
permission, Snit proves, once again, that he's a hypocrite.
Steve Carroll
"Snit" <brockmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Steve said:
> > Do you realize how badly you need a basic logic class? :)
LOL! Huffed so much glue you can't tell the difference between yourself
and other posters now, Snit?
Snit wrote:
"Do you realize how badly you need a basic logic class? :) "
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/8bd9aae326ee49bb
?dmode=source&hl=en
(snip Snit's delusions)
Snit
you spend the time to do that, why don't you admit to your lie about my
e-mailing your unmarried "wife" - the one you may or may not have.
Then you can admit your hatred of yourself for never finding a reasoned
flaw with my argument about Bush - the thing that started your
over-the-top trolling.
Then you can leave me out of your pursuit of Elizabot. All of CSMA
would better off if you were to do so.
Tim Adams
"Snit" <brockmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Once again, Steve, you should learn what the ">" means...
To bad you didn't see that there were TWO >'s in front of the line you quoted
but only one author shown. You do know what that means right?
It's also to bad you were to lazy to follow the link he provided to see that the
original author was a trolling, dishonest, dung coated circus clown called
snit.
> but before
> you spend the time to do that, why don't you admit to your lie about my
> e-mailing your unmarried "wife" - the one you may or may not have.
>
> Then you can admit your hatred of yourself for never finding a reasoned
> flaw with my argument about Bush - the thing that started your
> over-the-top trolling.
>
> Then you can leave me out of your pursuit of Elizabot. All of CSMA
> would better off if you were to do so.
--
Snit
statement in question.
Have you yet been able to figure out what the "~" and ">" symbols mean?
LOL... Do you, Tim, enjoy the drinks you get as a first class idiot?
Snit
symbols mean.
Hint 1: I have told you what they each mean.
Hint 2: You are *still* too stupid to figure it out.
Here, show me I am wrong - explain what the symbols mean. LOL... you
can't. You know it. I know it. Even Steve and the other CSMA idiots
know it. Everyone knows you are not able to.
Now let's see how many of the CSMA idiots jump in to flame me for
pointing out how clear it is you are ignorant. You know they will. :)
Wally
1132545417.6...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Snit"
<brockmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Steve said:
>> Do you realize how badly you need a basic logic class? :)
>
> <SNIP />
>
> It would have been more concise, Steve, for you just to admit you had
> no idea. :)
"more concise" than what?...other than your post, there is only ONE line
that your comment "Steve said:" could be referring to and that is....
"Do you realize how badly you need a basic logic class? :)"
Which of course HE never wrote....YOU DID! ROTFL!
--
"It's also to bad you were to lazy to follow the link he provided to see
that the original author was a trolling, dishonest, dung coated circus
clown called snit." -Tim
"I agree with you..."-Snit
Tim Adams
"Snit" <brockmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with you
That you're a trolling, dishonest dung covered circus clown.
Oh look - snit tries to change the topic off as he runs away from the topic at
hand. How quaint.
~babbling snipped
Tim Adams
"Snit" <brockmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tim, I see you *still* are not able to explain what the ">" or the "~"
> symbols mean.
I know quite well what they mean. you still sending people th their users
directory in search of Apple installed Widgets?
BTW - why the topic change? Oh, that's right, you were proved a liar and an
idiot so your in the process of running away yet again.
~babbling from a trolling, dishonest, dung covered circus clown called snit
snipped
Snit
>> Tim, I see you *still* are not able to explain what the ">" or the "~
>> symbols mean.
> I know quite well what they mean.
And yet you are completely unable to say what it is they mean. Why is
that - other than you are unable to understand what you read - as you
show with your very next sentence:
> you still sending people th their users
> directory in search of Apple installed Widgets?
See what I mean? No - you don't... you have *no* idea what it is you
have read. How funny.
Snit
> ~babbling snipped
What Tim Adams is running from:
-----
-----
Face it, Tim, you will *always* run from the very simple questions of
what the "~" and ">" symbols mean ... even though you have been told.
You are completely unable to understand what you read.
Tim Adams
"Snit" <brockmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yet your the one denying having written a quote that comes directly from a post
you made. How quaint.
Tim Adams
"Snit" <brockmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tim Said:
> > ~babbling snipped
>
So why are you running from the quoted line you wrote but claim not to have
written? So ashamed to be proved wrong once again?
~More off topic babbling by the dung coated circus clown called snit snipped
Snit
> a post you made. How quaint
The belief you spew here, that any statement you quote in a post is one
you have "written" explains why you have repeatedly attributed your own
quotes to me - and then as "support" pointed to posts where I was
quoting you.
Thanks for making this particular weakness in your ability to
understand what you read even more clear than it was before. And you
shall make it even *more* clear as you respond to me. What you will
*not* do is show you can even parrot back what the "~" and ">" symbols
mean.... you simply do not have the ability to understand what you have
read.
In any case, you will also snip and run from this post - as you do so
often. It is what you and Steve Carroll do when you know your lies are
piled too high. So be it... please feel free to prove me right and
snip and run yet again. Even knowing it is a clear sign even you know
your lies are piled too high you will not be able to stop yourself.
You are addicted to your dishonest snipping and running, hoping nobody
notices your pile of lies.
PS: Above I quoted you... to you does that mean I wrote what you did?
Your own evidence has "proven" you are my sock puppet.
Tim Adams
"Snit" <brockmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yet your the one denying having written a quote that comes directly from
> > a post you made. How quaint
>
And once again snit runs away with his tail between his legs.
~babbling from a dung coated, trolling circus clown called snit snipped.