How to deal with obsessive people
Snit
toward me.
She has recently stopped, on my request, from focusing as much on me, but if
you check out these links you can see how often she mentions my name:
http://www.google.com/groups?as_q=snit&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_uaut
hors=elizabot%20&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=m&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
http://www.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_uauthors=eliza
bot%20&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=m&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
She shows signs of having an infatuation with me, or at the very least some
sort of unhealthy obsession. Like a pre-teen in love with a teacher, she is
constantly trying to prove her intelligence to me. While her attempts were
clever at first, the more I showed they would not win my love, the more
clearly irrational and desperate her attempts have become. While I do not
believe she is a danger to me or to my family, her mental health is
questionable, or perhaps she is simply a pre- or early-teen, where such
infatuations are to be expected.
I have already very clearly told her I am in no way interested in her. Not
only do I not believe in online-only romance, not only would I never dream
of dating someone who is a teenager (at least emotionally), I am a happily
married man!
What is the best way of handling the situation:
- Ignore her completely, she will eventually find another crush
- Keep reminding her that I have no interest *at all*
- Make frequent mentions of my wife....???
I would generally suggest to others to just ignore her, but she seems the
type to become desperate and emotional. It has already started; her last
few posts clearly had an angry tone and were designed to discredit me. I
trust that most adults would see through her desperate attempts, so perhaps
I should just let he vent for a while.
I really am not sure how to best handle this situation, other than what I
have just written. Any ideas are welcome.
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
Stop lying:)
Steve
Alan Baker
> There is a poster in this group that directs 95-98% of all of her posts
> toward me.
>
> She has recently stopped, on my request, from focusing as much on me, but if
> you check out these links you can see how often she mentions my name:
>
> http://www.google.com/groups?as_q=snit&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_uaut
> hors=elizabot%20&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=m&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
>
> http://www.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_uauthors=eliza
> bot%20&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=m&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
Looks like you're the one stirring the pot here, Snit.
>
> She shows signs of having an infatuation with me, or at the very least some
> sort of unhealthy obsession. Like a pre-teen in love with a teacher, she is
> constantly trying to prove her intelligence to me. While her attempts were
> clever at first, the more I showed they would not win my love, the more
> clearly irrational and desperate her attempts have become. While I do not
> believe she is a danger to me or to my family, her mental health is
> questionable, or perhaps she is simply a pre- or early-teen, where such
> infatuations are to be expected.
>
> I have already very clearly told her I am in no way interested in her. Not
> only do I not believe in online-only romance, not only would I never dream
> of dating someone who is a teenager (at least emotionally), I am a happily
> married man!
>
> What is the best way of handling the situation:
>
> - Ignore her completely, she will eventually find another crush
> - Keep reminding her that I have no interest *at all*
> - Make frequent mentions of my wife....???
>
> I would generally suggest to others to just ignore her, but she seems the
> type to become desperate and emotional. It has already started; her last
> few posts clearly had an angry tone and were designed to discredit me. I
> trust that most adults would see through her desperate attempts, so perhaps
> I should just let he vent for a while.
>
> I really am not sure how to best handle this situation, other than what I
> have just written. Any ideas are welcome.
>
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Mike Dee
news:BC387D2E.3B4CE%sn...@nospam-cableone.net:
> There is a poster in this group that directs 95-98% of all of her
> posts toward me.
There is a postee in this group that directs 95-98% of all of his posts
toward her.
<bit o' spipping, may get back to it later>
> I really am not sure how to best handle this situation, other than
> what I have just written. Any ideas are welcome.
Admit that you're in love and obsessed with eBot then try to get on with
your life. Be strong and move on. If your true love cannot be reciprocated
you will need to find other interests. Obsessions like the one you display
towards eBot can be all encompassing, I'm sure. So be strong, be big, and
be brave. Remember "love conquers all" :)
I hope that this will help you find some peace and some solice, Snit.
D.
--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired,
signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, April 16, 1953
Snit
I have never met her in person, but I would be certain to stand or sit if I
did. :)
Snit
> Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote in
> news:BC387D2E.3B4CE%sn...@nospam-cableone.net:
>
>> There is a poster in this group that directs 95-98% of all of her
>> posts toward me.
>
> There is a postee in this group that directs 95-98% of all of his posts
> toward her.
Who? I have not noticed such a thing from anyone.
>
> <bit o' spipping, may get back to it later>
>
>> I really am not sure how to best handle this situation, other than
>> what I have just written. Any ideas are welcome.
>
> Admit that you're in love and obsessed with eBot then try to get on with
> your life. Be strong and move on. If your true love cannot be reciprocated
> you will need to find other interests. Obsessions like the one you display
> towards eBot can be all encompassing, I'm sure. So be strong, be big, and
> be brave. Remember "love conquers all" :)
>
> I hope that this will help you find some peace and some solice, Snit.
Are you suggesting that I am the one who posts so much to her. Check Google
- not at all true.
Nashton
True and Dee are oxymoronic terms.
Nicolas
Nashton
LOL.
Nicolas
Snit
Oxymoronic: A dumb person with zits? :)
Nashton
Most likely;) Poor Dee, could have been worse;)
Nicolas
Elizabot
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
ROFLMFAOWTIMEAPMP!!!!
Get help. Seriously. Find a good psychiatrist and get on antipsychotic
medication - FAST. I hear it helps with the sorts of delusions you're
having.
Conclusion: Yet Another Snit Reality Dysfunction....
--
Snit: "In your case, well, I was just childishly overreacting." 12/12/03
Snit
Are any of my premises faulty? Can you show where?
Nashton
I won't take a cheap shot at you, as you are in the habbit of doing with
other posters. Just curious, why do you think Snit's post concerns *you*?
Nicolas
Elizabot
Yes.
> Can you show where?
Yes.
Snit
Elizabot
Ludicrous comments such as the following that Snit has made to me in
another post:
"I hesitate to say this, but of course I reserve the right to respond to
any post I chose, even yours. I hope that knowledge does not feed your
obsession. "
"I noticed that you seem to only post in response to me, so I did a bit
of looking into your last 100 posts:"
"That means 99% of your posts are about *me*."
"That still leaves you with a 96% percent csma focus on Snit."
(Notice how Snit flip flops)
"I like to think I am an interesting guy, but your obsession is not
healthy for you. I know you were counting my posts recently, and I have
been posting a lot, but there really are other people that post to this
group. It is not uncommon for people, especially women (though it
happens to men, too), to become fixated on their teachers or other
people in authority. Seems clear this has happened with you."
"I do not mean to embarrass you by bringing up your apparent infatuation
with me, but your "love" for me is neither healthy or returned."
Snit
Elizabot: the evidence certainly points to what I am saying...
-----
The vast majority of Elizabot's posts were directed toward Snit (81%)
The overwhelming majority of Elizabot's posts mentioned Snit (99%)
Most of Elizabot's posts were about Snit (some debate here, clearly over
90%)
Once Snit pointed these facts out to Elizabot, she tried to hide it by
posting to others and not directly mentioning Snit for several posts. She
even irrationally tried to nitpick the numbers; but even her "corrected"
numbers show that she is obsessed with Snit.
It is a well known phenomena that people often gain crushes on their
teachers or others in authority, this is more true for women than for men.
Snit was recently in a teacher position over Elizabot.
This is even more true for women who are not very mature, as would be
indicated in a Usenet group by cheap name calling and repeated illogical
attacks, as Elizabot has shown.
In one post Elizabot "pretends" to forget someone's name, from her past
posts it is safe to assume that she was trying to insult Snit (though there
is not 100% proof for this).
Elizabot has repeatedly been trying to prove her intelligence to Snit.
While her attempts were
clever at first, the more Snit showed they would not win his love, the more
Elizabot became clearly irrational and desperate.
Once this was pointed out to Elizabot, and her avoidance period had
subsided, she started insulting Snit even more. She even suggested he might
need medication to alter his reality - perhaps this was an attempt to get
him to see her differently, or just out of spite.
Elizabot
You created the evidence. I am not surprised.
How much time have you spent obsessing on me? Look at all of the below! Wow.
There are errors in your claims, but as I have already addressed them here:
Clear evidence of Snit's obsession with Elizabot follows:
Sandman
Snit, you both are obsessed with each others. Trying to make clever posts
implying that she is in love with you doesn't really forward your "case".
You both act lika immature teenagers to me.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
The above shows that you are obsessed with her just as much as she is in you.
And this is yet another insult directed towards here, draped in false logic.
This kind of things are very common on usenet, and either you are a total
newbie who hasn't really been posting to usenet for very long, or you are quite
aware of this and try to benefit from the stereotypic behaviour of
usenet-people. You fail to realize that this entire thread is you falling in to
that mold in the exact same way.
usenet is, and csma in particular, about ARGUING. I have spents HUNDREDS of
posts in a row arguing something with a single person on many occasions, and
now you have done the same thing. Welcome to usenet! It doesn't mean you're
married or engaged with that person - it means you both like to argue.
I know you know this since both you and Elizabeth are intelligent people. It's
not like you actually think shes in love with you - you are just trying to rile
her up for whatever dumb reason.
And the thing is - Elizabeth isn't even a troll! And neither are you. If the
above was about a troll like Edwin or the Mayor, then I wouldn't have said
anything.
--
Sandman[.net]
Mike Dee
news:BC38C606.3B4F7%sn...@nospam-cableone.net:
eBot posts a comment regarding a post you make. You seem not to be able to
refrain from responding. That seems to be pretty obvious.
Lately you've taken to accusing her of being "smitten and in love" with
*you*. That is just preposturous and absurd. Nothing could be further from
the truth.
Frankly I wish that you would just agree to disagree and shut up once and
for all. As it stands, eBot throws you a baited hook, but you're not
content with that, you have to be greedy and swallow the whole line and
rod.
You're not winning any arguments with her and you can spill the same whole
argument into as many threads as you want to [and do] but you'll still keep
chomping on her baited hook. Looks like she's got you figured, and this
"love" angle *you've* taken here, cinches it.
Mike Dee
news:6%OQb.73044$IF6.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca:
> Snit wrote:
>> Are you suggesting that I am the one who posts so much to her. Check
>> Google - not at all true.
> True and Dee are oxymoronic terms.
>
> Nicolas
And [Nasty] Nashton just has to *troll* for Dee. - Based on Snit's "eBot
reasoning", you must be in love with me.
Steve Carroll
Mike Dee <emte...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
I'm inclined to agree and, were I him, I would cool it because he is
dangerously close to crossing a line like she claimed.
Steve
Nashton
Ebot has become too much of a smartass as of late and she's been
obsessing with snit, literally following him around and trying to get a
rise from him whenever possible.
Snit, IMHO, just took notice and called her on it. She, in turn, called
him a pervert and threatened him with legal action. I think we know who
the teenager is;)
Nicolas
Elizabot
http://www.despair.com/persistence.html
--
If Bill Gates had a nickel for every time Windows crashed... oh wait, he
does.
Snit
I do think it is time for me to stop replying to Elizabot, at least for now.
I spoke with my local police department, showed them the posts from both of
us, and asked them what would happen if she were to call with the false
allegations she has alluded to or were to press charges against me. It
turns out I am in no danger from her at this time, but I am going to stick
to my decision that she is not someone I should be talking to - she is
clearly a potential danger in the long term.
I was advised as to what action I could take, if needed, though obviously I
am not going to speak of that in here. At this time, however, I will make
it clear that I have no desire or intention to look into any legal action (I
do not want her or anyone else to take my comments as any sort of threat).
I do not plan an further comment on this topic, other than to point out this
thread to others in the future (if appropriate).
Mike Dee
news:fretwizz-2989E5...@netnews.comcast.net:
> In article <Xns947CD7302...@130.133.1.4>,
> Mike Dee <emte...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote in
>> news:BC38C606.3B4F7%sn...@nospam-cableone.net:
>> > Are you suggesting that I am the one who posts so much to her.
>> > Check Google - not at all true.
>>
>> eBot posts a comment regarding a post you make. You seem not to be
>> able to refrain from responding. That seems to be pretty obvious.
>>
>> Lately you've taken to accusing her of being "smitten and in love"
>> with *you*. That is just preposturous and absurd. Nothing could be
>> further from the truth.
>>
>> Frankly I wish that you would just agree to disagree and shut up once
>> and for all. As it stands, eBot throws you a baited hook, but you're
>> not content with that, you have to be greedy and swallow the whole
>> line and rod.
>>
>> You're not winning any arguments with her and you can spill the same
>> whole argument into as many threads as you want to [and do] but
>> you'll still keep chomping on her baited hook. Looks like she's got
>> you figured, and this "love" angle *you've* taken here, cinches it.
>
> I'm inclined to agree and, were I him, I would cool it because he is
> dangerously close to crossing a line like she claimed.
Perhaps he's "crossed". I think his new revelation of "police action" would
go badly for him. He [snit] has constantly proven himself to be an idiot
with his *obsession* to win some point. He should learn when to pull back.
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
FWIW, I think your cop is wrong here. You might want to talk to a
lawyer... and no matter WHAT happens.. tell your wife BEFORE it gets out
of hand. I've seen this stuff escalate on basically the same type of
text and it ruined a marriage. In any event, good idea to cool it:)
Steve
Elizabot
I do not expect a response, but if you are going to refer to people to
read this thread in the future, then I believe my response, the one I
assume you showed to the police, belongs here in the thread.
Here it is:
-----
Face it, Snit. The truth is that *you* are obsessed with *me.* And *you*
are a pervert.
1) You noticed I was engaging other posters and you became jealous, so
you started a new thread designed to get my attention. You even
suggested that other should people ignore me - a typical response from a
jealous, abusive man. You are trying to isolate me so that you can have
me all to yourself.
2) When I responded to the thread, you had a rather lengthy response
waiting - it took you 3 minutes to respond to my post with it, as you
had to add a small amount of new information to the end.
3) You clearly spent time studying my posts and preparing a future
response before I have even responded.
4) You make up a fantasy that I am actually trying to win your love.
5) Reality shows I rejected you in mid-December, 2003.
These are clear signs of your obsession with me.
You've also taken on a classic persona of an adult sexual predator.
You fantasize about me being a little girl, as though I am trying to
earn your love and respect. You fantasize about your being an authority
figure to me. You started a belittling thread about me, in an attempt to
bully me into silence and submission. And *you* keep mentioning "love."
You are sick. You really do need help to get help. Abusive men such as
yourself often do not get help until they injure or kill the object of
their desire.
You are very near to crossing the line. I will not hesitate to contact
the Prescott Police Department if you do. And that's a promise.
ed
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> typed:
<snip>
> I do think it is time for me to stop replying to Elizabot, at least
> for now.
>
> I spoke with my local police department, showed them the posts from
> both of
> us, and asked them what would happen if she were to call with the
> false allegations she has alluded to or were to press charges against
> me. It
> turns out I am in no danger from her at this time, but I am going to
> stick
> to my decision that she is not someone I should be talking to - she is
> clearly a potential danger in the long term.
>
> I was advised as to what action I could take, if needed, though
> obviously I
> am not going to speak of that in here. At this time, however, I will
> make
> it clear that I have no desire or intention to look into any legal
> action (I
> do not want her or anyone else to take my comments as any sort of
> threat).
>
> I do not plan an further comment on this topic, other than to point
> out this thread to others in the future (if appropriate).
pfffffttttt. yeah right. but besides that, what ever happened to your
vegas trip? time for you to put up or shut up- turns out a couple buddies
of mine are gonna road trip it out to vegas for the superbowl next weekend,
and i'll likely go with them. if you weren't totally making crap up about
going there and willing to meet steve, here's your big chance to prove it!
let me know where you'll be, and i'll be glad to take 2 minutes out of my
busy betting schedule to verify you're not full ot if! what d'ya say?
Snit
>> I do not plan an further comment on this topic, other than to point out this
>> thread to others in the future (if appropriate).
>
> pfffffttttt. yeah right. but besides that, what ever happened to your
> vegas trip? time for you to put up or shut up- turns out a couple buddies
> of mine are gonna road trip it out to vegas for the superbowl next weekend,
> and i'll likely go with them. if you weren't totally making crap up about
> going there and willing to meet steve, here's your big chance to prove it!
> let me know where you'll be, and i'll be glad to take 2 minutes out of my
> busy betting schedule to verify you're not full ot if! what d'ya say?
While I find it entertaining and sometimes even mentally stimulating to
argue with people who are playing the role of bullies in here, I do not have
any desire to meet anyone face-to-face.
I tend to use bullies' own tactics against them: all but the most extreme or
immature generally back down - let's face it, bullies are bullies because
they are used to people fearing them and running (in a metaphorical sense on
Usenet). In a Usenet group that generally equates with people being fearful
of being verbally "abuse" by the bully or bullies. The basic tactics of
Usenet bullies are to use logical fallacies, side issues, or semantic games
to try to make the victim look bad. While annoying and not generally my
style, to me all of this is fair game in Usenet. In csma it is even
expected... seems half the purpose of this group is to try to make others
look bad.
Anything outside of that - such as when people try to entice others to meet
them in person, when people threaten others in any physical way, when people
threaten actions that would affect someone's life outside of Usenet, or when
people show that they are actively trying to track someone else down in the
real world - shows that the person in question may be more than just a
bull-headed poster or bully. They *may* be a real and present danger to
others.
I have made mistakes in respect to people who potentially fit this category.
It is now clear to me that this was an error on my part. As experience has
shown, there are people who will become so caught up in this "detached"
world of Usenet that they look to bring it to the "real" world, and often
they wish to do so in a very unhealthy and potentially dangerous way.
I am not suggesting that I feel you personally are a danger, but I have no
intention of meeting you face-to-face.
John Q. Public
<sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
>
> I am not suggesting that I feel you personally are a danger, but I have no
> intention of meeting you face-to-face.
So, despite all of your bravado, you never had any intention of meeting
Steve at the airport.
That would be easier to accept, if you had not made quite as big ideal
of it.
B.T.W. I told you the other day, finding out your home address is
trivial. You have allowed far too much information about yourself to
be recorded on the Internet.
Snit
> In article <BC3B2021.3B854%sn...@nospam-cableone.net>, Snit
> <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> I am not suggesting that I feel you personally are a danger, but I have no
>> intention of meeting you face-to-face.
>
> So, despite all of your bravado, you never had any intention of meeting
> Steve at the airport.
You clearly either neglected to read the post you were responding to or were
unable to understand what I was saying. In any case, I will not be meeting
you face-to-face.
John Q. Public
<sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
I didn't know that our meeting face to face had ever been suggested.
But I take it that I am not invited over to Willow Drive.
Snit
Well, not my street any more... but, no.
Sandman
> > Ebot has become too much of a smartass as of late and she's been
> > obsessing with snit, literally following him around and trying to get a
> > rise from him whenever possible.
> > Snit, IMHO, just took notice and called her on it. She, in turn, called
> > him a pervert and threatened him with legal action. I think we know who
> > the teenager is;)
>
> I do think it is time for me to stop replying to Elizabot, at least for now.
>
> I spoke with my local police department, showed them the posts from both of
> us, and asked them what would happen if she were to call with the false
> allegations she has alluded to or were to press charges against me. It
> turns out I am in no danger from her at this time, but I am going to stick
> to my decision that she is not someone I should be talking to - she is
> clearly a potential danger in the long term.
>
> I was advised as to what action I could take, if needed, though obviously I
> am not going to speak of that in here. At this time, however, I will make
> it clear that I have no desire or intention to look into any legal action (I
> do not want her or anyone else to take my comments as any sort of threat).
>
> I do not plan an further comment on this topic, other than to point out this
> thread to others in the future (if appropriate).
Sigh, teenagers.
--
Sandman[.net]
ed
hey, i was just offering you a chance to put up for once, since i was
going to be in vegas anyways. but as i suspected, you were full of
crap all along and never intended to put up, so hopefully you'll at
least shut up. but i noticed rather than a simple "i'll be there", or
a "no, i admit that i, snit, is a big fat liar and won't be there",
you did just what you claimed what "the bullies" were doing- tried to
turn it into a side issue. as for safety, i'll likely be at the
venetian sports book most of super bowl sunday, and you're free to
stop by; if you have any issues w/ fearing for your safety at a large
well established casino, you've got much larger issues in your life
that you need to deal with.
Snit
I see you have completely missed the point of my comments. I will not be
meeting you or anyone else from this group. Proving some point to you is
not worth the risk of someone attempting to pursue fallacious charges. If I
were to meet you, you could claim I was trying to do you harm. of course
the evidence would not support that (I am not), but it is not worth the
risk. If you have been reading the current soap opera in here, and are a
reasonable person, I am sure you can understand why I would feel this way
about people in general from this group. I have nothing personal against
you.
Anyway, I *hate* casinos. The smell of the smoke and the glazed over look
of the gamblers is about as close to hell as I can imagine. When I go to
Vegas, which I do several times a year, I do not even go to movies there -
as most theaters are located in casinos. Even finding non-smoking
restaurants can be a challenge. I go there to visit people I know, or,
occasionally, for work.
ed
oh no, i got the point- you talked a lot of smack you never intended
to back up. your comment above- "I tend to use bullies' own tactics
against them: all but the most extreme or immature generally back
down" implies that it was a lie to begin with and you were just
attempting to call steve out.
> I will not be
> meeting you or anyone else from this group. Proving some point to you is
> not worth the risk of someone attempting to pursue fallacious charges. If I
> were to meet you, you could claim I was trying to do you harm.
hey, i'll say right here for all the world to see- i'll make no such
charges.
> of course
> the evidence would not support that (I am not), but it is not worth the
> risk.
there would be no such risk, as i'll be at the venetian sports book;
there's gotta be thousands of cameras at the venetian, so the only
risks of false charges would be in your delusions.
> If you have been reading the current soap opera in here, and are a
> reasonable person, I am sure you can understand why I would feel this way
> about people in general from this group. I have nothing personal against
> you.
>
> Anyway, I *hate* casinos. The smell of the smoke and the glazed over look
> of the gamblers is about as close to hell as I can imagine. When I go to
> Vegas, which I do several times a year, I do not even go to movies there -
> as most theaters are located in casinos. Even finding non-smoking
> restaurants can be a challenge. I go there to visit people I know, or,
> occasionally, for work.
yup, just like i thought- you were full of crap.
Snit
Your complete inability to understand what I am saying says much more about
you than it does about me.
Even if I were to still be willing to meet Steve (which at this point I am
not), who said anything about meeting *you*? Why would I want to waste one
minute of my time to visit you, especially when it has become so painfully
clear how people in the group can threaten true, real-world, harm on others?
Your attempt to embarrass me (or whatever) to come meet you in some smoky
hell-hole really does not entice me at all.
ed
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> typed:
no, no, i get it, you're full of crap.
Snit
Are you really as dense as you are pretending to be? Just curious.
John Q. Public
<ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>
> > Your attempt to embarrass me (or whatever) to come meet you in some
> > smoky hell-hole really does not entice me at all.
>
> no, no, i get it, you're full of crap.
>
There are actually a number of reasons to believe that Snit is full of
crap, this is just the latest one.
Snit
Ah - meaningless and shallow insults. I get it.
John Q. Public
<sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
Hardly.
You went on and on about your meeting with Steve. You talked about how
you were going to embarrass him when he didn't show up. And yet, it was
all a load of crap.
I can fully understand why you might want to avoid meeting people. I
don't understand why you went on and on about meeting him, when you did
not intend to ever do it. All you needed to say was that you would not
be meeting him. Instead, you chose the route of crap. It was not the
first time you sprayed crap and it will not be the last on time. But
it is hardly meaningless or superficial.
Snit
A few points:
1) Steve already made it clear he will not be there. So the question of
where I will be that day is no longer even reasonable to ask.
2) Since that discussion, other things have happened in this group
concerning me and another frequent poster. I have commented on it in here,
and have no need to re-state what you can easily look up.
3) Your assertion that there are multiple reasons to believe I am "full of
crap" has no basis in fact. I have been very honest, too open, and,
generally, have treated people well.
ed
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> typed:
oh, i see what you're trying to do jus tfine, but i'm just cutting through
all the crap you're spewing in your pitiful attempt to rationalize your way
out of the bullshit you spewed.
Snit
I think it is clear. You really are that dense, or are just insisting on
playing the part. I have seen you post somewhat intelligent things in here,
so I would guess you are just playing dense to get a rise out of me.
Is it working in your eyes? Maybe this will help...
No no no no no! Please take it all back. Say you are sorry. Make it all
go away!
There... is that what you were looking for?
Elizabot
Again, if you are going to refer people to this thread in the future, I
feel as though I should counter your lies and respond.
> I do think it is time for me to stop replying to Elizabot, at least for now.
>
> I spoke with my local police department, showed them the posts from both of
> us, and asked them what would happen if she were to call with the false
> allegations she has alluded to or were to press charges against me.
I only warned you that you were close to crossing a line, and that if
you did, I would contact the police. I have not stated what charges I
would press, as you have not crossed the line.
> It
> turns out I am in no danger from her at this time,
Of course not. The police read what I wrote and realized you were
blowing things out of proportion.
The police are not stupid enough to fall for your false victim claims.
Especially when the "evidence" shows otherwise.
> but I am going to stick
> to my decision that she is not someone I should be talking to - she is
> clearly a potential danger in the long term.
I hope you do. I'm tired of responding to your delusions. Stating that I
am a "potential danger" is just more of your slander.
> I was advised as to what action I could take, if needed, though obviously I
> am not going to speak of that in here. At this time, however, I will make
> it clear that I have no desire or intention to look into any legal action (I
> do not want her or anyone else to take my comments as any sort of threat).
I haven't threatened you physically in any way. I have not suggested
meeting with you. The only thing I am guilty of is responding to your
posts. There is no legal action you can take at this time, so don't
pretend there is.
> I do not plan an further comment on this topic, other than to point out this
> thread to others in the future (if appropriate).
I will comment, however, any time you mention me. I will not allow your
continued slanderous delusional lies against me go uncontested.
Elizabot
Snit is the delusional person who has insisted that I am in love with
him. This delusional person has even somehow decided that I have
threatened him in some physical way, when clearly I have not. Snit's
list of delusional lies continues to grow.
I am pleased that he will not be meeting with Steve. Do not forget that
this is the same person who insisted dozens of times that Steve and I
are the same person. I never did get him to back down from that claim.
I can imagine Snit following Steve around the airport, screeching "I do
not want your affection! I am a happily married man! Give it up. I have
no interest in you *at all*!"
Elizabot
Whether or not Snit still lives on Willow Drive is immaterial. The
authorities know where he is. That's all that counts in my book.
Snit
> Snit is the delusional person who has insisted that I am in love with
> him. This delusional person has even somehow decided that I have
> threatened him in some physical way, when clearly I have not. Snit's
> list of delusional lies continues to grow.
I respond to this to place my view and more facts to support it than I had
previously presented in the public record. The fact that Elizabot has
continued to lie about my actions is bothersome, and given her threatening
implications, frightening.
Being that I am not the only one to talk with, or even get into debates
with, Elizabot, I believe people should know these facts.
------------
Elizabot clearly is, or at least was, obsessed with Snit. Look at the
Google definitions of "obsess":
-----
haunt like a ghost; pursue; "Fear of illness haunts her"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
be preoccupied with something; "She is obsessing over her weight"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
-----
Elizabot has been preoccupied as shown by her pursuit of Snit throughout
this group. At the time Snit pointed this obsession out, the previous 100
posts from Elizabot showed:
* Over 80% of Elizabot's posts were to Snit.
* Over 90% of Elizabot's posts were primarily about Snit.
* Nearly 100% of Elizabot's posts mentioned Snit (99%).
Elizabot did change this pattern *some* once her obsession was discussed in
the group. Hopefully the pattern will continue to change and the future
will not bring further problems.
Still, the record is clear. According to Google for the last 3 months:
* Of Elizabot's 702 posts, about 520 (or nearly 75%) mentioned "Snit"
* Of Snit's 3310 posts, about 480 (or nearly 15%) mentioned "Elizabot"
Even looking at the raw numbers, Elizabot posted 40 more posts that
commented on Snit than Snit posted with comments about Elizabot.
Considering Elizabot's total posting number being so much lower than Snit's,
one would expect that, if anything, the opposite would be true.
Add to that the fact that Elizabot has tracked Snit down to his home town,
and made a very public threat that, if carried out, could potentially
adversely affect Snit in his day to day life. Elizabot has taken a Usenet
debate and threatened to take in into the "real world" in a way that is not
just morally unacceptable, it may be illegal. Almost undoubtedly to carry
out the threat would be.
It would be hard to find a situation on Usenet where someone's preoccupation
or obsession (in this case Elizabot's pre-occupation with Snit) could be
more clear for such a period of time.
When Snit pointed Elizabot's obsession out in csma he did make the
assumption that Elizabot's obsession was based on romantic or lustful
feelings (as obsessions over people often are). This may or may not have
been accurate, but there is no reason to doubt it and there is support that
has been previously posted - though the support for the reasons for the
obsession is not as strong as the very strong support for the fact of the
obsession itself is.
In any case, even if the reasons for the obsession were to be questioned,
the facts of the obsession itself is very clear. The fact that Elizabot is
clearly lying as she strongly denies her obsession and tries to turn it
around only makes it that much more scary, and the potential for her turning
it into a real-world dangerous situation, as she has suggested, even more
probable.
Elizabot's counter argument that Snit has been obsessed with her is
laughable: Snit's posts are neither primarily to or about Elizabot. Snit
posts to many people on many subjects. As shown above, for the same three
months that Elizabot was posting primarily to or about Snit, about 85% of
Snits posts did not even *mention* Elizabot.
Contrary to Elizabot's claim, Snit's stats *are not* those from someone
obsessed.
Consistent with Snit's claim, Elizabot's stats *are* very much those of a
person obsessed.
With Elizabot talking about Snit and using his name in the strong majority
of her posts and otherwise showing an obsession, with her tracking him down
to his home city, and by her making public threats to suggest she was on the
verge of claiming serious but false allegations to Snit's local police
department, she has shown herself to be a possible real danger.
Mike Dee
news:BC3F0BBD.3BD18%sn...@nospam-cableone.net:
> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote on 1/28/04 5:17 PM:
>
>> Snit is the delusional person who has insisted that I am in love with
>> him. This delusional person has even somehow decided that I have
>> threatened him in some physical way, when clearly I have not. Snit's
>> list of delusional lies continues to grow.
>
> I respond to this to place my view and more facts to support it than I
> had previously presented in the public record. The fact that Elizabot
> has continued to lie about my actions is bothersome, and given her
> threatening implications, frightening.
Where you are concerned, Snit, "facts" are pure figments of *your*
fantastic imagination.
> Being that I am not the only one to talk with, or even get into
> debates with, Elizabot, I believe people should know these facts.
According to Snit.
> Elizabot clearly is, or at least was, obsessed with Snit. Look at the
> Google definitions of "obsess":
>
> -----
> haunt like a ghost; pursue; "Fear of illness haunts her"
> www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
>
> be preoccupied with something; "She is obsessing over her weight"
> www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
> -----
>
> Elizabot has been preoccupied as shown by her pursuit of Snit
> throughout this group. At the time Snit pointed this obsession out,
> the previous 100 posts from Elizabot showed:
>
> * Over 80% of Elizabot's posts were to Snit.
In response to Snit posts.
> * Over 90% of Elizabot's posts were primarily about Snit.
In response to Snit posts.
> * Nearly 100% of Elizabot's posts mentioned Snit (99%).
In response to Snit posts.
> Elizabot did change this pattern *some* once her obsession was
> discussed in the group. Hopefully the pattern will continue to change
> and the future will not bring further problems.
Snit did change this pattern *some* once his obsession was
discussed in the group. Hopefully the pattern will continue to change
and the future will not bring further problems.
> Still, the record is clear. According to Google for the last 3
> months:
>
> * Of Elizabot's 702 posts, about 520 (or nearly 75%) mentioned "Snit"
>
> * Of Snit's 3310 posts, about 480 (or nearly 15%) mentioned "Elizabot"
3310 posts in the past 3 mths, Snit? Now that *is* obsessive.
> Even looking at the raw numbers, Elizabot posted 40 more posts that
> commented on Snit than Snit posted with comments about Elizabot.
> Considering Elizabot's total posting number being so much lower than
> Snit's, one would expect that, if anything, the opposite would be
> true.
Then that would be in response to *other* postee's discussions about Snit.
Can't see much of a problem there. After all, Snit has made *Three thousand
AND ten* posts to CSMA in the last *three months* alone!!!!
> Add to that the fact that Elizabot has tracked Snit down to his home
> town, and made a very public threat that, if carried out, could
> potentially adversely affect Snit in his day to day life. Elizabot
> has taken a Usenet debate and threatened to take in into the "real
> world" in a way that is not just morally unacceptable, it may be
> illegal. Almost undoubtedly to carry out the threat would be.
Well, *some* person had *supposedly* tracked Snit down to his home town and
maybe eBot picked up on that. AFA any threats are concerned. IIRC *you*
were the 1st to mention any police action. AFAICT eBot has been simply
*defending herself* against *your* overt aggression towards her.
> It would be hard to find a situation on Usenet where someone's
> preoccupation or obsession (in this case Elizabot's pre-occupation
> with Snit) could be more clear for such a period of time.
Unless one was to look at the obsessiveness and preoccupation of *your*
attitude towards eBot.
> When Snit pointed Elizabot's obsession out in csma he did make the
> assumption that Elizabot's obsession was based on romantic or lustful
> feelings (as obsessions over people often are). This may or may not
> have been accurate, but there is no reason to doubt it and there is
> support that has been previously posted - though the support for the
> reasons for the obsession is not as strong as the very strong support
> for the fact of the obsession itself is.
Wrong! There is *every* reason to doubt it! This is the fundamental flaw to
your argument! In fact because you even bring it up [again] negates
*everything* you have to say on the matter. You lose. Sorry. EOD.
> In any case, even if the reasons for the obsession were to be
> questioned, the facts of the obsession itself is very clear. The fact
> that Elizabot is clearly lying as she strongly denies her obsession
> and tries to turn it around only makes it that much more scary, and
> the potential for her turning it into a real-world dangerous
> situation, as she has suggested, even more probable.
What about your *really scary, freaky obsession* with point scoring and
winning some pointless argument over eBot? Are we allowed to discuss that?
> Elizabot's counter argument that Snit has been obsessed with her is
> laughable: Snit's posts are neither primarily to or about Elizabot.
> Snit posts to many people on many subjects. As shown above, for the
> same three months that Elizabot was posting primarily to or about
> Snit, about 85% of Snits posts did not even *mention* Elizabot.
Every time you try to "win" some point scoring "victory" in this on-going
war of the sexes, between you and eBot, weighs against you. If only
because, you simply "don't get it".
> Contrary to Elizabot's claim, Snit's stats *are not* those from
> someone obsessed.
Contrary to Snit's claim "that Contrary to Elizabot's claim, Snit's stats
*are not* those from someone obsessed". I simply *do not trust Snit's
counter-claim*.
> Consistent with Snit's claim, Elizabot's stats *are* very much those
> of a person obsessed.
This claim, I also 100%, have to contest.
> With Elizabot talking about Snit and using his name in the strong
> majority of her posts and otherwise showing an obsession, with her
> tracking him down to his home city, and by her making public threats
> to suggest she was on the verge of claiming serious but false
> allegations to Snit's local police department, she has shown herself
> to be a possible real danger.
All hearsay. And further more, on your own admission, you feel that *all
usenet postees pose a "genuine" threat to your person. On the "evidence"
that you present, I would say, unequivocally: "You don't have a leg to
stand on, sunshine".
D.
Snit
> Where you are concerned, Snit, "facts" are pure figments of *your* fantastic
> imagination.
I set out facts, based on Google research. If you wish to contest the
Google record that is not my concern.
> IIRC *you* were the 1st to mention any police action.
Do a Google search: look at Jan. 25th. Your recollection is wrong.
Again, your thoughts are not supported by the facts that can easily be seen
in Google.
> This is the fundamental flaw to your argument! In fact because you even bring
> it up [again] negates *everything* you have to say on the matter. You lose.
> Sorry. EOD.
Responding to a post is not "bringing it up".
Again, your claim does not fit the facts.
> All hearsay. And further more, on your own admission, you feel that *all
> usenet postees pose a "genuine" threat to your person.
When have I stated that? Can you point to a link?
Seems again you are basing your ideas on something that has no basis in
fact.
> On the "evidence" that you present, I would say, unequivocally: "You don't
> have a leg to stand on, sunshine".
As you are clearly ignoring the Google record based on your own bias, I do
not see how what you say is at all relevant.
I trust Google over your word.
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
If you trust Google then you're forced to admit you were doing exactly
what the 'bot said you were. Give it up, Snit... if she wants you, she
has you by the short hairs;)
Steve
Elizabot
> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote on 1/28/04 5:17 PM:
>
>
>>Snit is the delusional person who has insisted that I am in love with
>>him. This delusional person has even somehow decided that I have
>>threatened him in some physical way, when clearly I have not. Snit's
>>list of delusional lies continues to grow.
>
>
> I respond to this to place my view and more facts to support it than I had
> previously presented in the public record. The fact that Elizabot has
> continued to lie about my actions is bothersome, and given her threatening
> implications, frightening.
>
> Being that I am not the only one to talk with, or even get into debates
> with, Elizabot, I believe people should know these facts.
Snit has made the claims Elizabot has stated. People need to know the
facts about Snit. Elizabot will not allow Snit's lies to go uncontested.
Elizabot ruins Snit's argument for obsession below.
Elizabot has noticed:
1) Snit taking on characteristics of an erotomanic stalker
2) Snit's false victim claims
3) Snit's denial of his problem
4) Snit's stressing that Snit is Elizabot's teacher and that Elizabot is
a little girl/pre-teen.
5) Snit's continued demands that Elizabot submit to his rules
6) Snit's growing anger issues with strong women
7) Snit's abusive personality
8) Snit's continued bullying Elizabot though asserting his lies with his
libelous claims
9) Snit's inability to control himself by creating new posts concerning
Elizabot in light of the fact that the police suggested that he stop
engaging her
This growing combination of Snit's delusions and problems is clearly
disturbing.
Snit is angry that Elizabot will not submit to Snit's demands to stop
responding. Snit attempts to smear Elizabot with his own
mischaracterizations and manipulation of statistics.
Snit has fantasized about Elizabot being a little girl, as though she is
trying to earn his love and respect. Snit has fantasized about his being
an authority figure to Elizabot. Snit has falsely claimed to be
Elizabot's teacher many times. Snit started a belittling thread about
Elizabot, in an attempt to bully her into silence and submission because
he was angry he could not beat her in their debates. And *Snit* is the
one who mentions "love", "romance", "lustful", etc.
Snit is angry that he cannot intimidate Elizabot into submission, so he
continues with his lies.
> ------------
>
> Elizabot clearly is, or at least was, obsessed with Snit. Look at the
> Google definitions of "obsess":
>
> -----
> haunt like a ghost; pursue; "Fear of illness haunts her"
> www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
>
> be preoccupied with something; "She is obsessing over her weight"
> www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
Another dig at Elizabot's gender. How telling. Another clue that Snit
prefers submissive women.
definition of snit:
snit - a state of agitated irritation; "he was in a snit"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
Snit has named himself rather appropriately.
> -----
>
> Elizabot has been preoccupied as shown by her pursuit of Snit throughout
> this group. At the time Snit pointed this obsession out, the previous 100
> posts from Elizabot showed:
>
> * Over 80% of Elizabot's posts were to Snit.
Elizabot has the right to respond to Snit's posts, especially when he
mentions her.
> * Over 90% of Elizabot's posts were primarily about Snit.
Snit includes Elizabot's sigs, which were quotes from Snit.
Here they are:
Snit: "In your case, well, I was just childishly overreacting." 12/12/03
Snit: "Really - I have no clue." 1/4/04
> * Nearly 100% of Elizabot's posts mentioned Snit (99%).
Snit includes Elizabot's sig. Elizabot has already mentioned this fact
to Snit, yet he ignores it as it does not fit into his view of "reality."
Also Snit neglects to mention the fact that Elizabot pointed out several
more posts to Snit within those 100 posts that did not include Snit.
Snit backed his claim to 96%, although Elizabot pointed out more than
four posts to Snit.
Snit has now upped his count back to 99% although he was clearly shown
that his claim was false and he had even acknowledged so. Snit: "That
still leaves you with a 96% percent csma focus on Snit."
Also, when faced with the fact of his 99% claim being in error, Snit
made the perverted argument:
"It seems you have a desire to earn my respect and love by trying to
show how you have found some logical loop hole I have not seen: you have
not - you are mistaken. Even if you were not, it would not matter - you
have not chance, *at all* of earning my love."
> Elizabot did change this pattern *some* once her obsession was discussed in
> the group. Hopefully the pattern will continue to change and the future
> will not bring further problems.
Snit still notices every time Elizabot engages another poster. Snit has
even suggested that other should people ignore Elizabot - a typical
response from a jealous, abusive man, who wants Elizabot all to himself.
Elizabot brought this to Snit's attention, so now Snit has taken on the
opposite role of pretending to be happy that Elizabot is not responding
to him, in an attempt to try to make himself look better. The truth is:
Elizabot is terribly bored of Snit but will not allow his lies to go
uncontested.
Hopefully Snit will stop making up lies about Elizabot and stop
attempting to bully her with those lies. Snit has made up fewer lies
about Elizabot lately, so Elizabot has posted less in response to Snit.
Thus Elizabot's posting returns to pre-Snit levels. If Snit quits lying
about Elizabot, then Elizabot quits responding to Snit.
Simply concept really.
Snit has made the comments:
"I shall not be responding to you in the future."
"I do think it is time for me to stop replying to Elizabot, at least for
now."
"I am going to stick to my decision that she is not someone I should be
talking to"
and
"I do not plan an further comment on this topic, other than to point out
this thread to others in the future (if appropriate)."
yet Snit still cannot stop himself from responding to Elizabot. He is
much too angry that Elizabot will not submit.
*Snit cannot control himself, even when the police suggest he not
respond to Elizabot.*
> Still, the record is clear. According to Google for the last 3 months:
>
> * Of Elizabot's 702 posts, about 520 (or nearly 75%) mentioned "Snit"
>
> * Of Snit's 3310 posts, about 480 (or nearly 15%) mentioned "Elizabot"
This shows that Snit and Elizabot had a fairly equal correspondence
going on. Hardly evidence of obsession on Elizabot's part. Actually, it
shows more evidence of Snit's obsessive posting to csma in general.
In fact, let us compare Snit and Steve Carroll's postings for the last
three months:
Of Steve Carroll's 858 posts, 684 (nearly 80%) about mention "Snit"
Of Snit's 3310 posts, 671 (nearly 20%) mention "Steve Carroll"
It seems as though Snit has a much greater case against Steve Carroll
for obsession than against Elizabot. (Sorry Steve)
So why does Snit pick on Elizabot? It must be because Snit is very angry
at Elizabot and that Snit's anger has blinded him from seeing the truth.
Elizabot has destroyed Snit's fantasy. Elizabot is not that little girl
who wants Snit to teach her a lesson, so Elizabot suggests that Snit
drop the angle that Elizabot is obsessed.
Why doesn't Snit accuse others who have posted more to Snit of
obsession? Snit has serious issues with strong women.
Snit's claim of obsession is meaningless.
Note also that this includes a sig file that Elizabot mentioned above.
Snit has mentioned to Elizabot that her sigs bothered him, so Snit uses
the sigs to pad his figures. Snit has sour grapes....
> Even looking at the raw numbers, Elizabot posted 40 more posts that
> commented on Snit than Snit posted with comments about Elizabot.
> Considering Elizabot's total posting number being so much lower than Snit's,
> one would expect that, if anything, the opposite would be true.
Snit needs to go through Elizabot's 520 posts to determine how many
posts include Snit only in the sig before he makes such an accusation.
But he will not. He does not care about the truth.
Considering how many statistics Snit has looked into, it appears to
Elizabot as though Snit is still in denial about his obsession with her,
and he is still obsessed with trying to make her look bad. Poor Snit.
Snit was unable to beat Elizabot in their debates and has turned to this
tactic of smearing her character.
> Add to that the fact that Elizabot has tracked Snit down to his home town,
Snit has previously posted to USENET with an IP address. It is prudent
to look up someone's ISP when that individual starts acting like a
pervert. Snit followed Elizabot around the newsgroup, telling her how in
love she is with him and that he is her teacher and she is a little
girl. Makes a woman wonder what sort of lessons Teacher has in mind.
Snit fits the profile of a pervert and sexual predator.
> and made a very public threat that, if carried out, could potentially
> adversely affect Snit in his day to day life.
If Snit were to cross the line, Elizabot would call the police. Snit
needs to keep it to USENET. Snit has already contacted the police. Snit
needs to understand he cannot push his perverted delusions and lies onto
Elizabot. Snit needs to understand Elizabot will take any precautions
she deems necessary to protect herself from Snit, including contacting
the police herself.
> Elizabot has taken a Usenet
> debate
A USENET debate, huh? Snit starts a thread filled with lies about
Elizabot and calls it a USENET debate. Another one of Snit's delusions.
> and threatened to take in into the "real world" in a way that is not
> just morally unacceptable, it may be illegal. Almost undoubtedly to carry
> out the threat would be.
But Snit *did* take it to the "real world." Elizabot did not. Snit is
not one to talk about taking USENET into the "real world."
It is also morally unacceptable for Snit to act like a pervert and think
he can get away with it, hiding behind a supernews account.
> It would be hard to find a situation on Usenet where someone's preoccupation
> or obsession (in this case Elizabot's pre-occupation with Snit) could be
> more clear for such a period of time.
Snit hasn't seen much of USENET.
> When Snit pointed Elizabot's obsession out in csma he did make the
> assumption that Elizabot's obsession was based on romantic or lustful
> feelings (as obsessions over people often are). This may or may not have
> been accurate, but there is no reason to doubt it and there is support that
> has been previously posted - though the support for the reasons for the
> obsession is not as strong as the very strong support for the fact of the
> obsession itself is.
Snit once again projects his lustful feelings onto Elizabot.
> In any case, even if the reasons for the obsession were to be questioned,
> the facts of the obsession itself is very clear. The fact that Elizabot is
> clearly lying as she strongly denies her obsession and tries to turn it
> around only makes it that much more scary, and the potential for her turning
> it into a real-world dangerous situation, as she has suggested, even more
> probable.
Elizabot has made no lies. Elizabot counters Snit's lies. Snit has made
many lies concerning Elizabot and her character.
Snit has blown everything out of proportion, like usual. The only thing
Elizabot threatened was to call the police if Snit continued to take on
more characteristics of a sexual predator. Elizabot left Snit's
potential actions unspecified, as she did not want to give Snit any sick
ideas.
> Elizabot's counter argument that Snit has been obsessed with her is
> laughable: Snit's posts are neither primarily to or about Elizabot. Snit
> posts to many people on many subjects. As shown above, for the same three
> months that Elizabot was posting primarily to or about Snit, about 85% of
> Snits posts did not even *mention* Elizabot.
This is at least the third, lengthy post coming from Snit on the topic
of Elizabot and her so-called obsession. Snit obviously spends much time
thinking about Elizabot and obsessing about her. He can't help himself.
Snit is still in denial about his problem.
> Contrary to Elizabot's claim, Snit's stats *are not* those from someone
> obsessed.
>
> Consistent with Snit's claim, Elizabot's stats *are* very much those of a
> person obsessed.
Statistics can lie. Especially when a person is using them to make
himself look good and another look bad.
> With Elizabot talking about Snit and using his name in the strong majority
> of her posts and otherwise showing an obsession, with her tracking him down
> to his home city, and by her making public threats to suggest she was on the
> verge of claiming serious but false allegations to Snit's local police
> department, she has shown herself to be a possible real danger.
Elizabot has noticed:
1) Snit taking on characteristics of an erotomanic stalker
2) Snit's false victim claims
3) Snit's denial of his problem
4) Snit's stressing that Snit is Elizabot's teacher and that Elizabot is
a little girl/pre-teen.
5) Snit's continued demands that Elizabot submit to his rules
6) Snit's growing anger issues with strong women
7) Snit's abusive personality
8) Snit's continued bullying Elizabot though asserting his lies with his
libelous claims
9) Snit's inability to control himself by creating new posts concerning
Elizabot in light of the fact that the police suggested that he stop
engaging her
This growing combination of Snit's delusions and problems is clearly
disturbing.
So that leaves the question of why Snit claims Elizabot is obsessive,
yet Snit does not hold the same claim for Steve Carroll, when Carroll
has posted more and a higher percentage of his posts to Snit.
The answer: Snit has a personal grudge against Elizabot and is unable to
see the facts clearly.
What concerns Elizabot most is that Snit denies taking any role in what
has happened, and Snit's disregarding advice from the police concerning
his not engaging Elizabot.
Snit is very close to crossing the line indeed.
Snit
>> I respond to this to place my view and more facts to support it than I had
>> previously presented in the public record. The fact that Elizabot has
>> continued to lie about my actions is bothersome, and given her threatening
>> implications, frightening.
>>
>> Being that I am not the only one to talk with, or even get into debates
>> with, Elizabot, I believe people should know these facts.
>
> Snit has made the claims Elizabot has stated. People need to know the
> facts about Snit. Elizabot will not allow Snit's lies to go uncontested.
There - now that we have each posted our versions of what has transpired...
can we just go on with life in Usenet as usual? I believe the facts we have
each presented would allow a reasoned person to make up their own minds (not
that I am sure that applies to all the regulars in here. :) ). I do not
believe either of us has, at this time, "crossed a line" that would require
legal prosecution or proceedings.
I am not intending to now, and have never had any intention, of causing you
any fear or leading you to any believe that I would take any comments
outside of Usenet (and, I suppose, directing you to web sites).
I have, of course, sought to show how I disagree with your comments, how I
see you as using logic incorrectly, etc. You have done the same with me.
To me that is fair game, and should bring no fear or other strong negative
emotions from either of us.
I am all for just dropping the whole issue.
Agreed?
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
I can see why YOU would want to drop it... but why should the 'bot let
you off the hook so easily? More attempted manipulation of her on your
part? You trying to set a record or something? You've exhibited them
plenty of times before but I think you've reached a new low with your
strange double standards. If she continues to stand up to your bullsh*t,
it's only because you deserve it, you know. Reap what you sow, teacher.
Steve
Snit
I am trying to end this particular silliness because it is the right thing
to do.
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
Yeah... right:) That's just you all over... always concerned with doing
the right thing. LOL! Fess up... your wife read some of the exchanges
between you two, didn't she?
Steve
Elizabot
The right thing for you to do would be to apologize for attempting to
defame my character.
Mike Dee
news:BC3FA9B1.3BD55%sn...@nospam-cableone.net:
>> All hearsay. And further more, on your own admission, you feel that
>> *all usenet postees pose a "genuine" threat to your person.
>
> When have I stated that? Can you point to a link?
You don't have to look far, but seeing as how you trust Google, here you go:
D.
--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired,
signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not
fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, April 16, 1953
ShutterBugz
basically this "snit" character has been caught out projecting some
strange fantasy on a female poster. as a woman, it's very annoying when
your arguments are derided or ignored on the basis of your sex. i'm not
buying into the whys and wherefores of snit's and elizabot's past
debates but what a classic ploy! "but she came on to me!" and then
suggesting others should avoid elizabot...
heh, this poor snitzel character thinks everybody is after his arse!
and now it's "ah, let's forget it...
apologise snitzel!
Snit
I believe that to be true of *both* sexes. You seem to be assuming I am the
one victimizing and she is the victim based on *my* sex. That is a common
thing to do in our society. Sexual stereotypes are neither fair nor
accurate for either gender.
> i'm not buying into the whys and wherefores of snit's and elizabot's past
> debates but what a classic ploy! "but she came on to me!" and then suggesting
> others should avoid elizabot...
>
> heh, this poor snitzel character thinks everybody is after his arse!
>
> and now it's "ah, let's forget it...
>
> apologise snitzel!
You seem to be buying into Elizabot's straw man arguments. My debate with
her has nothing - *absolutely nothing* - to do with her claimed gender. Now
there may be some evidence to say that Elizabot has problems with men, or at
least with what is considered "normal" relationships. Here are some quotes
from her:
To George Graves:
"I haven't totally decided "better dead than wed", but guys like you make me
think "better an unwed mother than put up with your bullshit."
She clearly is not the type to settle down... not a problem by me, but she
does seem to show some hostility toward men there.
To me
"That gives a new meaning to the phrase "snit fit."
in relation to this:
http://Snit.swellserver.com/news/top_stories/outwithbang.php"
A link to a site trying to make fun of what she believed my sexual
orientation is....
In my eyes her gender, her consensual relationships, and her sexual
orientation are non-issues (as is the case with everyone in csma). I
really have no evidence for any of those that relate to her, and have no do
not really care - other than it may be interesting to know if she has been
lying about that (I have no reason to believe she has in these areas).
That is one of the things I like about Usenet, as they say, "On the
Internet, nobody knows you're a dog".
http://www.unc.edu/depts/jomc/academics/dri/idog.html
In other words: I have nothing against woman, have said nothing to imply I
do, and have no reason to know or care what gender Elizabot is. My view of
her is not based on her gender, but on her words.
Nor, for that matter, did I ever suggest others should avoid her, though I
did point out that she may be a real danger to people. This is based on her
own behavior (her posts) which I have previously detailed.
I do not owe her an apology of any sort, other than to say that I *might*
have mischaracterized her obvious obsession when I stated it was based on
sexual or lustful feelings. It is possible that it was not.
Somehow I do not think that would be sufficient in her eyes. To provide her
with an apology that would be more likely to be sufficient in her eyes, I
would have to lie to her. I have no intention of doing that.
I have, however, suggested that both Elizabot and myself just move on. She
does not seem to be able to let go of the arguments we have had. I find that
to be a shame.
The offer, however, is still open. I hope she is able to just let things
go.
Snit
>> I am trying to end this particular silliness because it is the right thing
>> to do.
>
> The right thing for you to do would be to apologize for attempting to
> defame my character.
I would hope that you, too, would want to just move on. I have let my view
point be known. You have let yours be known. While I am sure we will never
agree, a truly reasonable and objective person would be able to make their
own determination. If they even care.
I am suggesting we both just let things go.
Snit
> Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote in
> news:BC3FA9B1.3BD55%sn...@nospam-cableone.net:
>
>>> All hearsay. And further more, on your own admission, you feel that
>>> *all usenet postees pose a "genuine" threat to your person.
>>
>> When have I stated that? Can you point to a link?
>
> You don't have to look far, but seeing as how you trust Google, here you go:
>
> <http://groups.google.com.au/groups?selm=BC3B2021.3B854%25snit%40nospam-cableo
> ne.net&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain>
>
> <http://groups.google.com.au/groups?selm=BC3BF7D0.3B8F4%25snit%40nospam-cableo
> ne.net&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain>
>
> <http://groups.google.com.au/groups?selm=BC3C5385.3B938%25snit%40nospam-cableo
> ne.net&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain>
Thank you. Your links are apt - they are probably the closest thing anyone
could find to me claiming that "*all usenet postees pose a "genuine" threat
to [my] person". It is good to note that while those qotes are probably the
closest I have come to expressing the sentiment attributed to me, they are
*very* far from actually doing so.
The posts do quote me as not wanting to meet anyone in this group
face-to-face (in general) and Ed face-to-face (in particular). I even go
into detail as specifically what I do see as signs of posing a "real and
present danger", which specifically counters the idea that I would believe
that *all* posters pose any threat.
While you and I may have had some disagreements in the past, I appreciate
the research you have done here to support my point. Thanks.
Snit
>> I am trying to end this particular silliness because it is the right thing
>> to do.
>
> Yeah... right:) That's just you all over... always concerned with doing
> the right thing.
For the most part - yes. Sometimes to a fault.
> LOL! Fess up... your wife read some of the exchanges between you two, didn't
> she?
Shhh.... don't say that in here, someone might hear you.
Oh, yes, one more thing:
Grunt baaah baaah tweet baaah baaah. Brawk chirp moo grunt chirp brawk
quack meow. Maaah snort whinnie grunt cluck grunt baaah brooock chirp oink.
Brock baaah meow quack whinnie moo brooock meow brock chirp. Meow bark
brock cluck brooock? Brooock brock quack brawk bark quack. Brooock moo
grunt brock brock moooo snort quack moooo! Brooock brooock brooock moo
cluck! Brawk cluck moo grunt cluck bark tweet maaah growl cluck. Brawk
moooo quack oink snort moo bark oink chirp oink. Baaah brock chirp growl
grunt moooo cluck bark quack. Growl meow grunt grunt? Grunt cluck quack
cluck maaah snort grunt? Brawk meow baaah whinnie cluck grunt maaah growl
grunt oink. Snort snort brock cluck chirp meow cluck. Maaah brock chirp
brock quack! Brock meow chirp moo growl. Snort growl quack cluck quack
meow oink. Moooo maaah moooo! Tweet grunt maaah baaah meow tweet oink
quack quack. Baaah brawk baaah growl grunt cluck snort baaah grunt. Grunt
brooock growl snort snort moooo oink. Grunt whinnie maaah quack snort oink?
Bark tweet bark! Tweet moo brock moo growl bark. Maaah cluck snort brock
chirp? Quack brawk tweet quack grunt oink brooock maaah grunt. Baaah chirp
quack quack moo baaah grunt. Quack oink bark tweet moo growl baaah. Growl
snort meow. Bark moooo moooo growl oink baaah brock tweet. Growl quack
bark whinnie grunt grunt brooock moooo moo. Grunt moo tweet brooock oink
moooo quack brawk brock. Quack maaah cluck bark maaah. Brock baaah brock
cluck baaah brawk brawk chirp. Brawk snort maaah brawk bark snort snort
chirp. Grunt brawk brock chirp! Moooo cluck moo moooo quack. Meow grunt
bark quack oink chirp oink maaah. Moooo chirp growl bark. Bark brooock
bark! Grunt grunt snort brooock snort! Cluck brawk grunt grunt growl
whinnie quack brooock cluck grunt. Tweet whinnie snort tweet quack baaah
brock tweet? Maaah snort brooock oink cluck brawk oink baaah baaah brock?
Cluck moooo bark grunt growl quack maaah growl chirp. Grunt chirp brawk
cluck grunt grunt tweet quack meow. Brock grunt whinnie chirp. Grunt moo
chirp brooock whinnie cluck. Chirp whinnie grunt. Moo maaah growl moooo
brawk baaah chirp grunt maaah tweet. Growl moo growl brock grunt cluck.
Cluck quack growl growl bark brock moooo bark snort? Oink growl whinnie
maaah moooo brawk brawk growl oink grunt. Grunt quack brawk oink quack?
Chirp growl chirp grunt snort oink oink brooock? Whinnie whinnie baaah
grunt grunt cluck chirp baaah. Chirp maaah tweet moo quack tweet growl.
Quack quack moo bark grunt whinnie oink maaah maaah cluck. Quack cluck bark
whinnie grunt brawk oink chirp. Oink cluck bark quack oink quack oink brawk
grunt. Oink grunt brooock. Meow oink cluck brawk moooo maaah moo snort
oink. Tweet brooock moooo whinnie. Meow quack moooo oink moooo moooo grunt
whinnie bark bark. Oink cluck bark chirp moooo. Cluck grunt brawk growl!
Moo brawk brooock brock chirp whinnie quack grunt maaah grunt. Snort moooo
whinnie snort maaah moooo baaah grunt bark maaah? Quack growl brock baaah
oink growl snort oink brawk! Quack meow brooock oink growl moo. Brooock
grunt moooo bark. Moo quack meow brock oink maaah. Baaah snort quack.
Tweet snort meow moo baaah moooo snort bark brooock. Cluck baaah maaah oink
brock brooock snort cluck brock. Grunt snort grunt quack meow moo brawk.
Tweet bark oink growl quack meow quack brock quack bark. Oink oink moooo
brock oink grunt snort maaah brooock. Whinnie growl maaah baaah? Whinnie
baaah quack quack chirp oink brock. Oink brawk brawk moo growl brawk quack
baaah moo. Quack brooock cluck. Brooock moo chirp. Grunt grunt bark oink
maaah chirp meow snort tweet? Tweet meow snort maaah maaah quack growl.
Maaah oink snort maaah moooo grunt grunt growl chirp. Snort bark quack
grunt bark meow oink bark meow meow. Brawk growl bark maaah. Grunt tweet
oink maaah oink. Moo brock brock brawk brawk moooo moooo grunt bark bark.
Snort meow oink brawk oink? Tweet tweet quack moo oink. Tweet brock
whinnie moo bark tweet grunt meow. Oink brawk moo whinnie maaah brawk snort
baaah. Brooock maaah quack quack meow maaah. Whinnie grunt cluck grunt
brock whinnie brawk whinnie brooock snort. Growl grunt growl grunt baaah
grunt maaah. Growl brawk brock cluck growl brooock quack whinnie brock
oink. Brooock quack brooock snort brawk chirp maaah growl tweet.
Elizabot
Snit wrote:
Mayor of R'lyeh
<toolittl...@poo.com> chose to bless us with the following
wisdom:
>Stop harassing me.
Is it even possible to harrass you?
[Major Snip]
--
There are two sides to every issue: one side is right
and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.
Ayn Rand
Steve Carroll
Elizabot <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote:
(To snit): Well it seems you aren't able to. She's asking you to cool
it,(look up top of this post) so why are you keeping on? What is it that
you think you'll get out of keeping it all alive through other posters?
It only makes you look more guilty, ya know.
Steve
Snit
> (To snit): Well it seems you aren't able to. She's asking you to cool
> it,(look up top of this post) so why are you keeping on? What is it that
> you think you'll get out of keeping it all alive through other posters?
> It only makes you look more guilty, ya know.
Guilty of what? You seem to be implying that I have done something wrong or
am guilty of something. I am not. I have simply responded to the
accusations of another poster in an accurate way.
Snit
most of your posts - almost all of which are part of your obsessive attacks
against me.
Instead of pointing out whatever new lies you fling around about me, I will
just post this e-mail whenever you start lying, trolling, and attacking me
(well, if I can keep up - chances are you will post more lies than I can
keep up with).
This post should serve as a reasonable reference for your character for any
new people - even lurkers - of csma.
In any case, I enjoy repeatedly posting the info - who knows, maybe one day
you will actually grow a backbone, act like an adult, and face your own
lies.
And pigs *could* someday fly... right? :)
"Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote on 1/30/04 10:06 AM:
> Elizabot has noticed:
>
> 1) Snit taking on characteristics of an erotomanic stalker
If you look up the characteristics of stalkers you would likely find that
one of of the first characteristics is to attempt to track a person to where
they live or can be found. Here are the related facts:
- I have never even hinted I had any desire to track you down.
- Not only did you track me down, you posted my home city to this forum,
and commented on your beliefs about my home street.
Elizabot has shown herself to have characteristics of a stalker, *not* Snit.
As far as the usage of the word "erotomanic", I had to look that up (though
the base words make it fairly clear the gist of the word). The word is not
in any of the dictionaries Google links to from it's "define" command"
http://www.google.com/search?q=define:+erotomanic&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
The spell checker in my Usenet client sees it as a non-word. The standard
built in UNIX list of words does not contain it. Clearly the word
"erotomanic" is not part of the common lexicon.
I did, however, finally find the word on a page dealing with mental health
jargon:
http://home.earthlink.net/~krwenger/mhjargon.htm
"Erotomanic - The person believes some famous person is in love with him /
her."
This points to a couple of things: one, you seem to be familiar with the
mental health jargon related to obsessive "love". I have a college degree
in psychology and was still not familiar with the term. Seems this concept
is one you have focused on in your past. To know such specific jargon that
is not in common dictionaries seems odd. Can you explain why? Whatever the
explanation, you seem to be more familiar and have more experience with the
world of obsessive "love" than I. I would not be surprised if I were not
the first person you had obsessed over and then created lies to try to
defend yourself when it was pointed out.
Second, based on the definition of the word you used in conjunction with
your claim, you seem to be suggesting that you are in some way famous.
Seems like you have a rather inflated ego. If by some odd chance you are
famous, I have no idea who you are, so your fame would have no effect on how
I see you.
Both of these things, the definition of the word "erotomanic" and the
examination of what a stalker, support what I have been claiming, and do not
support your claim.
> 2) Snit's false victim claims
You did make a threat, one that placed me in a position where a reasonable
person would have to defend himself outside of Usenet. I have done no such
thing with you, nor even suggested that I was considering it.
I was placed in a position to defend myself. There is nothing false about
that.
This supports what I have been claiming, and does not support your claim.
> 3) Snit's denial of his problem
I have never denied that your threats were a problem. You have. If you
believe I have other problems - real problems that affect the real world -
please provide evidence. Otherwise, it is clear I am more willing to
discuss my problem (your threat) than you are.
This supports what I have been claiming, and does not support your claim.
> 4) Snit's stressing that Snit is Elizabot's teacher and that Elizabot is
> a little girl/pre-teen.
Your responses seems, at least to me, as though you respond on an emotional
level in a way similar to a pre-teen. There are things about your comments
that indicate you may actually be chronologically older. Others, of course,
my agree or disagree with my assessment. Really, does it matter? You often
act like a spoiled teenager or pre-teen *in my eyes*... that is not a crime
- for you to act that way or for me to point it out. If this offends you,
as I could understand it very well might, you can either decide that I am
not worthy of making a valid assessment and therefore ignore my view, or you
can try to decide why others would see you this way and perhaps use the
information to help improve yourself.
Instead, your choice was to get so offended at this opinion / observation
(and perhaps other) that you tracked me down to my home city and then
suggested you might call my local police and make false charges of some kind
(you claimed I was close to crossing some line).
Then you wonder why I see you as an immature, spoiled teenage brat. Your
actions fit with this quite well. I would hope you would take this
information and learn from it. If you are unable to, bringing legal
authorities into the discussion, threatening to do so, or making false
accusations does not make your case more solid.
> 5) Snit's continued demands that Elizabot submit to his rules
I have made no such demand. Even if I had, there is no way anyone can
enforce such demands, other than to pull these discussions out of Usenet.
By pulling a conversation out of Usenet, a poster can show that they want
power over another, or want the other to "submit to [their] rules".
That is what you, Elizabot, did, not what I did. It is clear you were
trying to gain some sort of power over me - and you succeeded. I was placed
in a position where I reasonably contacted my local police to report your
threats. You sought power over me and, in that limited and unhealthy way,
you gained it.
This supports what I have been claiming, and does not support your claim.
> 6) Snit's growing anger issues with strong women
Not even sure what you are talking about here, other than to see this as yet
another lie you are creating about me. At least this one is standard csma
trolling - there is no implied threat.
You clearly do not know my wife or my mother. You seem to believe that
since I have pointed out my views of your immature and bullying behavior
that I have some problem with women (or people who claim to be women). You
are wrong. Gender has nothing to do with my dislike of your attacks, your
lies, your faulty logic, your side issues, your nit picking, or the other
games you play in csma where you clearly seek to humiliate others.
I do not even know what gender you really are. Nor, really, do I care -
other than it would be interesting to see if that were one more thing you
have lied about in this group.
The fact that you have chosen to make gender an issue (not merely
acknowledge it) supports what I have been claiming, and does not support
your claim.
> 7) Snit's abusive personality
An inaccurate characterization. And is more true about Elizabot that Snit.
Not that other's opinions are the ultimate authority on this, but it is
clear by looking through Google how other's see Elizabot. The following are
all quotes about you. Not one is originally from me. I suggest you read
them and think about what they are saying. There are not quick little cuts
such as "you can not read" or "you are an idiot" which are common in csma,
but well thought-out descriptions of your abuse toward other people. I am
clearly not the first target of your attacks. I am not even sure if I am
the first person to consistently show your games for what they are and place
you in a position where you felt you had to make threats that would spill
over to the real world. Here are the comments I found in a fairly quick
search through Google:
---- BEGIN QUOTES
"Your only purpose to reply to me is to display your one-upmanship. You need
to get the last word and win this little thread. You didn't find my
questions worth answering, yet you replied to my post. I have been reading
USENET for a long time and have seen posters the same as you. Nothing new,
same purpose. The posters you engage are people who do match your criteria
of what is acceptable message or view to yours. You could simply ignore them
(or me), but where would the fun be in that? Are there any more lessons you
want to "teach" me?"
"From what I have seen of your posting history is that you need to be
combative to feel a sense of superiority. You want to take credit for a
poster from leaving? May I ask why? If you don't agree with someone why do
you get hostile? Did someone appoint you to the position you currently hold?
Is there a link that states that "Elizabot" must protect CSMA from people
who do post according to your specific criteria?"
"All [Elizabot and her group] been able to do is engage in pedantic
bickering. And they're very good at it...they've mastered how to manipulate
people's words into things that weren't intended. I admit that I've fallen
victim to their manipulative behavior many times. Oh well...I don't mind
being manipulated by pros...after all, it's what they do best. Don't believe
me? Just think back to your "discussion" with George about marriage."
"As far as I'm concerned you never say anything in this newsgroup which
contributes to any particular thread. You flame people. I cannot find one
single reply by you that is not somehow putting someone down. As a result I
find it very hard to take you seriously, and consequently you are nothing
more to me than a source of amusement because it's so easy to piss you off."
"You're like a circus sideshow; amusing to watch but you make absolutely no
difference to anyone. So far you appear to be the only person in this group
that I have managed to piss off to such a degree. At the same time, in the
3 days since I began reading this newsgroup you have managed to piss off 2
people through your petty remarks and comments to people about them either
being fat or having a small dick; neither of which have anything to do with
Macs, but I guess when you run out of bullets you start to throw stones."
"You are a sad little woman, but I find it amusing to watch you get your
panties in a twist over my comments, so keep them coming. And please keep
in mind then next time you write some asinine response to me that you are
amusing me, entertaining me much like an organ grinder's monkey. So please,
keep it up. You are good for a few laughs."
"I didn't see you add anything to the topic except insults. I, on the other
hand, have attempted to engage you in a constructive discussion. However you
refuse to respond with positive feedback. It is very apparent that what I
wrote in the past has really gotten under your skin, thus explaining the
constant insults. Stop being so sensitive Elizabot ...this is a newsgroup.
Don't take my comments so personal. There are much more important things in
life to be concerned with than what I, or someone else says in an advocacy
newsgroup."
---- END QUOTES
These quotes supports what I have been claiming, and do not support your
claim.
> 8) Snit's continued bullying Elizabot though asserting his lies with his
> libelous claims
Not even sure what you are talking about here. The only leg you have to
stand on here is your repeated lies about my behavior. Those claims are
libelous, in other words you are lying in an attempt to defame me.
While I have made suppositions that may or may not be correct (defining
probable reasons to explain your clear obsession with me), I have not lied.
Without a lie, there is no libelous claim.
You, on the other hand, clearly have lied. Your claim that I was a
reasonable threat to you and may reasonably place you in a position to call
the police has no merit.
This supports what I have been claiming, and does not support your claim.
> 9) Snit's inability to control himself by creating new posts concerning
> Elizabot in light of the fact that the police suggested that he stop
> engaging her
Your claim here is without merit. Period.
>> ------------
>>
>> Elizabot clearly is, or at least was, obsessed with Snit. Look at the
>> Google definitions of "obsess":
>>
>> -----
>> haunt like a ghost; pursue; "Fear of illness haunts her"
>> www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
>>
>> be preoccupied with something; "She is obsessing over her weight"
>> www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
>
> Another dig at Elizabot's gender. How telling. Another clue that Snit
> prefers submissive women.
Those are the complete definitions from Google.
http://www.google.com/search?q=define:+obsess
Your interpretation of taking offense at the dictionary definitions of the
word "obsess" says a lot about you and your biased way of seeing the world.
What about dictionary definitions do you find threatening or insulting?
>> Elizabot has been preoccupied as shown by her pursuit of Snit throughout
>> this group. At the time Snit pointed this obsession out, the previous 100
>> posts from Elizabot showed:
>>
>> * Over 80% of Elizabot's posts were to Snit.
>> * Over 90% of Elizabot's posts were primarily about Snit.
>> * Nearly 100% of Elizabot's posts mentioned Snit (99%).
>
> Snit includes Elizabot's sig. Elizabot has already mentioned this fact
> to Snit, yet he ignores it as it does not fit into his view of "reality."
Your sig is a part of your post. The fact that you felt you needed to quote
me in your sig is a sign of a strong focus on me at the least, and quite
possibly of a true obsession.
At one point you had stated that you were just responding to me. Here you
say your posts that mention me, even quote me, are not all in response to
me.
Which claim of yours is a lie? Since they are contradictory claims, clearly
at least one is.
> Also Snit neglects to mention the fact that Elizabot pointed out several
> more posts to Snit within those 100 posts that did not include Snit.
> Snit backed his claim to 96%, although Elizabot pointed out more than
> four posts to Snit.
Look at my stats above. I took your comments into account. I list "over
90%" of your posts being about me, not 96%. The stats I list here are 100%
accurate, at least based on what I looked at *and* your comments. Your
state of denial and the lies that surround it does not change that.
These facts supports what I have been claiming, and do not support your
claim.
> Snit still notices every time Elizabot engages another poster. Snit has
> even suggested that other should people ignore Elizabot - a typical
> response from a jealous, abusive man, who wants Elizabot all to himself.
I have suggested no such thing, though I have discussed the reasons I
believe you may be a danger. I leave it up to others for them to determine
how and if they should respond to you.
I also see a tone of anti-male attitudes in your comments. This fact and
your ability to fool yourself into believing such a lie about me, and create
a delusional world for yourself where I care who you post in response to,
supports what I have been claiming, and does not support your claim.
-----
Since the time of the original post:
* Elizabot started asking me about my views on sexuality -
the only time she has been civil towards me
* Elizabot wanted to know if she was turning me on
* Elizabot made references to sending people outside of Usenet information
about me - much of it lies or based on faulty logic and misunderstandings
of how Usenet works.
* Elizabot talked about how she has "nailed" me.
--
"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law."
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)
Elizabot
> Elizabot, you have become far too much of a bore for me to reply directly to
> most of your posts - almost all of which are part of your obsessive attacks
> against me.
You realize when you start repeatedly posting these sorts of posts that
it means the object of your post has won in some other debate, don't
you? (It also makes you look like a nut.)
> Instead of pointing out whatever new lies you fling around about me, I will
> just post this e-mail whenever you start lying, trolling, and attacking me
> (well, if I can keep up - chances are you will post more lies than I can
> keep up with).
You're just mad because I cornered you about your claim that you REFUSE
to back up that you posted from a public lab. Here's that infamous Snit
cyber temper tantrum that I predicted! LMAO!
> This post should serve as a reasonable reference for your character for any
> new people - even lurkers - of csma.
Anyone reading it will see that you are a wacko who's trying to bully me
into silence.
Have fun making yourself look like a jerk! That's one thing you're good at!
(And I don't think most lurkers are as stupid as you think.)
> In any case, I enjoy repeatedly posting the info - who knows, maybe one day
> you will actually grow a backbone, act like an adult, and face your own
> lies.
I don't have to address *your* lies, Snit. Deal with it.
> And pigs *could* someday fly... right? :)
You can believe anything you like, Snit. Including that invisible green
dragon!
[snip stuff I didn't bother to read]
--
"You see, my invisible green dragon tells me that God is real, and is
even a pretty nice guy, but can not hold his liquor well."
- Snit (aka 尬≡) on 4/27/04
Snit
most of your posts - almost all of which are part of your obsessive attacks
against me.
Instead of pointing out whatever new lies you fling around about me, I will
just post this e-mail whenever you start lying, trolling, and attacking me
(well, if I can keep up - chances are you will post more lies than I can
keep up with).
This post should serve as a reasonable reference for your character for any
new people - even lurkers - of csma.
In any case, I enjoy repeatedly posting the info - who knows, maybe one day
you will actually grow a backbone, act like an adult, and face your own
lies.
And pigs *could* someday fly... right? :)
"Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote on 1/30/04 10:06 AM:
> Elizabot has noticed:
>
> 1) Snit taking on characteristics of an erotomanic stalker
If you look up the characteristics of stalkers you would likely find that
http://www.google.com/search?q=define:+erotomanic&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
http://home.earthlink.net/~krwenger/mhjargon.htm
> 2) Snit's false victim claims
You did make a threat, one that placed me in a position where a reasonable
person would have to defend himself outside of Usenet. I have done no such
thing with you, nor even suggested that I was considering it.
I was placed in a position to defend myself. There is nothing false about
that.
This supports what I have been claiming, and does not support your claim.
> 3) Snit's denial of his problem
I have never denied that your threats were a problem. You have. If you
believe I have other problems - real problems that affect the real world -
please provide evidence. Otherwise, it is clear I am more willing to
discuss my problem (your threat) than you are.
This supports what I have been claiming, and does not support your claim.
> 4) Snit's stressing that Snit is Elizabot's teacher and that Elizabot is
> a little girl/pre-teen.
Your responses seems, at least to me, as though you respond on an emotional
level in a way similar to a pre-teen. There are things about your comments
that indicate you may actually be chronologically older. Others, of course,
my agree or disagree with my assessment. Really, does it matter? You often
act like a spoiled teenager or pre-teen *in my eyes*... that is not a crime
- for you to act that way or for me to point it out. If this offends you,
as I could understand it very well might, you can either decide that I am
not worthy of making a valid assessment and therefore ignore my view, or you
can try to decide why others would see you this way and perhaps use the
information to help improve yourself.
Instead, your choice was to get so offended at this opinion / observation
(and perhaps other) that you tracked me down to my home city and then
suggested you might call my local police and make false charges of some kind
(you claimed I was close to crossing some line).
Then you wonder why I see you as an immature, spoiled teenage brat. Your
actions fit with this quite well. I would hope you would take this
information and learn from it. If you are unable to, bringing legal
authorities into the discussion, threatening to do so, or making false
accusations does not make your case more solid.
> 5) Snit's continued demands that Elizabot submit to his rules
I have made no such demand. Even if I had, there is no way anyone can
enforce such demands, other than to pull these discussions out of Usenet.
By pulling a conversation out of Usenet, a poster can show that they want
power over another, or want the other to "submit to [their] rules".
That is what you, Elizabot, did, not what I did. It is clear you were
trying to gain some sort of power over me - and you succeeded. I was placed
in a position where I reasonably contacted my local police to report your
threats. You sought power over me and, in that limited and unhealthy way,
you gained it.
This supports what I have been claiming, and does not support your claim.
> 6) Snit's growing anger issues with strong women
Not even sure what you are talking about here, other than to see this as yet
another lie you are creating about me. At least this one is standard csma
trolling - there is no implied threat.
You clearly do not know my wife or my mother. You seem to believe that
since I have pointed out my views of your immature and bullying behavior
that I have some problem with women (or people who claim to be women). You
are wrong. Gender has nothing to do with my dislike of your attacks, your
lies, your faulty logic, your side issues, your nit picking, or the other
games you play in csma where you clearly seek to humiliate others.
I do not even know what gender you really are. Nor, really, do I care -
other than it would be interesting to see if that were one more thing you
have lied about in this group.
The fact that you have chosen to make gender an issue (not merely
acknowledge it) supports what I have been claiming, and does not support
your claim.
> 7) Snit's abusive personality
An inaccurate characterization. And is more true about Elizabot that Snit.
> 8) Snit's continued bullying Elizabot though asserting his lies with his
> libelous claims
Not even sure what you are talking about here. The only leg you have to
stand on here is your repeated lies about my behavior. Those claims are
libelous, in other words you are lying in an attempt to defame me.
While I have made suppositions that may or may not be correct (defining
probable reasons to explain your clear obsession with me), I have not lied.
Without a lie, there is no libelous claim.
You, on the other hand, clearly have lied. Your claim that I was a
reasonable threat to you and may reasonably place you in a position to call
the police has no merit.
This supports what I have been claiming, and does not support your claim.
> 9) Snit's inability to control himself by creating new posts concerning
> Elizabot in light of the fact that the police suggested that he stop
> engaging her
Your claim here is without merit. Period.
>> ------------
>>
>> Elizabot clearly is, or at least was, obsessed with Snit. Look at the
>> Google definitions of "obsess":
>>
>> -----
>> haunt like a ghost; pursue; "Fear of illness haunts her"
>> www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
>>
>> be preoccupied with something; "She is obsessing over her weight"
>> www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
>
> Another dig at Elizabot's gender. How telling. Another clue that Snit
> prefers submissive women.
Those are the complete definitions from Google.
http://www.google.com/search?q=define:+obsess
Your interpretation of taking offense at the dictionary definitions of the
word "obsess" says a lot about you and your biased way of seeing the world.
What about dictionary definitions do you find threatening or insulting?
>> Elizabot has been preoccupied as shown by her pursuit of Snit throughout
>> this group. At the time Snit pointed this obsession out, the previous 100
>> posts from Elizabot showed:
>>
>> * Over 80% of Elizabot's posts were to Snit.
>> * Over 90% of Elizabot's posts were primarily about Snit.
>> * Nearly 100% of Elizabot's posts mentioned Snit (99%).
>
> Snit includes Elizabot's sig. Elizabot has already mentioned this fact
> to Snit, yet he ignores it as it does not fit into his view of "reality."
Your sig is a part of your post. The fact that you felt you needed to quote
me in your sig is a sign of a strong focus on me at the least, and quite
possibly of a true obsession.
At one point you had stated that you were just responding to me. Here you
say your posts that mention me, even quote me, are not all in response to
me.
Which claim of yours is a lie? Since they are contradictory claims, clearly
at least one is.
> Also Snit neglects to mention the fact that Elizabot pointed out several
> more posts to Snit within those 100 posts that did not include Snit.
> Snit backed his claim to 96%, although Elizabot pointed out more than
> four posts to Snit.
Look at my stats above. I took your comments into account. I list "over
90%" of your posts being about me, not 96%. The stats I list here are 100%
accurate, at least based on what I looked at *and* your comments. Your
state of denial and the lies that surround it does not change that.
These facts supports what I have been claiming, and do not support your
claim.
> Snit still notices every time Elizabot engages another poster. Snit has
> even suggested that other should people ignore Elizabot - a typical
> response from a jealous, abusive man, who wants Elizabot all to himself.
I have suggested no such thing, though I have discussed the reasons I
Elizabot
> Elizabot, you have become far too much of a bore for me to reply directly to
> most of your posts - almost all of which are part of your obsessive attacks
> against me.
You realize when you start repeatedly posting these sorts of posts that
it means the object of your post has won in some other debate, don't
you? (It also makes you look like a nut.)
> Instead of pointing out whatever new lies you fling around about me, I will
> just post this e-mail whenever you start lying, trolling, and attacking me
> (well, if I can keep up - chances are you will post more lies than I can
> keep up with).
You're just mad because I cornered you about your claim that you REFUSE
to back up that you posted from a public lab. Here's that infamous Snit
cyber temper tantrum that I predicted! LMAO!
> This post should serve as a reasonable reference for your character for any
> new people - even lurkers - of csma.
Anyone reading it will see that you are a wacko who's trying to bully me
into silence.
Have fun making yourself look like a jerk! That's one thing you're good at!
(And I don't think most lurkers are as stupid as you think.)
> In any case, I enjoy repeatedly posting the info - who knows, maybe one day
> you will actually grow a backbone, act like an adult, and face your own
> lies.
I don't have to address *your* lies, Snit. Deal with it.
> And pigs *could* someday fly... right? :)
You can believe anything you like, Snit. Including that invisible green
Snit
411a55b6$0$205$7586...@news.frii.net on 8/11/04 10:21 AM:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Elizabot, you have become far too much of a bore for me to reply directly to
>> most of your posts - almost all of which are part of your obsessive attacks
>> against me.
>
> You realize when you start repeatedly posting these sorts of posts that
> it means the object of your post has won in some other debate, don't
> you? (It also makes you look like a nut.)
How does ignoring your lies and posting information about your character
suggest I have lost any debate?
Keep in mind the pattern that has been set:
You make an outrageous, unsupported claim (in this case that a specific
post was posted from a specific location).
I point that out.
You repeat the same claim.
I point it out.
You repeat the same claim.
I point it out.
You repeat the same claim.
I point it out.
You repeat the same claim.
I point it out.
Etc.
It is not as though you are presenting any new claim or evidence. You are
repeating tired lies. Oh, and in your case, once you feel completely
beaten, you post thinly veiled threats about sending information to people
or companies I work for, reporting me to the police, or other BS.
Instead of playing your silly game, I will just, from time to time at least,
post information about you... based on *your* words... I will do so as I
please... and I will respond to you or ignore you as I please.
I will give you a hint: I am less likely to respond to tired old lies you
have repeated multiple times. If you want to entice me to spend time on
you, you will need to come up with new material. Even then, I may just
ignore it or post info about you... after all, I have no need or desire to
"play" by your rules.
Enjoy being an obsessive and immature troll all you like. Your games are
boring and potentially dangerous.
Elizabot
> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote in
> 411a55b6$0$205$7586...@news.frii.net on 8/11/04 10:21 AM:
>
>
>>Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Elizabot, you have become far too much of a bore for me to reply directly to
>>>most of your posts - almost all of which are part of your obsessive attacks
>>>against me.
>>
>>You realize when you start repeatedly posting these sorts of posts that
>>it means the object of your post has won in some other debate, don't
>>you? (It also makes you look like a nut.)
>
>
> How does ignoring your lies and posting information about your character
> suggest I have lost any debate?
You ran away from the thread and started posting peresonal attacks,
Snit. It's OBVIOUS. You really are stupid, aren't you.
> Keep in mind the pattern that has been set:
>
> You make an outrageous, unsupported claim (in this case that a specific
> post was posted from a specific location).
Actually, you made a claim that you refused to back up. *You* claimed it
was from a public lab. But you are unwilling to say where.
Repeatedly.
My claim is neither unsupported nor outrageous.
You are unwilling to discuss it in the appropriate thread, so you ignore
it and start up this new thread of personal attacks against me.
Just like you did with Steve and Sandman. It's your pattern when you are
backed into a corner. Really totally pathetic and it fools no one.
> I point that out.
>
> You repeat the same claim.
>
> I point it out.
>
> You repeat the same claim.
>
> I point it out.
>
> You repeat the same claim.
>
> I point it out.
>
> You repeat the same claim.
>
> I point it out.
>
> Etc.
Liar. Address it in the appropriate thread instead of here where it's
out of context.
Oh, wait, you think you can spin your lies better this way.
> It is not as though you are presenting any new claim or evidence. You are
> repeating tired lies. Oh, and in your case, once you feel completely
> beaten, you post thinly veiled threats about sending information to people
> or companies I work for, reporting me to the police, or other BS.
Whatever.
Why are you so incredibly unwilling to back up your claim that you post
in a public lab? It would help with the sigmond issue (if you are
telling the truth, that is).
> Instead of playing your silly game, I will just, from time to time at least,
> post information about you... based on *your* words... I will do so as I
> please... and I will respond to you or ignore you as I please.
*My* words? LOL. I scanned down to the bottom and all I saw was a bunch
of crap that *you* had written about me. I didn't look all that closely
though.
> I will give you a hint: I am less likely to respond to tired old lies you
> have repeated multiple times.
I haven't been telling any lies. It always comes down to you accusing
your opponents of telling lies when you, in fact, are the liar.
> If you want to entice me to spend time on
> you, you will need to come up with new material. Even then, I may just
> ignore it or post info about you... after all, I have no need or desire to
> "play" by your rules.
I don't care whether or not you respond to my posts.
> Enjoy being an obsessive and immature troll all you like. Your games are
> boring and potentially dangerous.
You're the immature little troll who won't back up his claim about the
public lab, Snit. Spin it any way you like, you still look like the liar
you are.
Steve Carroll
Elizabot <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote:
Bingo:)
--
"I may just be the primary topic of this group"
"I am happy to say the overwhelming vast majority
of your posts clearly referenced me"
- Michael Glasser (AKA Snit)
--
Steve C
Mayor of R'lyeh
>Snit wrote:
>
>> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote in
>> 411a55b6$0$205$7586...@news.frii.net on 8/11/04 10:21 AM:
>>
>>
>>>Snit wrote:
[Snip]
Why don't you two just get a room, bump uglies and be done with it?
--
Why settle for the lesser evil?
Cthulhu for President 2004
Elizabot
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:13:13 -0600, Elizabot
> <toolittl...@poo.com> chose to bless us with the following
> wisdom:
>
>
>>Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote in
>>>411a55b6$0$205$7586...@news.frii.net on 8/11/04 10:21 AM:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Snit wrote:
>
>
> [Snip]
>
> Why don't you two just get a room, bump uglies and be done with it?
I'm sure that this is much more satisfying for me than your suggestion
would be.
MuahMan
Edwin, Mayor, John, and very few others. The rest of you are insane. Graves
should be locked up. Alan should be in a padded room with daily shock
therapy treatments.
"Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote in message
news:411a5116$0$212$7586...@news.frii.net...
Snit
411a61b9$0$213$7586...@news.frii.net on 8/11/04 11:13 AM:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote in
>> 411a55b6$0$205$7586...@news.frii.net on 8/11/04 10:21 AM:
>>
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Elizabot, you have become far too much of a bore for me to reply directly
>>>> to
>>>> most of your posts - almost all of which are part of your obsessive attacks
>>>> against me.
>>>
>>> You realize when you start repeatedly posting these sorts of posts that
>>> it means the object of your post has won in some other debate, don't
>>> you? (It also makes you look like a nut.)
>>
>>
>> How does ignoring your lies and posting information about your character
>> suggest I have lost any debate?
>
> You ran away from the thread and started posting peresonal attacks,
> Snit. It's OBVIOUS. You really are stupid, aren't you.
The "personal attacks" you are in reference to is a reply to one of your old
posts about me... you did realize that, right?
As I have stated... I am growing bored with arguing against each and every
one of your lies. It gets old. It gets time consuming, and, frankly, you
are not worth it to me.
That leaves me with some options:
- reply to the new set of lies you tell
- ignore your lies
- post the old message that shows your character.
I will do any of those as I please when I please.
>> Keep in mind the pattern that has been set:
>>
>> You make an outrageous, unsupported claim (in this case that a specific
>> post was posted from a specific location).
>
> Actually, you made a claim that you refused to back up. *You* claimed it
> was from a public lab. But you are unwilling to say where.
I have no obligation to say where I have posted from. I am not claiming
anything against anyone based on it. You, on the other hand, have espoused
a claim *against* me which is based on a premise that I posted from a
particular place.
That premise has not been supported.
>
> Repeatedly.
>
> My claim is neither unsupported nor outrageous.
You really do not understand logic. If you want to come to a reasoned
conclusion, you *must* support your premises. The premise that the IP was
ever associated with my house has not been supported.
Logic simply is not your strong point. You seem to do research fairly well.
I suggest you stick to your strengths in public, and work on your weaknesses
in private until you can actually make a valid logical point.
>
> You are unwilling to discuss it in the appropriate thread, so you ignore
> it and start up this new thread of personal attacks against me.
LOL.... you see a response to *your* attacks against me as an attack against
you. Not *that* is funny.
>
> Just like you did with Steve and Sandman. It's your pattern when you are
> backed into a corner. Really totally pathetic and it fools no one.
I can and will do any of my three above options as I wish. You can whine
about it all you like. Your whining amuses me.
>
>> I point that out.
>>
>> You repeat the same claim.
>>
>> I point it out.
>>
>> You repeat the same claim.
>>
>> I point it out.
>>
>> You repeat the same claim.
>>
>> I point it out.
>>
>> You repeat the same claim.
>>
>> I point it out.
>>
>> Etc.
>
> Liar. Address it in the appropriate thread instead of here where it's
> out of context.
It has been addressed. You have zero support for the idea that IP was ever
associated with my house.
>
> Oh, wait, you think you can spin your lies better this way.
How can your lack of support be a lie on my part? Again... logic is not
your strong point.
>
>> It is not as though you are presenting any new claim or evidence. You are
>> repeating tired lies. Oh, and in your case, once you feel completely
>> beaten, you post thinly veiled threats about sending information to people
>> or companies I work for, reporting me to the police, or other BS.
>
> Whatever.
Seems you see your threats as just a matter of course. How sad for you.
>
> Why are you so incredibly unwilling to back up your claim that you post
> in a public lab? It would help with the sigmond issue (if you are
> telling the truth, that is).
In what way would it help? If I tell you, will you drop the claim about me
being sigmond? Somehow I doubt it. Tell you what... if you, Steve Carroll,
Steve Mackay, and Sandman will *all* agree - publicly - to drop the attack
against me I will tell you.
You see... that will *never* happen. Trolls will be trolls. You will never
let the facts stop you from trolling.
Prove me wrong... work to get that agreement. You would not even agree to
admit the sigmond FAQ is filled with deceptions. You would simply say I was
lying again.
Knowing that - what is the point of telling you?
Keep in mind: I have *no* obligation to reveal anything about my life to you
or to anyone in csma. If you are going to make a claim about me, you are
obligated - by logic - to support it, or accept that it is a logically
unsupported claim.
Or you can ignore logic as you have been doing. Feel free... but it is the
ignoring of logic that is leading you to be a total bore.
Remember when you claimed the order of presentation affected the rationality
or validity of an argument? You finally dropped that... once I taught you
how silly that was.
I have no desire to teach you any more.
>
>> Instead of playing your silly game, I will just, from time to time at least,
>> post information about you... based on *your* words... I will do so as I
>> please... and I will respond to you or ignore you as I please.
>
> *My* words? LOL. I scanned down to the bottom and all I saw was a bunch
> of crap that *you* had written about me. I didn't look all that closely
> though.
You should look up the word "based". You should also take a comprehension
course. And a logic class.
>
>> I will give you a hint: I am less likely to respond to tired old lies you
>> have repeated multiple times.
>
> I haven't been telling any lies. It always comes down to you accusing
> your opponents of telling lies when you, in fact, are the liar.
Actually I am just asking now for support. Of course, I know the support
does not exist because the premise is a lie... but, hey, it is more fun to
ask the trolls to support a lie.
>
>> If you want to entice me to spend time on
>> you, you will need to come up with new material. Even then, I may just
>> ignore it or post info about you... after all, I have no need or desire to
>> "play" by your rules.
>
> I don't care whether or not you respond to my posts.
LOL. That may be the least believable thing you have ever written. Keep in
mind your obsession with me is very well documented.
>
>> Enjoy being an obsessive and immature troll all you like. Your games are
>> boring and potentially dangerous.
>
> You're the immature little troll who won't back up his claim about the
> public lab, Snit. Spin it any way you like, you still look like the liar
> you are.
LOL. The funny thing is I think you are beginning to believe this!
Snit
5fpkh01819t7tr8io...@4ax.com on 8/11/04 11:39 AM:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:13:13 -0600, Elizabot
> <toolittl...@poo.com> chose to bless us with the following
> wisdom:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote in
>>> 411a55b6$0$205$7586...@news.frii.net on 8/11/04 10:21 AM:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Snit wrote:
>
> [Snip]
>
> Why don't you two just get a room, bump uglies and be done with it?
>
>
She has already claimed the "nailed" me.
Snit
JcvSc.1485$8I2...@bignews6.bellsouth.net on 8/11/04 1:21 PM:
> Most of you in this group are nutty. The only notable exceptions are myself,
> Edwin, Mayor, John, and very few others. The rest of you are insane. Graves
> should be locked up. Alan should be in a padded room with daily shock
> therapy treatments.
Edwin sane? Mayor? Come on... you can not be serious.
Elizabot
> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote in
> 411a61b9$0$213$7586...@news.frii.net on 8/11/04 11:13 AM:
>
>
>>Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote in
>>>411a55b6$0$205$7586...@news.frii.net on 8/11/04 10:21 AM:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Elizabot, you have become far too much of a bore for me to reply directly
>>>>>to
>>>>>most of your posts - almost all of which are part of your obsessive attacks
>>>>>against me.
>>>>
>>>>You realize when you start repeatedly posting these sorts of posts that
>>>>it means the object of your post has won in some other debate, don't
>>>>you? (It also makes you look like a nut.)
>>>
>>>
>>>How does ignoring your lies and posting information about your character
>>>suggest I have lost any debate?
>>
>>You ran away from the thread and started posting peresonal attacks,
>>Snit. It's OBVIOUS. You really are stupid, aren't you.
>
>
> The "personal attacks" you are in reference to is a reply to one of your old
> posts about me... you did realize that, right?
My post was in response to your personal attacks. It is well documented
that you are sigmond and that sigmond made perverted posts about me.
I don't see the truth as a personal attack.
> As I have stated... I am growing bored with arguing against each and every
> one of your lies. It gets old. It gets time consuming, and, frankly, you
> are not worth it to me.
In other words, you've told too many lies and have confused yourself and
can't keep your lies straight.
> That leaves me with some options:
>
> - reply to the new set of lies you tell
> - ignore your lies
> - post the old message that shows your character.
>
> I will do any of those as I please when I please.
Or you could quit pretending that I'm doing the lying here and admit the
truth that you're the liar.
>>>Keep in mind the pattern that has been set:
>>>
>>> You make an outrageous, unsupported claim (in this case that a specific
>>> post was posted from a specific location).
>>
>>Actually, you made a claim that you refused to back up. *You* claimed it
>>was from a public lab. But you are unwilling to say where.
>
>
> I have no obligation to say where I have posted from. I am not claiming
> anything against anyone based on it. You, on the other hand, have espoused
> a claim *against* me which is based on a premise that I posted from a
> particular place.
You've stated that you've posted from those places.
You haven't substantiated any of those claims either.
> That premise has not been supported.
Your premise that you have posted from a public lab came previous to my
other theories.
If you'd be honest...
What the hell am I saying? You'll never be honest.
>>Repeatedly.
>>
>>My claim is neither unsupported nor outrageous.
>
>
> You really do not understand logic. If you want to come to a reasoned
> conclusion, you *must* support your premises. The premise that the IP was
> ever associated with my house has not been supported.
You originally "joked" it was from your house and NEVER cleared it up
and continue not to.
Being evasive and telling lies is very natural to you, isn't it.
> Logic simply is not your strong point. You seem to do research fairly well.
> I suggest you stick to your strengths in public, and work on your weaknesses
> in private until you can actually make a valid logical point.
You want me to do more research on you? ok. At this point it needs to
turn to letter writing. Have any addresses for me? I'm feeling lazy at
the moment.
>>You are unwilling to discuss it in the appropriate thread, so you ignore
>>it and start up this new thread of personal attacks against me.
>
>
> LOL.... you see a response to *your* attacks against me as an attack against
> you. Not *that* is funny.
Learn to read, Snit. That's not what I said. Maybe I should type more
slowly for you.
>>Just like you did with Steve and Sandman. It's your pattern when you are
>>backed into a corner. Really totally pathetic and it fools no one.
>
>
> I can and will do any of my three above options as I wish. You can whine
> about it all you like. Your whining amuses me.
Whatever.
>>> I point that out.
>>>
>>> You repeat the same claim.
>>>
>>> I point it out.
>>>
>>> You repeat the same claim.
>>>
>>> I point it out.
>>>
>>> You repeat the same claim.
>>>
>>> I point it out.
>>>
>>> You repeat the same claim.
>>>
>>> I point it out.
>>>
>>> Etc.
>>
>>Liar. Address it in the appropriate thread instead of here where it's
>>out of context.
>
>
> It has been addressed. You have zero support for the idea that IP was ever
> associated with my house.
You said it yourself and then months later you backtracked and claimed
it was a joke.
That is NOT zero support. It means you were lying when you changed your
story to posting from a public lab.
>>Oh, wait, you think you can spin your lies better this way.
>
>
> How can your lack of support be a lie on my part? Again... logic is not
> your strong point.
Again, you said it was from your house yourself. You are not being
logical *at all.*
>>>It is not as though you are presenting any new claim or evidence. You are
>>>repeating tired lies. Oh, and in your case, once you feel completely
>>>beaten, you post thinly veiled threats about sending information to people
>>>or companies I work for, reporting me to the police, or other BS.
>>
>>Whatever.
>
>
> Seems you see your threats as just a matter of course. How sad for you.
No, it means you are full of yourself and I'm not in the mood to address
your each and every lie. It's tiring to address all so many of your
lies. You blather on so much.
>>Why are you so incredibly unwilling to back up your claim that you post
>>in a public lab? It would help with the sigmond issue (if you are
>>telling the truth, that is).
>
>
> In what way would it help? If I tell you, will you drop the claim about me
> being sigmond? Somehow I doubt it. Tell you what... if you, Steve Carroll,
> Steve Mackay, and Sandman will *all* agree - publicly - to drop the attack
> against me I will tell you.
I will not tell lies just to get you to tell the truth.
> You see... that will *never* happen. Trolls will be trolls. You will never
> let the facts stop you from trolling.
I will not tell lies just to get you to tell the truth.
> Prove me wrong... work to get that agreement. You would not even agree to
> admit the sigmond FAQ is filled with deceptions. You would simply say I was
> lying again.
Now you're changing what you want. Now you want us to drop the "attack"
and retract what we've said?
I will not tell lies just to get you to tell the truth.
> Knowing that - what is the point of telling you?
Go ahead and continue to look like a liar if you want. I find it amusing.
> Keep in mind: I have *no* obligation to reveal anything about my life to you
> or to anyone in csma. If you are going to make a claim about me, you are
> obligated - by logic - to support it, or accept that it is a logically
> unsupported claim.
Then you need to learn not to make claims that you refuse to back up
because you decide it's too personal.
> Or you can ignore logic as you have been doing. Feel free... but it is the
> ignoring of logic that is leading you to be a total bore.
You mean it's not logical to assume that you use the lab at the college
that you used to "teach" your windows class?
LOL! You're an idiot.
> Remember when you claimed the order of presentation affected the rationality
> or validity of an argument? You finally dropped that... once I taught you
> how silly that was.
Liar. You have *no* idea what I know.
> I have no desire to teach you any more.
Then kill file me!
>>>Instead of playing your silly game, I will just, from time to time at least,
>>>post information about you... based on *your* words... I will do so as I
>>>please... and I will respond to you or ignore you as I please.
>>
>>*My* words? LOL. I scanned down to the bottom and all I saw was a bunch
>>of crap that *you* had written about me. I didn't look all that closely
>>though.
>
>
> You should look up the word "based". You should also take a comprehension
> course. And a logic class.
This means nothing coming from a wacko liar like yourself.
>>>I will give you a hint: I am less likely to respond to tired old lies you
>>>have repeated multiple times.
>>
>>I haven't been telling any lies. It always comes down to you accusing
>>your opponents of telling lies when you, in fact, are the liar.
>
>
> Actually I am just asking now for support. Of course, I know the support
> does not exist because the premise is a lie... but, hey, it is more fun to
> ask the trolls to support a lie.
So the premise that you posted from a public lab is a lie. Thanks for
finally admitting this.
>>> If you want to entice me to spend time on
>>>you, you will need to come up with new material. Even then, I may just
>>>ignore it or post info about you... after all, I have no need or desire to
>>>"play" by your rules.
>>
>>I don't care whether or not you respond to my posts.
>
>
> LOL. That may be the least believable thing you have ever written. Keep in
> mind your obsession with me is very well documented.
You and I have about the same number of posts to each other. That's not
obsession, that's an equal correspondence.
And don't tell me my percentages are higher - that only means you
blabber a hell of a lot more than I do.
I've already told you this but you continue to ignore it. You really
need to study logic.
>>>Enjoy being an obsessive and immature troll all you like. Your games are
>>>boring and potentially dangerous.
>>
>>You're the immature little troll who won't back up his claim about the
>>public lab, Snit. Spin it any way you like, you still look like the liar
>>you are.
>
>
> LOL. The funny thing is I think you are beginning to believe this!
LOL. Beginning to believe? I've believed it all along!
Snit
411a8cc5$0$208$7586...@news.frii.net on 8/11/04 2:16 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote in
>> 411a61b9$0$213$7586...@news.frii.net on 8/11/04 11:13 AM:
>>
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote in
>>>> 411a55b6$0$205$7586...@news.frii.net on 8/11/04 10:21 AM:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Elizabot, you have become far too much of a bore for me to reply directly
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> most of your posts - almost all of which are part of your obsessive
>>>>>> attacks
>>>>>> against me.
>>>>>
>>>>> You realize when you start repeatedly posting these sorts of posts that
>>>>> it means the object of your post has won in some other debate, don't
>>>>> you? (It also makes you look like a nut.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How does ignoring your lies and posting information about your character
>>>> suggest I have lost any debate?
>>>
>>> You ran away from the thread and started posting peresonal attacks,
>>> Snit. It's OBVIOUS. You really are stupid, aren't you.
>>
>>
>> The "personal attacks" you are in reference to is a reply to one of your old
>> posts about me... you did realize that, right?
>
> My post was in response to your personal attacks. It is well documented
> that you are sigmond and that sigmond made perverted posts about me.
You mean the sigmond FAQ which has been shown to be based on at least 24
deceptions? That "well documented" claim. LOL. Whatever.
>
> I don't see the truth as a personal attack.
Yet you referred to the truth as "personal attacks" above. Why the flip
flop from you?
>
>> As I have stated... I am growing bored with arguing against each and every
>> one of your lies. It gets old. It gets time consuming, and, frankly, you
>> are not worth it to me.
>
> In other words, you've told too many lies and have confused yourself and
> can't keep your lies straight.
I do no accept your re-characterization of my comments. You are merely
trolling.
>
>> That leaves me with some options:
>>
>> - reply to the new set of lies you tell
>> - ignore your lies
>> - post the old message that shows your character.
>>
>> I will do any of those as I please when I please.
>
> Or you could quit pretending that I'm doing the lying here and admit the
> truth that you're the liar.
How can my asking you to support a claim be a lie?
You really *need* a logic class.
>
>>>> Keep in mind the pattern that has been set:
>>>>
>>>> You make an outrageous, unsupported claim (in this case that a specific
>>>> post was posted from a specific location).
>>>
>>> Actually, you made a claim that you refused to back up. *You* claimed it
>>> was from a public lab. But you are unwilling to say where.
>>
>>
>> I have no obligation to say where I have posted from. I am not claiming
>> anything against anyone based on it. You, on the other hand, have espoused
>> a claim *against* me which is based on a premise that I posted from a
>> particular place.
>
> You've stated that you've posted from those places.
>
> You haven't substantiated any of those claims either.
Nor do I have any obligation to. Do you still not see the difference
between a comment about where I have or have not been and an accusation
against someone else?
>
>> That premise has not been supported.
>
> Your premise that you have posted from a public lab came previous to my
> other theories.
>
> If you'd be honest...
>
> What the hell am I saying? You'll never be honest.
I have no obligation to tell you where I have posted from or where I have
been - no matter how much you beg me to tell you.
Get over it, Elizabot, I am not going to tell you about my personal life.
You know too much already... it is actually quite bothersome to have someone
as obsessed as yourself beg to know about my life. Please stop begging.
>
>>> Repeatedly.
>>>
>>> My claim is neither unsupported nor outrageous.
>>
>>
>> You really do not understand logic. If you want to come to a reasoned
>> conclusion, you *must* support your premises. The premise that the IP was
>> ever associated with my house has not been supported.
>
> You originally "joked" it was from your house and NEVER cleared it up
> and continue not to.
Wow... I used sarcasm in response to an outrageous claim in csma. I am sure
it is the first time that happened, right? :)
>
> Being evasive and telling lies is very natural to you, isn't it.
Nope. But I see you are doing that. And begging to know about my personal
life. Damned obsessed troll... get over it. I am not going to tell you
about my personal life.
>
>> Logic simply is not your strong point. You seem to do research fairly well.
>> I suggest you stick to your strengths in public, and work on your weaknesses
>> in private until you can actually make a valid logical point.
>
> You want me to do more research on you? ok. At this point it needs to
> turn to letter writing. Have any addresses for me? I'm feeling lazy at
> the moment.
Yeah, write to your college... tell them you need a class in logic.
>
>>> You are unwilling to discuss it in the appropriate thread, so you ignore
>>> it and start up this new thread of personal attacks against me.
>>
>>
>> LOL.... you see a response to *your* attacks against me as an attack against
>> you. Not *that* is funny.
>
> Learn to read, Snit. That's not what I said. Maybe I should type more
> slowly for you.
You refer to a response to your attacks against me as a personal attack
against you. It *is* exactly what your claim is.
Again, you need a logic class... and maybe a writing class.
Call your local college... maybe you communicate better that way.
>
>>> Just like you did with Steve and Sandman. It's your pattern when you are
>>> backed into a corner. Really totally pathetic and it fools no one.
>>
>>
>> I can and will do any of my three above options as I wish. You can whine
>> about it all you like. Your whining amuses me.
>
> Whatever.
LOL. Now that is funny!
>
>>>> I point that out.
>>>>
>>>> You repeat the same claim.
>>>>
>>>> I point it out.
>>>>
>>>> You repeat the same claim.
>>>>
>>>> I point it out.
>>>>
>>>> You repeat the same claim.
>>>>
>>>> I point it out.
>>>>
>>>> You repeat the same claim.
>>>>
>>>> I point it out.
>>>>
>>>> Etc.
>>>
>>> Liar. Address it in the appropriate thread instead of here where it's
>>> out of context.
>>
>>
>> It has been addressed. You have zero support for the idea that IP was ever
>> associated with my house.
>
> You said it yourself and then months later you backtracked and claimed
> it was a joke.
Wow... can I patent the concept of replying to silly attacks with sarcasm...
seems new to you.
>
> That is NOT zero support. It means you were lying when you changed your
> story to posting from a public lab.
You really need to look up the word sarcasm.
>
>>> Oh, wait, you think you can spin your lies better this way.
>>
>>
>> How can your lack of support be a lie on my part? Again... logic is not
>> your strong point.
>
> Again, you said it was from your house yourself. You are not being
> logical *at all.*
Sarcasm. Look it up, Elizabot. It would do you some good.
Hmmm, if you want to base your view of "truth" on that sarcastic remark - do
you accept that it was a burglar who posted and not me... or are you
selectively accepting sarcasm as truth today?
Let me guess... you are being selective in what sarcasm you want to take
seriously...
>
>>>> It is not as though you are presenting any new claim or evidence. You are
>>>> repeating tired lies. Oh, and in your case, once you feel completely
>>>> beaten, you post thinly veiled threats about sending information to people
>>>> or companies I work for, reporting me to the police, or other BS.
>>>
>>> Whatever.
>>
>>
>> Seems you see your threats as just a matter of course. How sad for you.
>
> No, it means you are full of yourself and I'm not in the mood to address
> your each and every lie. It's tiring to address all so many of your
> lies. You blather on so much.
If I am full of myself, why is it *you* who is *begging* to know about my
private life. Begging... silly immature troll... you are begging to know
where I was when I posted to *another* news group about topics that had
nothing to do with anything dealing with csma.
Stop begging to know about my life. Your begging is not as amusing as your
trolling.
>
>>> Why are you so incredibly unwilling to back up your claim that you post
>>> in a public lab? It would help with the sigmond issue (if you are
>>> telling the truth, that is).
>>
>>
>> In what way would it help? If I tell you, will you drop the claim about me
>> being sigmond? Somehow I doubt it. Tell you what... if you, Steve Carroll,
>> Steve Mackay, and Sandman will *all* agree - publicly - to drop the attack
>> against me I will tell you.
>
> I will not tell lies just to get you to tell the truth.
Wait... above you implied if I posted where I was it would help stop the
trolling against me... now you back track.
Please tell me, oh obsessive troll, what good would it do to tell you where
I was? Come on... this should be good. Is there any reason other than your
obsession to know all about me and where I have been? What is in it for me?
>
>> You see... that will *never* happen. Trolls will be trolls. You will never
>> let the facts stop you from trolling.
>
> I will not tell lies just to get you to tell the truth.
Seems clear: there is no incentive for me to share anything with you about
my private life... yet you still beg to know all about me.
You really need to seek help.
>
>> Prove me wrong... work to get that agreement. You would not even agree to
>> admit the sigmond FAQ is filled with deceptions. You would simply say I was
>> lying again.
>
> Now you're changing what you want. Now you want us to drop the "attack"
> and retract what we've said?
>
> I will not tell lies just to get you to tell the truth.
The question is if you will tell the truth about your lack of support for
your claim. Will you?
I have already told you I will not share my personal life with you... no
matter how much you beg, no matter how much name calling you do. I will not
give in to your obsession.
>
>> Knowing that - what is the point of telling you?
>
> Go ahead and continue to look like a liar if you want. I find it amusing.
Not telling you - an obsessed immature troll - about my private life makes
me look like a liar to who?
Keep in mind... *you* are the one with the accusation that is unsupported.
Not I. I simply am not telling you where I happened to be on one particular
day.
>> Keep in mind: I have *no* obligation to reveal anything about my life to you
>> or to anyone in csma. If you are going to make a claim about me, you are
>> obligated - by logic - to support it, or accept that it is a logically
>> unsupported claim.
>
> Then you need to learn not to make claims that you refuse to back up
> because you decide it's too personal.
LOL... I never made a claim.... other than the I was not at my house. I
have no obligation to "back that up". Why are you so offended I will not
tell you where I was? Why are you so obsessed? You are a sick and sad
little troll begging to know where I was.
>
>> Or you can ignore logic as you have been doing. Feel free... but it is the
>> ignoring of logic that is leading you to be a total bore.
>
> You mean it's not logical to assume that you use the lab at the college
> that you used to "teach" your windows class?
What does that have to do with your claim that I posted from home?
nothing... absolutely nothing.
>
> LOL! You're an idiot.
Because I can see through your lies? Oh... you are just name calling to
hide the fact that you have no support for your accusation.
>
>> Remember when you claimed the order of presentation affected the rationality
>> or validity of an argument? You finally dropped that... once I taught you
>> how silly that was.
>
> Liar. You have *no* idea what I know.
And get this: I do not care.
Notice I do not beg you to know where you have been. I simply ask you to
support accusations you make... accusations you can not support.
You do not see how a claim is different from an accusation, do you?
>
>> I have no desire to teach you any more.
>
> Then kill file me!
Well, that would teach you a lesson. :)
>
>>>> Instead of playing your silly game, I will just, from time to time at
>>>> least,
>>>> post information about you... based on *your* words... I will do so as I
>>>> please... and I will respond to you or ignore you as I please.
>>>
>>> *My* words? LOL. I scanned down to the bottom and all I saw was a bunch
>>> of crap that *you* had written about me. I didn't look all that closely
>>> though.
>>
>>
>> You should look up the word "based". You should also take a comprehension
>> course. And a logic class.
>
> This means nothing coming from a wacko liar like yourself.
Wow... when you have no reasoned response you just fall to name calling.
Did you spend the time to look up the word "based"? Bet you that you
didn't. LOL. You should have.
>
>>>> I will give you a hint: I am less likely to respond to tired old lies you
>>>> have repeated multiple times.
>>>
>>> I haven't been telling any lies. It always comes down to you accusing
>>> your opponents of telling lies when you, in fact, are the liar.
>>
>>
>> Actually I am just asking now for support. Of course, I know the support
>> does not exist because the premise is a lie... but, hey, it is more fun to
>> ask the trolls to support a lie.
>
> So the premise that you posted from a public lab is a lie. Thanks for
> finally admitting this.
Lie. Is that your claim now... that I posted from a public lab? Make up
your mind what your accusation is based on.
>
>>>> If you want to entice me to spend time on
>>>> you, you will need to come up with new material. Even then, I may just
>>>> ignore it or post info about you... after all, I have no need or desire to
>>>> "play" by your rules.
>>>
>>> I don't care whether or not you respond to my posts.
>>
>>
>> LOL. That may be the least believable thing you have ever written. Keep in
>> mind your obsession with me is very well documented.
>
> You and I have about the same number of posts to each other. That's not
> obsession, that's an equal correspondence.
It is not just the number of posts... it is what the posts are about. Look
at the post that started this thread... it gives lots of info. In case you
missed it... I will repost.
Even look at this post... you are *begging* to know about my private life...
about where I post from. *That* is clearly obsessive behavior.
>
> And don't tell me my percentages are higher - that only means you
> blabber a hell of a lot more than I do.
I do not have to tell you that your percentages are higher - we both know
it.
>
> I've already told you this but you continue to ignore it. You really
> need to study logic.
I note that you ignore 99% of the support that shows your obsession. Funny
how you do that, eh?
>
>>>> Enjoy being an obsessive and immature troll all you like. Your games are
>>>> boring and potentially dangerous.
>>>
>>> You're the immature little troll who won't back up his claim about the
>>> public lab, Snit. Spin it any way you like, you still look like the liar
>>> you are.
>>
>>
>> LOL. The funny thing is I think you are beginning to believe this!
>
> LOL. Beginning to believe? I've believed it all along!
Now *that* is funny.
You keep trying to insult me for not sharing my private life with ... get
this... YOU!
LOL.
Snit
most of your posts - almost all of which are part of your obsessive attacks
against me.
Instead of pointing out whatever new lies you fling around about me, I will
just post this e-mail whenever you start lying, trolling, and attacking me
(well, if I can keep up - chances are you will post more lies than I can
keep up with).
This post should serve as a reasonable reference for your character for any
new people - even lurkers - of csma.
In any case, I enjoy repeatedly posting the info - who knows, maybe one day
you will actually grow a backbone, act like an adult, and face your own
lies.
And pigs *could* someday fly... right? :)
http://www.google.com/search?q=define:+erotomanic&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
http://home.earthlink.net/~krwenger/mhjargon.htm
http://www.google.com/search?q=define:+obsess
-----
Mayor of R'lyeh
>Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:13:13 -0600, Elizabot
>> <toolittl...@poo.com> chose to bless us with the following
>> wisdom:
>>
>>
>>>Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote in
>>>>411a55b6$0$205$7586...@news.frii.net on 8/11/04 10:21 AM:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>> [Snip]
>>
>> Why don't you two just get a room, bump uglies and be done with it?
>
>I'm sure that this is much more satisfying for me than your suggestion
>would be.
Could rewrite this to make sense after you sober up?
Alan Baker
This coming from the man who will blatantly forge the replies of
others...
(Yes: you can expect this to be my only reply to you for a very long
time. <g>)
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Mayor of R'lyeh
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>In article <muslh0dq1kh1qimrv...@4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:41:49 -0600, Elizabot
>> <toolittl...@poo.com> chose to bless us with the following
>> wisdom:
>>
>> >Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:13:13 -0600, Elizabot
>> >> <toolittl...@poo.com> chose to bless us with the following
>> >> wisdom:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>Snit wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>"Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote in
>> >>>>411a55b6$0$205$7586...@news.frii.net on 8/11/04 10:21 AM:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>Snit wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> [Snip]
>> >>
>> >> Why don't you two just get a room, bump uglies and be done with it?
>> >
>> >I'm sure that this is much more satisfying for me than your suggestion
>> >would be.
>>
>> Could rewrite this to make sense after you sober up?
>
>This coming from the man who will blatantly forge the replies of
>others...
You get what you're worth from me. Its not my fault that you're not
worth much.
>
>(Yes: you can expect this to be my only reply to you for a very long
>time. <g>)
This is your third 'last reply' to me tonight.
Alan Baker
And thank you for admitting it.
>
> >
> >(Yes: you can expect this to be my only reply to you for a very long
> >time. <g>)
>
> This is your third 'last reply' to me tonight.
Your misreading of what I said is hardly my problem.
Mayor of R'lyeh
You seem to reading what you want to into things. That's not a
surprise coming from someone who knowingly lied about me for a year.
>
>>
>> >
>> >(Yes: you can expect this to be my only reply to you for a very long
>> >time. <g>)
>>
>> This is your third 'last reply' to me tonight.
>
>Your misreading of what I said is hardly my problem.
Number 8. Apparently Alan can't stop himself from lying. They have
progerams for your condition, Alan. Get help.
Alan Baker
Mayor of R'lyeh
Alan Baker
Mayor of R'lyeh
Alan Baker
Elizabot
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:41:49 -0600, Elizabot
> <toolittl...@poo.com> chose to bless us with the following
> wisdom:
>
>
>>Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:13:13 -0600, Elizabot
>>><toolittl...@poo.com> chose to bless us with the following
>>>wisdom:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote in
>>>>>411a55b6$0$205$7586...@news.frii.net on 8/11/04 10:21 AM:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>[Snip]
>>>
>>>Why don't you two just get a room, bump uglies and be done with it?
>>
>>I'm sure that this is much more satisfying for me than your suggestion
>>would be.
>
>
> Could rewrite this to make sense after you sober up?
>
>
Perhaps you should try rereading it when you are sober.
Elizabot
Elizabot
I'm glad we agree that you made 24 decptions.
>>I don't see the truth as a personal attack.
>
>
> Yet you referred to the truth as "personal attacks" above. Why the flip
> flop from you?
The truth I tell <> your personal attacks against myself.
>>>As I have stated... I am growing bored with arguing against each and every
>>>one of your lies. It gets old. It gets time consuming, and, frankly, you
>>>are not worth it to me.
>>
>>In other words, you've told too many lies and have confused yourself and
>>can't keep your lies straight.
>
>
> I do no accept your re-characterization of my comments. You are merely
> trolling.
Neener neener. IKYABWAI!!
>>>That leaves me with some options:
>>>
>>>- reply to the new set of lies you tell
>>>- ignore your lies
>>>- post the old message that shows your character.
>>>
>>>I will do any of those as I please when I please.
>>
>>Or you could quit pretending that I'm doing the lying here and admit the
>>truth that you're the liar.
>
>
> How can my asking you to support a claim be a lie?
Quit playing stupid, stupid.
Support your original claim that you posted from a public lab. It's
quite simple, really.
> You really *need* a logic class.
Nobody's is fooled with this statement.
>>>>>Keep in mind the pattern that has been set:
>>>>>
>>>>> You make an outrageous, unsupported claim (in this case that a specific
>>>>> post was posted from a specific location).
>>>>
>>>>Actually, you made a claim that you refused to back up. *You* claimed it
>>>>was from a public lab. But you are unwilling to say where.
>>>
>>>
>>>I have no obligation to say where I have posted from. I am not claiming
>>>anything against anyone based on it. You, on the other hand, have espoused
>>>a claim *against* me which is based on a premise that I posted from a
>>>particular place.
>>
>>You've stated that you've posted from those places.
>>
>>You haven't substantiated any of those claims either.
>
>
> Nor do I have any obligation to.
Sure you do. Back up your claim. If you choose not to, then you have no
right to push others on the point.
> Do you still not see the difference
> between a comment about where I have or have not been and an accusation
> against someone else?
Sure I do. The real story is whether or not you are lying....
Wait. Nevermind. That's never been in contention either because you are
a well-known liar.
>>>That premise has not been supported.
>>
>>Your premise that you have posted from a public lab came previous to my
>>other theories.
>>
>>If you'd be honest...
>>
>>What the hell am I saying? You'll never be honest.
>
>
> I have no obligation to tell you where I have posted from or where I have
> been - no matter how much you beg me to tell you.
Snit's a liar!! He's a chickenshit!!
> Get over it, Elizabot, I am not going to tell you about my personal life.
> You know too much already... it is actually quite bothersome to have someone
> as obsessed as yourself beg to know about my life. Please stop begging.
I already know where you're posting from, I like to watch you squirm,
worm. That's what bugs you so much!
If you only listened to what the police told you ~6 months, you wouldn't
have dug yourself such a deep pit.
It must suck to be as stupid and bullheaded as you. You are a true fucktard.
>>>>Repeatedly.
>>>>
>>>>My claim is neither unsupported nor outrageous.
>>>
>>>
>>>You really do not understand logic. If you want to come to a reasoned
>>>conclusion, you *must* support your premises. The premise that the IP was
>>>ever associated with my house has not been supported.
>>
>>You originally "joked" it was from your house and NEVER cleared it up
>>and continue not to.
>
>
> Wow... I used sarcasm in response to an outrageous claim in csma. I am sure
> it is the first time that happened, right? :)
Your overuse of "sarcasm" has been noted....AGAIN.
Steve Carroll pegged you when he said to you "So... when you tell a lie
it is a 'mistake'... when you troll, it is a'joke'. I see how it works:)"
>>Being evasive and telling lies is very natural to you, isn't it.
>
>
> Nope. But I see you are doing that. And begging to know about my personal
> life. Damned obsessed troll... get over it. I am not going to tell you
> about my personal life.
You have no personal life. Deal with it.
>>>Logic simply is not your strong point. You seem to do research fairly well.
>>>I suggest you stick to your strengths in public, and work on your weaknesses
>>>in private until you can actually make a valid logical point.
>>
>>You want me to do more research on you? ok. At this point it needs to
>>turn to letter writing. Have any addresses for me? I'm feeling lazy at
>>the moment.
>
>
> Yeah, write to your college... tell them you need a class in logic.
I aced plenty of those courses. You wouldn't even get accepted into the
college I went to.
>>>>You are unwilling to discuss it in the appropriate thread, so you ignore
>>>>it and start up this new thread of personal attacks against me.
>>>
>>>
>>>LOL.... you see a response to *your* attacks against me as an attack against
>>>you. Not *that* is funny.
>>
>>Learn to read, Snit. That's not what I said. Maybe I should type more
>>slowly for you.
>
>
> You refer to a response to your attacks against me as a personal attack
> against you. It *is* exactly what your claim is.
>
> Again, you need a logic class... and maybe a writing class.
>
> Call your local college... maybe you communicate better that way.
You wouldn't even get accepted into my "local" college! LMAO!!
>>>>Just like you did with Steve and Sandman. It's your pattern when you are
>>>>backed into a corner. Really totally pathetic and it fools no one.
>>>
>>>
>>>I can and will do any of my three above options as I wish. You can whine
>>>about it all you like. Your whining amuses me.
>>
>>Whatever.
>
>
> LOL. Now that is funny!
Interesting. Most of my humor is too subtle for you to understand.
>>>>> I point that out.
>>>>>
>>>>> You repeat the same claim.
>>>>>
>>>>> I point it out.
>>>>>
>>>>> You repeat the same claim.
>>>>>
>>>>> I point it out.
>>>>>
>>>>> You repeat the same claim.
>>>>>
>>>>> I point it out.
>>>>>
>>>>> You repeat the same claim.
>>>>>
>>>>> I point it out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Etc.
>>>>
>>>>Liar. Address it in the appropriate thread instead of here where it's
>>>>out of context.
>>>
>>>
>>>It has been addressed. You have zero support for the idea that IP was ever
>>>associated with my house.
>>
>>You said it yourself and then months later you backtracked and claimed
>>it was a joke.
>
>
> Wow... can I patent the concept of replying to silly attacks with sarcasm...
> seems new to you.
Sarcasm is child's play. But then again, you have the humor of a 6 year old.
>>That is NOT zero support. It means you were lying when you changed your
>>story to posting from a public lab.
>
>
> You really need to look up the word sarcasm.
Whatever!
>>>>Oh, wait, you think you can spin your lies better this way.
>>>
>>>
>>>How can your lack of support be a lie on my part? Again... logic is not
>>>your strong point.
>>
>>Again, you said it was from your house yourself. You are not being
>>logical *at all.*
>
>
> Sarcasm. Look it up, Elizabot. It would do you some good.
Whatever!
> Hmmm, if you want to base your view of "truth" on that sarcastic remark - do
> you accept that it was a burglar who posted and not me... or are you
> selectively accepting sarcasm as truth today?
You were actually burgled? Sounds painful.
> Let me guess... you are being selective in what sarcasm you want to take
> seriously...
I'm having fun! Are you telling me that all this time you've been
serious? LMAO!
>>>>>It is not as though you are presenting any new claim or evidence. You are
>>>>>repeating tired lies. Oh, and in your case, once you feel completely
>>>>>beaten, you post thinly veiled threats about sending information to people
>>>>>or companies I work for, reporting me to the police, or other BS.
>>>>
>>>>Whatever.
>>>
>>>
>>>Seems you see your threats as just a matter of course. How sad for you.
>>
>>No, it means you are full of yourself and I'm not in the mood to address
>>your each and every lie. It's tiring to address all so many of your
>>lies. You blather on so much.
>
>
> If I am full of myself, why is it *you* who is *begging* to know about my
> private life.
LMAO! I know all I need to know about you, Snit, and you are a sad sick
person.
>Begging... silly immature troll... you are begging to know
> where I was when I posted to *another* news group about topics that had
> nothing to do with anything dealing with csma.
Your attempts to obfuscate the truth confuse nobody.
> Stop begging to know about my life. Your begging is not as amusing as your
> trolling.
More attempts at obfuscation. No surprise, really.
>>>>Why are you so incredibly unwilling to back up your claim that you post
>>>>in a public lab? It would help with the sigmond issue (if you are
>>>>telling the truth, that is).
>>>
>>>
>>>In what way would it help? If I tell you, will you drop the claim about me
>>>being sigmond? Somehow I doubt it. Tell you what... if you, Steve Carroll,
>>>Steve Mackay, and Sandman will *all* agree - publicly - to drop the attack
>>>against me I will tell you.
>>
>>I will not tell lies just to get you to tell the truth.
>
>
> Wait... above you implied if I posted where I was it would help stop the
> trolling against me... now you back track.
OMG! I mentioned you were backtracking and now you state that *I* am!
Get some new material, wouldja!?!
> Please tell me, oh obsessive troll, what good would it do to tell you where
> I was? Come on... this should be good. Is there any reason other than your
> obsession to know all about me and where I have been? What is in it for me?
I don't care what's "in it" for you. Get it through your thick head.
>>>You see... that will *never* happen. Trolls will be trolls. You will never
>>>let the facts stop you from trolling.
>>
>>I will not tell lies just to get you to tell the truth.
>
>
> Seems clear: there is no incentive for me to share anything with you about
> my private life... yet you still beg to know all about me.
>
> You really need to seek help.
Boring.
>>>Prove me wrong... work to get that agreement. You would not even agree to
>>>admit the sigmond FAQ is filled with deceptions. You would simply say I was
>>>lying again.
>>
>>Now you're changing what you want. Now you want us to drop the "attack"
>>and retract what we've said?
>>
>>I will not tell lies just to get you to tell the truth.
>
>
> The question is if you will tell the truth about your lack of support for
> your claim. Will you?
The real question is are you willing to back up your claim that someone
burgled your house and/or you and/or "sigmond" were posting from a
public lab? (I know that you get awfully confused with and/or
statements, so I typed that last sentence really slowly for you.)
> I have already told you I will not share my personal life with you... no
> matter how much you beg, no matter how much name calling you do. I will not
> give in to your obsession.
If you are that frightened by my alleged obsession, then why do you
continue to feed "it"?
>>>Knowing that - what is the point of telling you?
>>
>>Go ahead and continue to look like a liar if you want. I find it amusing.
>
>
> Not telling you - an obsessed immature troll - about my private life makes
> me look like a liar to who?
CSMA. Or is that the world? They seem to be one and the same to you, troll.
> Keep in mind... *you* are the one with the accusation that is unsupported.
> Not I.
Says the guy who "jokingly" claimed that someone broke into his house.
> I simply am not telling you where I happened to be on one particular
> day.
Guess where I was yesterday? I'm not telling!
>
>>>Keep in mind: I have *no* obligation to reveal anything about my life to you
>>>or to anyone in csma. If you are going to make a claim about me, you are
>>>obligated - by logic - to support it, or accept that it is a logically
>>>unsupported claim.
>>
>>Then you need to learn not to make claims that you refuse to back up
>>because you decide it's too personal.
>
>
> LOL... I never made a claim.... other than the I was not at my house. I
> have no obligation to "back that up". Why are you so offended I will not
> tell you where I was? Why are you so obsessed? You are a sick and sad
> little troll begging to know where I was.
I'm not offended that you wish to continue to make yourself out as a
liar. In fact, it amuses me greatly.
>>>Or you can ignore logic as you have been doing. Feel free... but it is the
>>>ignoring of logic that is leading you to be a total bore.
>>
>>You mean it's not logical to assume that you use the lab at the college
>>that you used to "teach" your windows class?
>
>
> What does that have to do with your claim that I posted from home?
> nothing... absolutely nothing.
>
>>LOL! You're an idiot.
>
>
> Because I can see through your lies? Oh... you are just name calling to
> hide the fact that you have no support for your accusation.
I've already given that support. Perhaps you should take some herbal
medicine to help increase your memory. Shit, I forget what it's called.
>>>Remember when you claimed the order of presentation affected the rationality
>>>or validity of an argument? You finally dropped that... once I taught you
>>>how silly that was.
>>
>>Liar. You have *no* idea what I know.
>
>
> And get this: I do not care.
Agreed: I don't care that you don't care also.
> Notice I do not beg you to know where you have been. I simply ask you to
> support accusations you make... accusations you can not support.
Take them darned memory pills, Snit. It'll help you remember what lies
you've told.
> You do not see how a claim is different from an accusation, do you?
Sure I do, liar!
>>>I have no desire to teach you any more.
>>
>>Then kill file me!
>
>
> Well, that would teach you a lesson. :)
LOL.
>>>>>Instead of playing your silly game, I will just, from time to time at
>>>>>least,
>>>>>post information about you... based on *your* words... I will do so as I
>>>>>please... and I will respond to you or ignore you as I please.
>>>>
>>>>*My* words? LOL. I scanned down to the bottom and all I saw was a bunch
>>>>of crap that *you* had written about me. I didn't look all that closely
>>>>though.
>>>
>>>
>>>You should look up the word "based". You should also take a comprehension
>>>course. And a logic class.
>>
>>This means nothing coming from a wacko liar like yourself.
>
>
> Wow... when you have no reasoned response you just fall to name calling.
Telling the truth is not name calling.
> Did you spend the time to look up the word "based"? Bet you that you
> didn't. LOL. You should have.
Why should I have? you are just as bossy as Nasty Nashton.
>>>>>I will give you a hint: I am less likely to respond to tired old lies you
>>>>>have repeated multiple times.
>>>>
>>>>I haven't been telling any lies. It always comes down to you accusing
>>>>your opponents of telling lies when you, in fact, are the liar.
>>>
>>>
>>>Actually I am just asking now for support. Of course, I know the support
>>>does not exist because the premise is a lie... but, hey, it is more fun to
>>>ask the trolls to support a lie.
>>
>>So the premise that you posted from a public lab is a lie. Thanks for
>>finally admitting this.
>
>
> Lie. Is that your claim now... that I posted from a public lab? Make up
> your mind what your accusation is based on.
Make up your mind which lie your are sticking with and stick to it, troll.
>>>>>If you want to entice me to spend time on
>>>>>you, you will need to come up with new material. Even then, I may just
>>>>>ignore it or post info about you... after all, I have no need or desire to
>>>>>"play" by your rules.
>>>>
>>>>I don't care whether or not you respond to my posts.
>>>
>>>
>>>LOL. That may be the least believable thing you have ever written. Keep in
>>>mind your obsession with me is very well documented.
>>
>>You and I have about the same number of posts to each other. That's not
>>obsession, that's an equal correspondence.
>
>
> It is not just the number of posts... it is what the posts are about. Look
> at the post that started this thread... it gives lots of info. In case you
> missed it... I will repost.
I'm not surprised. You do that when you get all riled up.
> Even look at this post... you are *begging* to know about my private life...
> about where I post from. *That* is clearly obsessive behavior.
I already know all that I need to know about your private life, loser.
>>And don't tell me my percentages are higher - that only means you
>>blabber a hell of a lot more than I do.
>
>
> I do not have to tell you that your percentages are higher - we both know
> it.
That's because you suffer from logorrhea. (Rhymes with diarrhea, cha cha
cha!)
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=logorrhea
>>I've already told you this but you continue to ignore it. You really
>>need to study logic.
>
>
> I note that you ignore 99% of the support that shows your obsession. Funny
> how you do that, eh?
Actually, it means I do not take your lies and attemopts to obfuscate
the truth to heart.
>>>>>Enjoy being an obsessive and immature troll all you like. Your games are
>>>>>boring and potentially dangerous.
>>>>
>>>>You're the immature little troll who won't back up his claim about the
>>>>public lab, Snit. Spin it any way you like, you still look like the liar
>>>>you are.
>>>
>>>
>>>LOL. The funny thing is I think you are beginning to believe this!
>>
>>LOL. Beginning to believe? I've believed it all along!
>
>
> Now *that* is funny.
>
> You keep trying to insult me for not sharing my private life with ... get
> this... YOU!
>
> LOL.
You really don't get it, do you!?!
LOL!