Just released today - Boot Camp Drivers Update 2.2 for Windows
Steve de Mena
What is Apple afraid of?
Steve
Chance Furlong
Show us how Apple is obligated to support Windoze at all.
Snit
on 11/19/09 5:08 PM:
> Windows 7 is still not supported.
>
> What is Apple afraid of?
>
> Steve
I give up... what are they afraid of?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Joel
>Show us how Apple is obligated to support Windoze at all.
Show us how you're qualified to say "Windoze" when you're promoting a
freakin' Mac. What a crock of shit.
--
Joel Crump
Chance Furlong
Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
Because I used Windoze till 8 or so years ago when I switched to the
Mac. Being Gates' and Ballmer's bitch is not my thing.
Are your frilly pink panties in a bind because I use Macs?
Joel
>> >Show us how Apple is obligated to support Windoze at all.
>>
>> Show us how you're qualified to say "Windoze" when you're promoting a
>> freakin' Mac. What a crock of shit.
>
>Because I used Windoze till 8 or so years ago when I switched to the
>Mac. Being Gates' and Ballmer's bitch is not my thing.
So, you switched who you're a bitch for. Like I said, you aren't
qualified to say "Windoze".
>Are your frilly pink panties in a bind because I use Macs?
You're the one who said "Windoze" while using a Mac. Look in the
fuckin' mirror.
--
Joel Crump
Chance Furlong
Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chance Furlong <T-B...@megakatcity.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Show us how Apple is obligated to support Windoze at all.
> >>
> >> Show us how you're qualified to say "Windoze" when you're promoting a
> >> freakin' Mac. What a crock of shit.
> >
> >Because I used Windoze till 8 or so years ago when I switched to the
> >Mac. Being Gates' and Ballmer's bitch is not my thing.
>
>
> So, you switched who you're a bitch for. Like I said, you aren't
> qualified to say "Windoze."
Sorry, I am not Jobs' bitch either, so you lose again, luser.
> >Are your frilly pink panties in a bind because I use Macs?
>
> You're the one who said "Windoze" while using a Mac. Look in the
> fuckin' mirror.
So I see my reflection in the mirror. Big whoop. And why would me
saying "Windoze" as a Mac user torque your girlie ass so much?
Joel
>> >Because I used Windoze till 8 or so years ago when I switched to the
>> >Mac. Being Gates' and Ballmer's bitch is not my thing.
>>
>> So, you switched who you're a bitch for. Like I said, you aren't
>> qualified to say "Windoze."
>
>Sorry, I am not Jobs' bitch either,
You sure as fuck are, and you always will be, faggot. I just fucked
all the females in your pathetic family, and your wife drank my cum.
> so you lose again, luser.
Because you talk out of your ass? Well, more like you drip cum out of
your ass, faggot.
>> >Are your frilly pink panties in a bind because I use Macs?
>>
>> You're the one who said "Windoze" while using a Mac. Look in the
>> fuckin' mirror.
>
>So I see my reflection in the mirror. Big whoop. And why would me
>saying "Windoze" as a Mac user torque your girlie ass so much?
Shut the fuck up, you Fruit Computer-using faggot. You don't want me
to show your wife what a real man can do to her, again, do you? She
screamed my name and begged for it in her ass, the first time. I
guess she didn't know what she was missing, having such a homo for a
husband.
--
Joel Crump
Steve de Mena
It's childish. As is knocking Windows 7 when your Windows experience
ended "8 or so" years ago.
Steve
Fa-groon
(in article <q1bcg5tc5sqqmhnfu...@4ax.com>):
> Chance Furlong <T-B...@megakatcity.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Because I used Windoze till 8 or so years ago when I switched to the
>>>> Mac. Being Gates' and Ballmer's bitch is not my thing.
>>>
>>> So, you switched who you're a bitch for. Like I said, you aren't
>>> qualified to say "Windoze."
>>
>> Sorry, I am not Jobs' bitch either,
>
>
> You sure as fuck are, and you always will be, faggot. I just fucked
> all the females in your pathetic family, and your wife drank my cum.
This is your idea of Windows advocacy? This type of low-life, low-class
response is exactly what I'd expect from a Windows advocate. What a
disgusting creature you must be.
Fa-groon
(in article <UcqdnW0t4MQbrZvW...@giganews.com>):
Well, since other than eye candy, Windows 7 is still the mediocre user
experience that it was 8 years ago, I'd say he was still spot-on the money
here.
Joel
>Well, since other than eye candy, Windows 7 is still the mediocre user
>experience that it was 8 years ago, I'd say he was still spot-on the money
>here.
By that standard, they're all mediocre (which, frankly, is true).
It's a computer and/or an operating system. OS X is hype, Win7 is
hype, Linux is hype. They all exaggerate their advantages, and they
all do pretty much the same crap.
--
Joel Crump
Fa-groon
(in article <5bicg5lbkfkmfrju2...@4ax.com>):
Agreed, but some of that crap is better crap than other crap.
BallCock
"Fa-groon" <fa-g...@mad.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C72B8570...@news.giganews.com...
I would say the "frilly panties" remark can be considered, low- life,
low-class and childish,and was not appropriate or germane to the subject.
Retaliation was definitely in order. Did you read the whole exchange
between them?
BallCock
I think we can go with the top seller as being the best crap.
Fa-groon
(in article <TqANm.45257$de6....@newsfe21.iad>):
Yep.
Fa-groon
(in article <THANm.9878$tz6....@newsfe02.iad>):
Not at all. The best seller is the worst crap and it usually is. Both Linux
and OSX are better than Windows. By a LONG shot.
BallCock
Then you're as fucked up as Furlong.
Steve Carroll
Show us a reason to believe you haven't been going over to Snit's
house and sharing his stash;)
Steve Carroll
Nothing he says obligates Apple to support Windoze... no matter how
high you've gotten yourself.
Steve Carroll
Pwned by Chance... and so quickly! Good job CF;)
Steve Carroll
> "Fa-groon" <fa-gr...@mad.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0001HW.C72C395F...@news.giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:23:58 -0800, BallCock wrote
>
> >> "Fa-groon" <fa-gr...@mad.com> wrote in message
> >>news:0001HW.C72B8570...@news.giganews.com...
> >>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:46:03 -0800, Joel wrote
>
> >>>> Chance Furlong <T-B...@megakatcity.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Because I used Windoze till 8 or so years ago when I switched to the
> >>>>>>> Mac. Being Gates' and Ballmer's bitch is not my thing.
>
> >>>>>> So, you switched who you're a bitch for. Like I said, you aren't
> >>>>>> qualified to say "Windoze."
>
> >>>>> Sorry, I am not Jobs' bitch either,
>
> >>>> You sure as fuck are, and you always will be, faggot. I just fucked
> >>>> all the females in your pathetic family, and your wife drank my cum.
>
> >>> This is your idea of Windows advocacy? This type of low-life, low-class
> >>> response is exactly what I'd expect from a Windows advocate. What a
> >>> disgusting creature you must be.
>
> >> I would say the "frilly panties" remark can be considered, low- life,
> >> low-class and childish,and was not appropriate or germane to the subject.
> >> Retaliation was definitely in order. Did you read the whole exchange
> >> between them?
>
> > Yep.
>
> Then you're as fucked up as Furlong.
Yeah... right<eyeroll>...
"You sure as fuck are, and you always will be, faggot. I just fucked
all the females in your pathetic family, and your wife drank my cum."
- Joel Crump
"Because you talk out of your ass? Well, more like you drip cum out
of
your ass, faggot." - Joel Crump
"Shut the fuck up, you Fruit Computer-using faggot. You don't want
me
to show your wife what a real man can do to her, again, do you? She
screamed my name and begged for it in her ass, the first time. I
guess she didn't know what she was missing, having such a homo for a
husband." _ Joel Crump
Joel
>Show us a reason to believe you haven't been going over to Snit's
>house and sharing his stash;)
If you want to ask me about that, try alt.drugs.psychedelics . This
is a computer group.
--
Joel Crump
Joel
>Nothing he says obligates Apple to support Windoze
Read the context, idiot.
--
Joel Crump
BallCock
Yeah - and Alphas are great.
Snit
2:11 PM:
When Steve knows he has backed himself into a corner he often talks about
drugs. It is just his way. If he were honest and honorable he would stay
on topic.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
2:12 PM:
> Steve Carroll <fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Nothing he says obligates Apple to support Windoze
>
>
> Read the context, idiot.
Wait until Steve starts insisting that you are my sock puppet. Anyone who
calls him in his BS gets that accusation.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Joel
>> If you want to ask me about that, try alt.drugs.psychedelics . This
>> is a computer group.
>
>When Steve knows he has backed himself into a corner he often talks about
>drugs. It is just his way. If he were honest and honorable he would stay
>on topic.
True. I really have been a regular of adp for over a decade, however.
But if he were to look into that, he couldn't accuse us of being the
same person.
--
Joel Crump
Joel
>Wait until Steve starts insisting that you are my sock puppet. Anyone who
>calls him in his BS gets that accusation.
He at least said that was one possibility.
--
Joel Crump
Vincent
"Steve Carroll" <fret...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:be4ae584-1a60-472e...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
Yeah... right<eyeroll>...
Payback.
Snit
2:44 PM:
I did not see the post... but let me guess, you might also be my "shill".
Anyone who makes sense is accused of being a sock puppet or shill. Steve
finds it unthinkable that multiple unrelated people would call out his BS.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
2:43 PM:
Oh, he could still accuse. Steve was busted altering the text in this post:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/dd126c87764900c4>
When he responded in this post:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/6d1eb025b9906160>
Steve responded that just because the post came from his IP it was not proof
he had done it:
-----
I wasn't there but I'm pretty sure my dog got up to the keyboard
and created an entry.
-----
When it was pointed out how pathetic Steve's BS was, he and Sandman posted
what they called proof that I was posting as Steve Carroll's dog. They
never bothered to explain how I allegedly forged Steve's IP address. Since
then, someone has also, from time to time, posted under the user name "Steve
Carroll's Dog" who always defends Steve. Gee, I wonder who. :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Fa-groon
(in article <4VDNm.29710$ky1....@newsfe14.iad>):
>
> "Fa-groon" <fa-g...@mad.com> wrote in message
> news:0001HW.C72C39B7...@news.giganews.com...
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:25:42 -0800, BallCock wrote
>> (in article <THANm.9878$tz6....@newsfe02.iad>):
>>
>>>
>>> "Fa-groon" <fa-g...@mad.com> wrote in message
>>> news:0001HW.C72BE812...@news.giganews.com...
>>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:47:18 -0800, Joel wrote
>>>> (in article <5bicg5lbkfkmfrju2...@4ax.com>):
>>>>
>>>>> Fa-groon <fa-g...@mad.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, since other than eye candy, Windows 7 is still the mediocre user
>>>>>> experience that it was 8 years ago, I'd say he was still spot-on the
>>>>>> money
>>>>>> here.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> By that standard, they're all mediocre (which, frankly, is true).
>>>>> It's a computer and/or an operating system. OS X is hype, Win7 is
>>>>> hype, Linux is hype. They all exaggerate their advantages, and they
>>>>> all do pretty much the same crap.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Agreed, but some of that crap is better crap than other crap.
>>>
>>> I think we can go with the top seller as being the best crap.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Not at all. The best seller is the worst crap and it usually is. Both
>> Linux
>> and OSX are better than Windows. By a LONG shot.
>
> Yeah - and Alphas are great.
>
>
Alphas are usually pretty early releases of an OS and are therefore buggy.
Betas are usually more reliable but still generally less finished than the
actual release versions. But what does this have to do with Win7, OSX or
Linux, none of which are in the Alpha stage?
Joel
>> True. I really have been a regular of adp for over a decade, however.
>> But if he were to look into that, he couldn't accuse us of being the
>> same person.
>
>Oh, he could still accuse. Steve was busted altering the text in this post:
><http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/dd126c87764900c4>
>When he responded in this post:
><http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/6d1eb025b9906160>
>
>Steve responded that just because the post came from his IP it was not proof
>he had done it:
> -----
> I wasn't there but I'm pretty sure my dog got up to the keyboard
> and created an entry.
> -----
>
>When it was pointed out how pathetic Steve's BS was, he and Sandman posted
>what they called proof that I was posting as Steve Carroll's dog. They
>never bothered to explain how I allegedly forged Steve's IP address. Since
>then, someone has also, from time to time, posted under the user name "Steve
>Carroll's Dog" who always defends Steve. Gee, I wonder who. :)
Wow. I don't even know what else to say. He must be truly crazy.
--
Joel Crump
Steve Carroll
> Steve Carroll <fretw...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >Nothing he says obligates Apple to support Windoze
>
> Read the context, idiot.
I did... you might try practicing what you're preaching. Then again...
you've already shown that you look at context or ignore it when it
suits you... the surest sign that troll dung clings to that toilet
paper hanging off the back of your pants;)
Steve Carroll
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> True. I really have been a regular of adp for over a decade, however.
> >> But if he were to look into that, he couldn't accuse us of being the
> >> same person.
>
> >Oh, he could still accuse. Steve was busted altering the text in this post:
> >When he responded in this post:
>
> >Steve responded that just because the post came from his IP it was not proof
> >he had done it:
> > -----
> > I wasn't there but I'm pretty sure my dog got up to the keyboard
> > and created an entry.
> > -----
>
> >When it was pointed out how pathetic Steve's BS was, he and Sandman posted
> >what they called proof that I was posting as Steve Carroll's dog. They
> >never bothered to explain how I allegedly forged Steve's IP address. Since
> >then, someone has also, from time to time, posted under the user name "Steve
> >Carroll's Dog" who always defends Steve. Gee, I wonder who. :)
>
> Wow. I don't even know what else to say. He must be truly crazy.
"I have no idea who Sigmond is. Maybe someone who snuck into my
house." - Snit
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/ea3ed8f91e8b9b09?hl=en&dmode=source
LOL!
Joel
>>> Wait until Steve starts insisting that you are my sock puppet. Anyone who
>>> calls him in his BS gets that accusation.
>>
>> He at least said that was one possibility.
>
>I did not see the post... but let me guess, you might also be my "shill".
>Anyone who makes sense is accused of being a sock puppet or shill. Steve
>finds it unthinkable that multiple unrelated people would call out his BS.
You guessed correctly. And yeah, oddly enough, I've seen other
nutjobs on Usenet focus on erratic accusations like that.
--
Joel Crump
Joel
>> >Nothing he says obligates Apple to support Windoze
>>
>> Read the context, idiot.
>
>I did... you might try practicing what you're preaching. Then again...
>you've already shown that you look at context or ignore it when it
>suits you... the surest sign that troll dung clings to that toilet
>paper hanging off the back of your pants;)
Christ, you really got in way over your head, this time. What a
toothless little chimp you're proving to be.
--
Joel Crump
Joel
If you think I can't see through that attempt at fooling me, you have
another thing coming. I've been around Usenet for longer than I care
to remember. Snit's post is the believable one, in the link you just
posted. Idiot.
--
Joel Crump
Snit
5:49 PM:
Yes. In any case, I think I have given you a pretty good glimpse into the
sick world of Steve's mind. Will still respond some to your debates with
him, but likely not as much... or at least without as much history. Even
with Steve, if he were to change, I think his history should be left in the
past. The only reason I bring it up now is so that newcomers such as
yourself will understand how deranged and dangerous he and others in CSMA
can be - do not give personal info out. I did not, but they still tracked
my info down... I have my own web server I post things to and that gave me
away.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve de Mena
reading it is thinking "Why don't Snit and Steve Carroll get a room?"
Steve
Snit
6:22 PM:
Steve assumes others are like him... hence the reason he assumes everyone is
a sock puppet or "shill".
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
6:23 PM:
Steve obsesses over the person whose post he linked to... Steve denies she
is his ex (and denies they are currently dating), but he also brags about
how he used to take road trips to her house and recently posted a map
showing how she moved to live right around the corner from him. She was a
whacko who freaked out and started throwing a public tantrum when she found
out my wife and I were expecting a child and she was not involved with our
family planning options. She has left me alone for a long time, so I shall
not say more her, but feel free to email me (even with a throw-away email)
and I will send a PDF which details her craziness... fully linked to the
Google record as proof. She was crazier than he is!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
Translation: Joel doled out a non sequitur to Chance (thus making him
a hypocrite) while subsequently whining about context (that he himself
didn't follow) while thinking it would help him (it helped expose him
for what he is proving himself to be).
Steve Carroll
> >On Nov 20, 5:49 pm, Joel <joelcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >> >When it was pointed out how pathetic Steve's BS was, he and Sandman posted
> >> >what they called proof that I was posting as Steve Carroll's dog. They
> >> >never bothered to explain how I allegedly forged Steve's IP address. Since
> >> >then, someone has also, from time to time, posted under the user name "Steve
> >> >Carroll's Dog" who always defends Steve. Gee, I wonder who. :)
>
> >> Wow. I don't even know what else to say. He must be truly crazy.
>
> >"I have no idea who Sigmond is. Maybe someone who snuck into my
> >house." - Snit
>
> >LOL!
>
> If you think I can't see through that attempt at fooling me, you have
> another thing coming. I've been around Usenet for longer than I care
> to remember. Snit's post is the believable one, in the link you just
> posted. Idiot.
Tell it to the rest of this newsgroup... see how many people you can
convince that Snit didn't post as Sigmond... we can talk about it over
lunch someday;)
Steve Carroll
> Is this another thread gone completely off topic where everyone
> reading it is thinking "Why don't Snit and Steve Carroll get a room?"
But Snit is not reading my posts... he is completely ignoring me...
again. Anyone can see that;)
Snit
on 11/20/09 6:31 PM:
> Is this another thread gone completely off topic where everyone
> reading it is thinking "Why don't Snit and Steve Carroll get a room?"
>
> Steve
While I have responded to others who have responded to Steve, I have not
directly responded to his posts, nor read most of them.
I am, however, enjoying watching others point out Steve's BS. If others
were to do so, he would wither. He feeds on thinking group-think is with
him...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
6:23 PM:
> Steve Carroll <fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
At this point, you have quoted Steve's lies and he is now just in denial and
run mode. It is amusing to watch. Thanks!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Joel
>>> When it was pointed out how pathetic Steve's BS was, he and Sandman posted
>>> what they called proof that I was posting as Steve Carroll's dog. They
>>> never bothered to explain how I allegedly forged Steve's IP address. Since
>>> then, someone has also, from time to time, posted under the user name "Steve
>>> Carroll's Dog" who always defends Steve. Gee, I wonder who. :)
>>
>> Wow. I don't even know what else to say. He must be truly crazy.
>
>Yes. In any case, I think I have given you a pretty good glimpse into the
>sick world of Steve's mind. Will still respond some to your debates with
>him, but likely not as much... or at least without as much history. Even
>with Steve, if he were to change, I think his history should be left in the
>past. The only reason I bring it up now is so that newcomers such as
>yourself will understand how deranged and dangerous he and others in CSMA
>can be - do not give personal info out. I did not, but they still tracked
>my info down... I have my own web server I post things to and that gave me
>away.
I'm sure I could be tracked down, but I guess I'll just have to deal
with that if it happens. I don't like the idea of cowering to some
wacko on the Net. Then again, there are cases where it is in one's
best interest, and I generally don't recommend people be as loose as I
am with my identity.
--
Joel Crump
Joel
>Steve assumes others are like him... hence the reason he assumes everyone is
>a sock puppet or "shill".
Haha, burn!
--
Joel Crump
Joel
>> If you think I can't see through that attempt at fooling me, you have
>> another thing coming. I've been around Usenet for longer than I care
>> to remember. Snit's post is the believable one, in the link you just
>> posted. Idiot.
>
>Steve obsesses over the person whose post he linked to... Steve denies she
>is his ex (and denies they are currently dating), but he also brags about
>how he used to take road trips to her house and recently posted a map
>showing how she moved to live right around the corner from him. She was a
>whacko who freaked out and started throwing a public tantrum when she found
>out my wife and I were expecting a child and she was not involved with our
>family planning options. She has left me alone for a long time, so I shall
>not say more her, but feel free to email me (even with a throw-away email)
>and I will send a PDF which details her craziness... fully linked to the
>Google record as proof. She was crazier than he is!
That is fucking crazy. The email address in my headers is legit, if
you're so inclined.
--
Joel Crump
Joel
>> Christ, you really got in way over your head, this time. �What a
>> toothless little chimp you're proving to be.
>
>Translation: Joel doled out a non sequitur to Chance (thus making him
>a hypocrite) while subsequently whining about context (that he himself
>didn't follow) while thinking it would help him (it helped expose him
>for what he is proving himself to be).
Well, you are persistent, for whatever that's worth.
--
Joel Crump
Joel
>> If you think I can't see through that attempt at fooling me, you have
>> another thing coming. �I've been around Usenet for longer than I care
>> to remember. �Snit's post is the believable one, in the link you just
>> posted. �Idiot.
>
>Tell it to the rest of this newsgroup... see how many people you can
>convince that Snit didn't post as Sigmond... we can talk about it over
>lunch someday;)
I never claimed that he did *or* didn't post with that name. It's
irrelevant to the reference you made. I'm *not* going to play your
game by explaining why. Suffice it to say that I can see right
through it, because I'm not new to Usenet and interpreting headers.
--
Joel Crump
Joel
>At this point, you have quoted Steve's lies and he is now just in denial and
>run mode. It is amusing to watch. Thanks!
Anytime. :)
--
Joel Crump
Snit
7:10 PM:
But let us grant Steve every benefit of all doubt. Let us pretend that he
finally, after over half a decade of trying, actually showed me to have done
something wrong. In 2004. Now keep in mind his best hand picked "evidence"
came from a woman who was insane... and his quote of mine was clearly a
joke. OK. Fine. Let us pretend, anyway, that he actually had made a
point.
His point is that it is OK for him to lie, use sock puppets, call people
names, and otherwise make a complete and total fool of himself because I
(allegedly) did something wrong in *2004*!
Steve's game is to try to put others on the defensive... anything he can do
to run from his own actions. But the *best* he can pull up are insane
accusations from *2004*.
It really is quite a remarkable sign of his lack of ability to use logic.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
7:09 PM:
Done. And keep in mind, Steve's *best* evidence against is to quote this
person. From 2004. He still is holding on to half-decade old grudges where
his only evidence comes from a crazy woman.
It is amazing. To say the least.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
7:08 PM:
I do not back down to bullies... and it on occasion, online, has gotten me
in trouble. Face to face - well, bullies do not have the time to regroup
and think and do not have the safety they feel online. I am in no way
physically intimidating, but bullies always back down in face to face
confrontations... even way back in high school where physical fights were
not uncommon to see, I would stand up to kids literally twice my weight and
watch them back down.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Joel
>> I never claimed that he did *or* didn't post with that name. It's
>> irrelevant to the reference you made. I'm *not* going to play your
>> game by explaining why. Suffice it to say that I can see right
>> through it, because I'm not new to Usenet and interpreting headers.
>
>But let us grant Steve every benefit of all doubt. Let us pretend that he
>finally, after over half a decade of trying, actually showed me to have done
>something wrong. In 2004. Now keep in mind his best hand picked "evidence"
>came from a woman who was insane... and his quote of mine was clearly a
>joke. OK. Fine. Let us pretend, anyway, that he actually had made a
>point.
>
>His point is that it is OK for him to lie, use sock puppets, call people
>names, and otherwise make a complete and total fool of himself because I
>(allegedly) did something wrong in *2004*!
>
>Steve's game is to try to put others on the defensive... anything he can do
>to run from his own actions. But the *best* he can pull up are insane
>accusations from *2004*.
>
>It really is quite a remarkable sign of his lack of ability to use logic.
Agreed. But his "evidence" wasn't convincing as soon as I first
skimmed it. I didn't even need to know who the chick you were
replying to was. Her point was unreliable at best, because it was
based on faulty evidence. If *he* had better evidence (all this time
later), he would've posted it (in the chick's case, though, she may
have made an honest mistake, but Steve is being dishonest by
referencing it).
--
Joel Crump
Snit
7:10 PM:
> Steve Carroll <fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
You have gotten to him like nobody (other than myself) in years. Most
people post to him a couple of times, realize he is a freakin' loon, and
leave him alone. Good to see someone else not run away... though I
understand why people would opt to not waste their time on his stupidity.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Lloyd Parsons
Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
Yep, the circus is in town! :)
Wally will probably join in soon, and my Justin...
Snit
7:34 PM:
Steve plays the game where if I do not rehash the debates from 2004 *again*
this is some soft of admission that he is right or some sign that I think my
alleged lies have some time limit or whatever. Utterly insane... and he
uses debates from 2004 to try to defend his current actions. As you say,
his evidence is laughable at best, but even if it were not, it would be
completely and utterly irrelevant. I really wonder who he thinks he is
fooling.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Lloyd Parsons
Lloyd Parsons <lloydp...@mac.com> wrote:
oops, my bad, I meant Joel.
Snit
lloydparsons-BB77...@port80.individual.net on 11/20/09 7:49
PM:
Wally and Adams will join in to try to rescue Steve. And, if it gets big
enough, Sandman and maybe even Mackay will jump in on that "side". Right
now the silliness is getting boring - but maybe they will make it a bit more
exciting.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
PM:
Well, you were right the first time... when Carroll digs a hole too big for
him to climb out of by himself, his buddies, including Wally, almost always
jump in to help him.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Joel
>You have gotten to him like nobody (other than myself) in years. Most
>people post to him a couple of times, realize he is a freakin' loon, and
>leave him alone. Good to see someone else not run away... though I
>understand why people would opt to not waste their time on his stupidity.
Part of me does question the other part of me, on it. But what the
hell, I guess I can use the diversion. ;)
--
Joel Crump
Joel
>Done.
Christ. I'll want to read it in more detail, later, but just thumbing
through it pretty much told the story. What a psycho hose beast.
--
Joel Crump
Joel
>> I'm sure I could be tracked down, but I guess I'll just have to deal
>> with that if it happens. I don't like the idea of cowering to some
>> wacko on the Net. Then again, there are cases where it is in one's
>> best interest, and I generally don't recommend people be as loose as I
>> am with my identity.
>
>I do not back down to bullies... and it on occasion, online, has gotten me
>in trouble. Face to face - well, bullies do not have the time to regroup
>and think and do not have the safety they feel online. I am in no way
>physically intimidating, but bullies always back down in face to face
>confrontations... even way back in high school where physical fights were
>not uncommon to see, I would stand up to kids literally twice my weight and
>watch them back down.
Yup, very true.
--
Joel Crump
Snit
8:06 PM:
The only reason I got that detailed with her BS was she threatened to call
the police and make false accusations against me. In a public forum.
Yeah... not the sharpest knife in the drawer. I printed out her threat,
took it to the police just in case she was going to do it. They suggested I
gather posts and evidence and send it to her ISP. I did and the problem
went away.
Steve still accuses me of sexually harassing her and, get this, *raping*
her, even though, as far as I know, we have never been within 100 miles of
each other.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Joel
>The only reason I got that detailed with her BS was she threatened to call
>the police and make false accusations against me. In a public forum.
>Yeah... not the sharpest knife in the drawer. I printed out her threat,
>took it to the police just in case she was going to do it. They suggested I
>gather posts and evidence and send it to her ISP. I did and the problem
>went away.
>
>Steve still accuses me of sexually harassing her and, get this, *raping*
>her, even though, as far as I know, we have never been within 100 miles of
>each other.
At least you took action. Some of these people really will go to
unbelievable lengths to lie about very serious things, even though it
started as some ridiculous Internet b.s. :(
--
Joel Crump
Snit
8:48 PM:
Steve emails me, has tried to seen Google with lies about my business (even
though he has never used my services), etc. Sadly, he is not alone in doing
the latter... several folks in CSMA have repeatedly tried to tie my business
name and my real name to all sorts of insults and lies. It really is
amazingly sick of them.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Joel
>Steve emails me, has tried to seen Google with lies about my business (even
>though he has never used my services), etc. Sadly, he is not alone in doing
>the latter... several folks in CSMA have repeatedly tried to tie my business
>name and my real name to all sorts of insults and lies. It really is
>amazingly sick of them.
Figures. I never have understood that tendency with some people.
It's not like I haven't hated certain people's *guts* from the
Internet, but that just made me want nothing to do with them in real
life. Insulting them back and forth was more than enough.
--
Joel Crump
Snit
9:06 PM:
In a forum such as CSMA I get that insults will fly back and forth - if you
cannot take such silliness you should not post here... but targeting
people's businesses and personal lives... that is just insane.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Joel
>In a forum such as CSMA I get that insults will fly back and forth - if you
>cannot take such silliness you should not post here... but targeting
>people's businesses and personal lives... that is just insane.
Absolutely.
--
Joel Crump
BallCock
"Fa-groon" <fa-g...@mad.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C72C6955...@news.giganews.com...
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:45:47 -0800, BallCock wrote
> (in article <4VDNm.29710$ky1....@newsfe14.iad>):
>
>>
>> "Fa-groon" <fa-g...@mad.com> wrote in message
>> news:0001HW.C72C39B7...@news.giganews.com...
>>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:25:42 -0800, BallCock wrote
>>> (in article <THANm.9878$tz6....@newsfe02.iad>):
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Fa-groon" <fa-g...@mad.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:0001HW.C72BE812...@news.giganews.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:47:18 -0800, Joel wrote
>>>>> (in article <5bicg5lbkfkmfrju2...@4ax.com>):
>>>>>
>>>>>> Fa-groon <fa-g...@mad.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, since other than eye candy, Windows 7 is still the mediocre
>>>>>>> user
>>>>>>> experience that it was 8 years ago, I'd say he was still spot-on the
>>>>>>> money
>>>>>>> here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By that standard, they're all mediocre (which, frankly, is true).
>>>>>> It's a computer and/or an operating system. OS X is hype, Win7 is
>>>>>> hype, Linux is hype. They all exaggerate their advantages, and they
>>>>>> all do pretty much the same crap.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed, but some of that crap is better crap than other crap.
>>>>
>>>> I think we can go with the top seller as being the best crap.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not at all. The best seller is the worst crap and it usually is. Both
>>> Linux
>>> and OSX are better than Windows. By a LONG shot.
>>
>> Yeah - and Alphas are great.
>>
>>
>
> Alphas are usually pretty early releases of an OS and are therefore buggy.
> Betas are usually more reliable but still generally less finished than the
> actual release versions. But what does this have to do with Win7, OSX or
> Linux, none of which are in the Alpha stage?
Nothing - it's my typo.
Fa-groon
(in article <4YQNm.54630$gg6....@newsfe25.iad>):
???????!!!!!
Tim Adams
Steve Carroll <fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 5:49�pm, Joel <joelcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > >> True. �I really have been a regular of adp for over a decade, however.
> > >> But if he were to look into that, he couldn't accuse us of being the
> > >> same person.
> >
> > >Oh, he could still accuse. Steve was busted altering the text in this
> > >post:
> > ><http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/dd126c877649...>
> > >When he responded in this post:
> > ><http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/6d1eb025b990...>
> >
> > >Steve responded that just because the post came from his IP
except for the simple FACT that it didn't come from his IP. But then, why let
reality get in the way of yet another LIE by snit.
~babbling by the idiot michael glasser, aka shit snipped.
--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-404B64.16...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net on
11/21/09 2:04 PM:
> In article <a5363ff7-1d77-4b0d...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> Steve Carroll <fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 20, 5:49�pm, Joel <joelcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>> True. �I really have been a regular of adp for over a decade, however.
>>>>> But if he were to look into that, he couldn't accuse us of being the
>>>>> same person.
>>>
>>>> Oh, he could still accuse. Steve was busted altering the text in this
>>>> post:
>>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/dd126c877649...>
>>>> When he responded in this post:
>>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/6d1eb025b990...>
>>>
>>>> Steve responded that just because the post came from his IP
>
> except for the simple FACT that it didn't come from his IP. But then, why let
> reality get in the way of yet another LIE by snit.
>
> ~babbling by the idiot michael glasser, aka shit snipped.
The headers from post Steve Carroll claimed was from his dog:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/6d1eb025b9906160?d
mode=source>
-----
Path:
uni-berlin.de!fu-berlin.de!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!y10g2000prg.go
oglegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Steve Carroll <fret...@comcast.net>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: #1 Reason MeowMan is banished from real workplaces?
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 15:05:17 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 57
Message-ID:
<9c26dd54-fcde-427b...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
References: ...
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.176.47.125
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1250978718 21168 127.0.0.1 (22 Aug 2009 22:05:18
GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 22:05:18 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
Injection-Info: y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com; posting-host=67.176.47.125;
posting-account=qzPusQoAAADVdKNEKE-jqIVbecHp7oZ7
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_5_7; en-us)
AppleWebKit/530.19.2 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.2
Safari/530.19,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: uni-berlin.de comp.sys.mac.advocacy:1566536
-----
Now try to explain to me how the header from Steve Carroll's dog is not the
same as Steve's headers in his other posts.
Good luck!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Tim Adams
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> -----
>
> Now try to explain to me how the header from Steve Carroll's dog is not the
> same as Steve's headers in his other posts.
poor snit, still can't read.
The link you provided is from a post by Steve Carroll, Not the person posting as
Steve Carroll's Dog. The IP address is 67.176.47.125
Now post a link to a post from Steve Carroll's Dog so everybody can compare the
ip addresses - you know, the ones you _CLAIMED_ were the same. Or are you so
stupid that you didn't know you needed to actually supply proof to your LIE that
they both posted from the same ip address?
Of course you won't do it as you've already admitted, several months ago that
the headers from 'Steve Carroll's Dog's' don't include the ip address, but then,
you still lie about it.
So, let me do it for you...
--------
From: "Steve Carroll's Dog" <Ba...@Snit.com>
Newsgroups: alt.usenet.kooks,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
References: <C6B98221.43D18%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
<mr-6458B6.21...@News.Individual.NET>
<%BXkm.153729$0e4....@newsfe19.iad>
<mr-890986.22...@News.Individual.NET>
<C6B99DD4.43D57%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
<mr-924ABD.07...@News.Individual.NET>
<C6BA13AC.43F87%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
<mr-CE67B5.08...@News.Individual.NET>
<C6BA294B.43F91%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
<mr-82A1E9.14...@News.Individual.NET>
<C6BAB9C5.44097%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
<mr-7DF66A.21...@News.Individual.NET>
<C6BADC4B.440EA%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
<mr-62DDA8.09...@News.Individual.NET>
<C6BB896E.4429F%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Subject: Re: Another Mac hater... right?
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:30:48 -0700
Lines: 48
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
NNTP-Posting-Host: $$$lwkkl$ulnwp.news.x-privat.org
Message-ID: <4a96...@news.x-privat.org>
Organization: X-Privat.Org NNTP Server - http://www.x-privat.org
X-Authenticated-User: $$o6x3$qi0tpg1qq3blo2
X-Complaints-To: ab...@x-privat.org
Path:
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!aotearoa.belnet.be!news.belnet.be
!feed1.news.be.easynet.net!club-internet.fr!feedme-small.clubint.net!usenet-fr.ne
t!gegeweb.org!x-privat.org!not-for-mail
Bytes: 3794
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.sys.mac.advocacy:1524479
comp.os.linux.advocacy:1820963 alt.usenet.kooks:1928606
---------------
Keep posting your lies snit.
>
> Good luck!
no luck is needed in proving snit a LIAR.
Snit
11/21/09 4:30 PM:
...
And yet you are the one who missed my quoting Steve:
Steve responded that just because the post came from his IP it was not proof
he had done it:
-----
I wasn't there but I'm pretty sure my dog got up to the keyboard
and created an entry.
-----
The headers to the post *Steve* said he was "pretty sure" came from his dog
are quoted, above.
But you, like all people, know Steve is lying. Of course. Steve is the one
who posted - not his dog.
Seriously, do you need it explained to you that "Steve Carroll's Dog" is not
really his dog, no matter what Steve says?
> The link you provided is from a post by Steve Carroll,
Yet Steve claimed it was from his dog. Gee, you and I both know he lied and
he really posted it - not his dog. Man, you are sharp!
...
I snipped your references to *other* posts that are not even relevant to the
conversation. The one post in question is the one I referenced above and
Steve's BS claim that it was his dog. No other posts are relevant... no
matter how badly you want to change the topic. In the end, you have made it
clear even you know Steve Carroll lied. As he always does.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Tim Adams
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Why not link to THAT specific post by 'Steve Carroll's dog'? You know the one
that you claim contains Steve Carroll's ip address? Or is the fact that it
doesn't exist, and never did exist, getting in your way?
> it was not proof
> he had done it:
> -----
> I wasn't there but I'm pretty sure my dog got up to the keyboard
> and created an entry.
> -----
>
> The headers to the post *Steve* said he was "pretty sure" came from his dog
> are quoted, above.
and you still continue to LIE.
In the post you linked to Steve wrote "Thanks... I feel the same way." and
"Isn't everyone?". Nowhere did he write, in that post, the line you claimed he
wrote.
BUT if what you say is true, that Steve's statement referred to a post from
'Steve Carroll's dog' that contained an ip address, why not just link to the
post from 'Steve Carroll's dog' so everybody can see the ip address and confirm
what you're claiming? To difficult for you or have you finally realized that
none of the posts from 'Steve Carroll's dog' contain an IP address so your calim
is just a total LIE?
Of course you still can't even begin to point out in the quote of Steve's above
where he confirmed he also posted as 'Steve Carroll's dog', because that
statement says no such thing.
>
> But you, like all people, know Steve is lying.
so, you thing Steve is lying but believe the the one quote from him, that
doesn't even say what you claim it says, isn't a lie? Logic isn't your strong
suit is it snit.
> Of course. Steve is the one who posted - not his dog.
Something you haven't proved, ie: a LIE.
>
>
> Seriously, do you need it explained to you that "Steve Carroll's Dog" is not
> really his dog, no matter what Steve says?
>
> > The link you provided is from a post by Steve Carroll,
>
> Yet Steve claimed it was from his dog. Gee, you and I both know he lied and
> he really posted it - not his dog. Man, you are sharp!
> ...
>
> I snipped your references to *other* posts that are not even relevant to the
> conversation.
Not relevant because they prove you a liar. Your claim, to be proved, needs a
post from BOTH Steve Carroll and 'Steve Carroll's dog', with headers that show
both posting IP addresses to be the same. Come on snit, support your claim for
once. You won't but then that's just typical of you.
> The one post in question is the one I referenced above
In the one you referenced above, Steve agreed that his dog was smarter then you.
A statement most everybody here in csma totally agrees with.
> and
> Steve's BS claim that it was his dog. No other posts are relevant... no
> matter how badly you want to change the topic. In the end, you have made it
> clear even you know Steve Carroll lied. As he always does.
--
Snit
11/22/09 4:39 AM:
...
>> And yet you are the one who missed my quoting Steve:
>>
>> Steve responded that just because the post came from his IP
>
>
> Why not link to THAT specific post by 'Steve Carroll's dog'? You know the one
> that you claim contains Steve Carroll's ip address? Or is the fact that it
> doesn't exist, and never did exist, getting in your way?
Again, for the very, very slow (that is you):
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/dd126c87764900c4>
Kensington 1
------
You seem to forget, Mr. Hypocritical Liar, that you attacked my kids.
God only knows what kind of misfits you spawned
Are they retarded?
------
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/6d1eb025b9906160>
Steve Carroll... forging the text of another poster. HIS IP!
-----
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.176.47.125
...
> God has blessed you with two fine sons.
Thanks... I feel the same way.
> Are they smarter than Snit, JohnQ, jimmyjohn and zara?
Isn't everyone?
-----
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c570b31a421c068b>
Steve Carroll - denying responsibility... and blaming his dog!
------
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.176.47.125
...
I wasn't there but I'm pretty sure my dog got up to the
keyboard and created an entry.
------
That is right - Steve Carroll blamed his dog for posting from the *same* IP
address as he generally posts from. Steve Carroll's "Dog" and Steve
Carroll post from the same IP address... according to Steve. If you really
are so amazingly stupid to believe his dog posts and not him just blaming
his dog.
...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> Steve is the one who posted - not his dog.
Tim has got you posting support that you really didn't think it was Steve's
dog that was posting?
ROTFLMAO .... You've really outdone yourself in the 'stupid stakes' Snit!
Way too funny! :-)
Snit
> On 22/11/09 7:55 AM, in article C72DCBFC.552E8%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Steve is the one who posted - not his dog.
>
> Tim has got you posting support that you really didn't think it was Steve's
> dog that was posting?
Gee, ya' think! Really - does *anyone* believe Steve that he thought it
might be his *dog*. He was merely trying to obfuscate the fact he had been
caught - again - altering text in posts he responded to.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/dd126c87764900c4>
Kensington 1
------
You seem to forget, Mr. Hypocritical Liar, that you attacked my kids.
God only knows what kind of misfits you spawned
Are they retarded?
------
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/6d1eb025b9906160>
Steve Carroll... forging the text of another poster. HIS IP!
-----
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.176.47.125
...
> God has blessed you with two fine sons.
Thanks... I feel the same way.
> Are they smarter than Snit, JohnQ, jimmyjohn and zara?
Isn't everyone?
-----
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c570b31a421c068b>
Steve Carroll - denying responsibility... and blaming his dog!
------
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.176.47.125
...
I wasn't there but I'm pretty sure my dog got up to the
keyboard and created an entry.
------
Is that too complex for you?
> ROTFLMAO .... You've really outdone yourself in the 'stupid stakes' Snit!
> Way too funny! :-)
In what way is it "stupid" to realize dogs do not post to this forum?
Seriously, Wally, I would *love* to have you explain your thinking on that
one.
Steve Carroll's "dog" is, of course, Steve Carroll. Anyone who has not
figured this out yet is a moron.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Wally
C72E9208.55426%use...@gallopinginsanity.com, "Snit"
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c570b31a421c068b>
> Steve Carroll - denying responsibility... and blaming his dog!
> ------
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.176.47.125
> ...
> I wasn't there but I'm pretty sure my dog got up to the
> keyboard and created an entry.
> ------
"I wasn't there but I'm pretty sure my dog got up to the keyboard and
created an entry.
You saw that cat playing piano on TV lately, right? Well... my dog
doesn't like to be upstaged. Now I just have to teach him about
"context" ..."-Steve Carroll
And Snit proves that he really *is* deranged enough to believe that Steve
Carroll was going to teach his dog about "context"!
"Steve Carroll - denying responsibility... and blaming his dog!"-Snit
Could there possibly be anyone of sound mind that read what Steve Carroll
wrote and not only believe that he meant it but to then go on and base an
argument around the fact that Steve Carroll was serious?
LOL!
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C72FF021.23F5%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/22/09 4:54 PM:
>
>> On 22/11/09 7:55 AM, in article C72DCBFC.552E8%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Steve is the one who posted - not his dog.
>>
>> Tim has got you posting support that you really didn't think it was Steve's
>> dog that was posting?
>
> Gee, ya' think!
Oh yer!
"Steve is the one who posted - not his dog."-Snit
LOL!
Snit
> On 22/11/09 10:00 PM, in article
> C72E9208.55426%use...@gallopinginsanity.com, "Snit"
> <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c570b31a421c068b>
>> Steve Carroll - denying responsibility... and blaming his dog!
>> ------
>> NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.176.47.125
>> ...
>> I wasn't there but I'm pretty sure my dog got up to the
>> keyboard and created an entry.
>> ------
>
> "I wasn't there but I'm pretty sure my dog got up to the keyboard and
> created an entry.
> You saw that cat playing piano on TV lately, right? Well... my dog
> doesn't like to be upstaged. Now I just have to teach him about
> "context" ..."-Steve Carroll
>
> And Snit proves that he really *is* deranged enough to believe that Steve
> Carroll was going to teach his dog about "context"!
My dog likely knows more about context than Steve does... but the fact Steve
was clearly just trying to change the topic from his obvious quote forging
is obvious.
But you will not admit to it. You will dodge that fact. Gee, you are so
clever and unpredictable!
> "Steve Carroll - denying responsibility... and blaming his dog!"-Snit
>
> Could there possibly be anyone of sound mind that read what Steve Carroll
> wrote and not only believe that he meant it but to then go on and base an
> argument around the fact that Steve Carroll was serious?
>
> LOL!
>
Of course when Steve Carroll blames his dog for his posts he is doing it
just to change the topic from his obvious guilt. Steve is the one who
posted as his "dog". Is anyone stupid enough to not see that?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/dd126c87764900c4>
That was too complex for Sandman to follow. How about you... are you able
to figure out that it was Steve who authored his "dogs'" comments?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Any forum Snit! Not just *this* one! LOL!
> Seriously, Wally, I would *love* to have you explain your thinking on that
> one.
>
> Steve Carroll's "dog" is, of course, Steve Carroll. Anyone who has not
> figured this out yet is a moron.
>
"Steve is the one who posted - not his dog."-Snit
There is only one moron who thought it necessary to clarify the point that
it wasn't *actually* a dog doing the posting Snit! .... You!
Seriously Snit why do you have to work so hard to realize what to any normal
person is a given?
Snit
The point is that it not only is not a dog - a fact you keep showing
surprise over - but that Steve's "dog" clearly posted from his IP (and
clearly was him). Are you willing to admit you can see that or are you
going to pretend Steve's lies fooled you?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Tim Adams
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Tim Adams stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-CE532C.06...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net on
> 11/22/09 4:39 AM:
>
> ...
> >> And yet you are the one who missed my quoting Steve:
> >>
> >> Steve responded that just because the post came from his IP
> >
> >
> > Why not link to THAT specific post by 'Steve Carroll's dog'? You know the
> > one
> > that you claim contains Steve Carroll's ip address? Or is the fact that it
> > doesn't exist, and never did exist, getting in your way?
>
> Again, for the very, very slow (that is you):
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/dd126c87764900c4>
> Kensington 1
> ------
> You seem to forget, Mr. Hypocritical Liar, that you attacked my kids.
> God only knows what kind of misfits you spawned
> Are they retarded?
> ------
a post with a header that contain no ip address, certainly doesn't help support
your claim. a sock puppet of michael glasser could very well have copy and
pasted that text and posted it, so linking it to Steve Carroll, other then the
fact he was quoted in the body of the message doesn't help you at all.
Strike one on snit.
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/6d1eb025b9906160>
> Steve Carroll... forging the text of another poster. HIS IP!
> -----
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.176.47.125
> ...
> > God has blessed you with two fine sons.
> Thanks... I feel the same way.
> > Are they smarter than Snit, JohnQ, jimmyjohn and zara?
> Isn't everyone?
> -----
Gee, a post FROM Steve Carroll includes Steve Carrroll's ip address. News at 11.
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c570b31a421c068b>
> Steve Carroll - denying responsibility... and blaming his dog!
> ------
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.176.47.125
> ...
> I wasn't there but I'm pretty sure my dog got up to the
> keyboard and created an entry.
> ------
Gee, another post FROM Steve Carroll includes Steve Carrroll's ip address. News
at 11. You did get one thing correct however - Steve _denied responsibility_ for
the posting of 'Steve Carroll's dog.
>
> That is right - Steve Carroll blamed his dog for posting from the *same* IP
> address
Yet you STILL haven't shown any proof of the IP address that 'Steve Carroll's
Dog' posted from. NONE of the posts you link to are from that poster. As you
even say Steve _denied responsibility_ for the posting of 'Steve Carroll's dog.
> as he generally posts from. Steve Carroll's "Dog" and Steve
> Carroll post from the same IP address... according to Steve.
Another LIE - no place does Steve say that he and Steve Carroll's Dog post from
the same place. Steve clearly said "I wasn't there". You do realize that the
word 'wasn't' is a contraction of the word's was and NOT don't you?
Keep running snit.
Tim Adams
wrote:
let me guess - snit?
>
> LOL!
you've got that right.
Tim Adams
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
yet it is michael glasser that is so stupid that he can't see how Steve Carroll
is having fun at snit's expense. A third party posted with a handle 'Steve
Carroll's Dog' and Steve, tongue in cheek, ran with it. you then made up all
sorts of LIES about it and continue posting them. Lies you can't begin to
support!
Tim Adams
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
a LIE you keep repeating but cannot supply any proof of. so typical of you snit.
Go ahead snit, show us a link to a post made by 'Steve Carroll's dog' where the
header contains the same ip address as a post from Steve Carroll contains.
Can't do it can you!
Snit
11/22/09 7:37 PM:
...
>> Again, for the very, very slow (that is you):
>>
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/dd126c87764900c4>
>> Kensington 1
>> ------
>> You seem to forget, Mr. Hypocritical Liar, that you attacked my kids.
>> God only knows what kind of misfits you spawned
>> Are they retarded?
>> ------
...
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/6d1eb025b9906160>
>> Steve Carroll... forging the text of another poster. HIS IP!
>> -----
>> NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.176.47.125
>> ...
>> > God has blessed you with two fine sons.
>> Thanks... I feel the same way.
>> > Are they smarter than Snit, JohnQ, jimmyjohn and zara?
>> Isn't everyone?
>> -----
>
> Gee, a post FROM Steve Carroll includes Steve Carrroll's ip address. News at
> 11.
I am glad you are in agreement that the post Steve denied making and said it
was likely his *dog* was from him. Yes, Steve Carroll lied and everyone
knows it. Steve Carroll's dog is, of course, Steve himself.
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c570b31a421c068b>
>> Steve Carroll - denying responsibility... and blaming his dog!
>> ------
>> NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.176.47.125
>> ...
>> I wasn't there but I'm pretty sure my dog got up to the
>> keyboard and created an entry.
>> ------
>
> Gee, another post FROM Steve Carroll includes Steve Carrroll's ip address.
> News at 11. You did get one thing correct however - Steve _denied
> responsibility_ for the posting of 'Steve Carroll's dog.
Yet, above, you admit it was Steve making the post from Steve Carroll's
"dog". Steve lied. Good to see you admit this. Frankly I am shocked...
though now that you realize you admitted Steve lied you will back pedal.
Yes, you are that predictable.
>> That is right - Steve Carroll blamed his dog for posting from the *same* IP
>> address
>
> Yet you STILL haven't shown any proof of the IP address that 'Steve Carroll's
> Dog' posted from.
About that post, from you:
Gee, a post FROM Steve Carroll includes Steve Carrroll's ip
address. News at 11.
But now you claim to not have "any proof". Whatever.
> NONE of the posts you link to are from that poster. As you even say Steve
> _denied responsibility_ for the posting of 'Steve Carroll's dog.
And I quote it, above. You know:
I wasn't there but I'm pretty sure my dog got up to the
keyboard and created an entry.
How can that slip your mind so fast? Really... you are just lost... and you
were not, above. A goldfish has a longer attention span than you.
>> as he generally posts from. Steve Carroll's "Dog" and Steve Carroll post
>> from the same IP address... according to Steve.
>>
> Another LIE -
Of the post Steve claims is from his dog, you say:
Gee, a post FROM Steve Carroll includes Steve Carrroll's ip address.
News at 11.
But now you deny the post comes from the Steve Carroll's IP address.
You really cannot stay consistent from sentence to sentence, Tim... you are
so lost you have no idea how lost you are. It is amazing. How do you get
through a day without walking in front of a car?
> no place does Steve say that he and Steve Carroll's Dog post from the same
> place.
Right. Steve Carroll lied, as even you noted - the post from his "dog" came
from the same IP as the posts Steve generally makes.
> Steve clearly said "I wasn't there". You do realize that the word
> 'wasn't' is a contraction of the word's was and NOT don't you?
The fact Steve lied is well established, Tim. Not sure why you are
belaboring the point... other than the fact you also deny the same point.
You really are lost.
> Keep running snit.
LOL! Running? I just pointed out how Steve lied and how you both agree he
did and deny he did. Why would I run from that? I might walk away from
this idiotic debate if you cease being so amusing... it is not like anyone
is surprised that Steve lied. He always does... even Steve admits his word
means nothing to him and he is a liar.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
11/22/09 7:46 PM:
>> The point is that it not only is not a dog - a fact you keep showing surprise
>> over - but that Steve's "dog" clearly posted from his IP
>>
> a LIE you keep repeating but cannot supply any proof of. so typical of you
> snit. Go ahead snit, show us a link to a post made by 'Steve Carroll's dog'
> where the header contains the same ip address as a post from Steve Carroll
> contains.
>
> Can't do it can you!
Of the post Steve claims is from his dog, you say:
Gee, a post FROM Steve Carroll includes Steve Carrroll's ip address.
News at 11.
But now you claim to need proof to come to agree to your own view.
A goldfish has a longer attention span than you, Tim.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
11/22/09 7:39 PM:
>> "Steve Carroll - denying responsibility... and blaming his dog!"-Snit
>>
>> Could there possibly be anyone of sound mind that read what Steve Carroll
>> wrote and not only believe that he meant it but to then go on and base an
>> argument around the fact that Steve Carroll was serious?
>
> let me guess - snit?
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/dd126c87764900c4>
Kensington 1 - posting to Steve Carroll:
------
You seem to forget, Mr. Hypocritical Liar, that you attacked my kids.
God only knows what kind of misfits you spawned
Are they retarded?
------
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/6d1eb025b9906160>
Steve Carroll - forging the text of Kensington 1:
-----
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.176.47.125
...
> God has blessed you with two fine sons.
Thanks... I feel the same way.
> Are they smarter than Snit, JohnQ, jimmyjohn and zara?
Isn't everyone?
-----
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c570b31a421c068b>
Steve Carroll - denying responsibility... and blaming his dog!
------
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.176.47.125
...
I wasn't there but I'm pretty sure my dog got up to the
keyboard and created an entry.
------
Of course Steve is the one who forged the text. Nobody believes Steve that
it was his dog posting - Steve posted as his dog. Clearly. Wally is now
pretending someone was surprised by this... that *someone* did not realize
it was Steve posting as his dog. Well, other than Sandman who insisted it
was me... but we all know Sandman was lying.
Seriously, this is beyond obvious. Not sure why you two are so confused and
bent out of shape over it.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
11/22/09 7:44 PM:
Well, you are spewing insults, but at least we all agree that Steve Carroll
is the one who posted under his IP and forged text of another poster
By the way, your timeline is wrong - Steve claimed the post listing his IP
address was from his dog *before* he started hiding his IP as he posted as
his "dog". What a shock to see you get your facts mixed up. Ok... we all
make mistakes... the question is if you will admit to yours.
And the answer, I predict, is: no. You will not admit to your mistake. You
are not mature enough to see how it would be to your benefit to do so. I do
hope you prove me wrong. Really. Just admit you made a mistake.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Justin
> Windows 7 is still not supported.
>
> What is Apple afraid of?
>
> Steve
They're afraid the Windows 7 install with botch the OSX install.
They're probably right.
Microsoft is known for screwing with the MBR.
Justin
> Chance Furlong <T-B...@megakatcity.com> wrote:
>
>> Show us how Apple is obligated to support Windoze at all.
>
>
> Show us how you're qualified to say "Windoze" when you're promoting a
> freakin' Mac. What a crock of shit.
>
I usually shorten it to 'doze.
Users are Dozers. They're big dumb ugly machines, like a bulldozer.
Joel
>> Show us how you're qualified to say "Windoze" when you're promoting a
>> freakin' Mac. What a crock of shit.
>
>I usually shorten it to 'doze.
>Users are Dozers. They're big dumb ugly machines, like a bulldozer.
My girlfriend once built a Windows machine with a Mac case. So much
for that theory. :P
--
Joel Crump