OT: What you will accept in others (and yourself)
Snit
I have two questions (both in relation to posting in CSMA... I am not asking
about actions outside of the group):
1) What do you find to be unacceptable for yourself - as in things you would
not do or, if you accidentally did or did in a moment of poor judgment,
would surely apologize for. For me the list is pretty clear: I do not lie
about other people, I do not nit pick nor accept the nit picking of others
as they try to defend themselves, I do not take things out of CSMA... as in
researching people's lives out of CSMA nor trying to effect people's lives
out of CSMA.
2) What do you find unacceptable for others: here I am a lot more broad... I
accept that people lie in CSMA, if I did not and chose, for example, to not
speak to anyone who has lied that would limit the number of posters I could
respond to heavily! I will, however, condemn such actions ... but there are
things people do in CSMA that are much worse such as taking things out of
CSMA (a completely no-no in my book). When that happens, as I have made
clear recently, I will contact people's ISPs (that is not taking something
out of CSMA, that is taking care of someone else doing so). I do not accept
claims of outright perversion... though I would not contact someone's ISP
over that (unless I had reason to believe someone was in danger).
Those are just thoughts off the top of my head - of course there are other
things I would not do and other things I would not accept in others... but
what are the things that come to mind for you? What do you not accept?
And, no, I am not looking to see who can accuse who of what... note I do not
mention any names of "bad people", above.
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
Mayor of R'lyeh
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>I have noticed that I have been debating about what is right or wrong... and
>I have two questions (both in relation to posting in CSMA... I am not asking
>about actions outside of the group):
>
>1) What do you find to be unacceptable for yourself -
Listening to you.
*toilet flush*
Snit circus sent where it belongs.
--
Why settle for the lesser evil?
Cthulhu for president 2008
Nashton
> On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 21:50:32 -0700, Snit
> <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> I have noticed that I have been debating about what is right or wrong... and
>> I have two questions (both in relation to posting in CSMA... I am not asking
>> about actions outside of the group):
>>
>> 1) What do you find to be unacceptable for yourself -
>
> Listening to you.
> *toilet flush*
> Snit circus sent where it belongs.
>
>
But really, what a flaming moron this Snot.
Joey is fucked@demoncaller.com The zara
Steve Carroll
The only nerve here belongs to Snit as he has done everything (in
spades... and far more) that he just claimed he didn't do... yet, he has
the nerve to believe people are stupid enough to buy his story. Most of
what Snit does is lie and nit pick, and for him to claim he hasn't
researched things outside of csma is just another Snit lie. He did
research on me, he did it on Elizabot, he did it on Jonas when he was
quote scavenging material on Jonas from other newsgroups for a reason he
was never able to explain. For him to claim otherwise as he just did is
a flat out lie only Snit would think people are stupid enough to
believe. Here's a prime example of one of his lies... the other day Snit
stated Tim Adams "claims" to be "perverted" (Tim made no such claim):
"It is noteworthy, however, that Tim Adams claims to be so perverted
that..." - Snit
Message-ID: <C41D5659.B2488%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Notably, Snit's lie here is based on his favorite topic again... incest.
Numerous posters have stated their belief that Snit is in need of mental
help... and the main reason is that he obviously can't differentiate
fantasy from reality; this thread proves it beyond any doubt.
--
"Apple is pushing how green this is - but it [Macbook Air] is
clearly disposable... when the battery dies you can pretty much
just throw it away". - Snit
Snit
trollkiller-FE25...@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/9/08 7:56 AM:
Funny how you make all sorts of accusations but cannot support them. Not
even a little.
Oh, and my accusations against Tim are very, very well supported with
specific quotes from him... Tim Adams clearly *has* said he thinks incest
and sex are "identical". Yes, that is the perverts *exact* word. He also
claimed that to him, by definition, sex "MUST" have all the "features" of
incest.
Do you not find those claims to be perverted? If not in what way do you
defend them as anything but a perversion?
Of course, Steve, you will run... you accuse me of making false accusations
against Tim but you cannot counter the fact that he makes the exact claims I
say he does... and those claims are clearly perverted.
--
"Uh... ask me after we ship the next version of Windows [laughs] then I'll
be more open to give you a blunt answer." - Bill Gates
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/gates/>
Snit
SH2Lj.30013$dT.1...@bignews1.bellsouth.net on 4/9/08 5:33 AM:
Note where people will not answer the question. Too many of the trolls have
now put themselves in a position of supporting the idea of posting lies
about people in connection with their personal and business references so it
will be found in Google searches... and supporting all sorts of other
things.
All of this over Usenet debates. It is absolutely insane!
--
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/f351
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
Joey is fucked@demoncaller.com The zara
"Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> wrote in message
news:trollkiller-FE25...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
I respectfully disagree with you. I have read many of Snits posts, and have
always found them to be honest, fair and well balanced. I like Snit. But in
honesty, I do like most of the people here, and only mildly dislike a
couple. There is only one true Scumbag on this group - for the moment, who I
truly hate.
I respectfully offer some constructive criticism; Perhaps it's only a
matter of your perception. Perhaps old disagreements, which you are unable
to overlook or forget. Remember - the past is gone, never to reappear. A
fading dream, so to speak. Look forward to a bright new day.
Look to Mathew 5:44; "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them
that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which
despitefully use you, and persecute you".
That advice works for most people. In my case, I invoke curses.
Please note that I said "I respectfully disagree with you". On this group
to "disagree" automatically makes you an enemy to be denigrated, abused and
insulted.
I find it sad and amusing that so many here, when lacking a counterpoint, go
right to the personal insults. It really shows a lack of intelligence.
respectfully yours
The zara
Snit
_V5Lj.20748$%15....@bignews7.bellsouth.net on 4/9/08 9:13 AM:
> I respectfully disagree with you. I have read many of Snits posts, and have
> always found them to be honest, fair and well balanced. I like Snit. But in
> honesty, I do like most of the people here, and only mildly dislike a
> couple. There is only one true Scumbag on this group - for the moment, who I
> truly hate.
>
> I respectfully offer some constructive criticism; Perhaps it's only a
> matter of your perception. Perhaps old disagreements, which you are unable
> to overlook or forget. Remember - the past is gone, never to reappear. A
> fading dream, so to speak. Look forward to a bright new day.
Carroll repeatedly brings up debates from *years* ago. It is weird... he
does so, I believe, because not only cannot he not really find any current
evidence to support his claims about me but because he knows by bringing up
past accusations he can run from the present.
> Look to Mathew 5:44; "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them
> that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which
> despitefully use you, and persecute you".
>
> That advice works for most people. In my case, I invoke curses.
>
> Please note that I said "I respectfully disagree with you". On this group
> to "disagree" automatically makes you an enemy to be denigrated, abused and
> insulted.
> I find it sad and amusing that so many here, when lacking a counterpoint, go
> right to the personal insults. It really shows a lack of intelligence.
Agreed. And worse yet when they take things out of CSMA and target people's
personal and business lives. That is beyond insane. Sandman claims it is
OK for people to do against him but, I believe, it is only because he knows
I have integrity and would never do such a thing to him.
>
> respectfully yours
> The zara
Steve Carroll
I have no problem with you disagreeing with the reality that I provided
via the above message ID.
Sandman
"The zara" <Scumbag Joey is fuc...@demoncaller.com> wrote:
> > Notably, Snit's lie here is based on his favorite topic again... incest.
> > Numerous posters have stated their belief that Snit is in need of mental
> > help... and the main reason is that he obviously can't differentiate
> > fantasy from reality; this thread proves it beyond any doubt.
>
> I respectfully disagree with you. I have read many of Snits posts, and have
> always found them to be honest, fair and well balanced. I like Snit.
Ouch :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
...
>>> Notably, Snit's lie here is based on his favorite topic again... incest.
>>> Numerous posters have stated their belief that Snit is in need of mental
>>> help... and the main reason is that he obviously can't differentiate
>>> fantasy from reality; this thread proves it beyond any doubt.
>>
>> I respectfully disagree with you.
>
> I have no problem with you disagreeing with the reality that I provided
> via the above message ID.
The fact is you, Mackay, Sandman, and Adams repeatedly accuse me of many
thing. Recently you, as a group, have blamed me of:
* Lying - the "evidence" being based on silly nits, dishonest snipping
of my comments, and other completely baseless BS.
* Posting people's address - the evidence being *none*. No attempt at
all.
* Posting with sock puppets - the evidence being a name I used in another
group that clearly was *not* a sock puppet... there was no attempt at
deception
* Lying about Tim Adams' perverted claims: not only have I quoted Tim's
claims repeatedly I have asked Tim to clarify if he did not mean
things the way it sounded... of note Sandman made similar accusations
against me but then ignored my clarification where I pointed out his
misunderstanding
* Pulling up debates from the past - the evidence here was my responding
to Mackay's accusations from *years* ago with the likely reason he is
was targeting me - a post of mine from 4 months ago where I proved him
to be wrong. He acknowledged I proved him wrong and then stopped (or
at least heavily reduced) his targeting of me.
I am sure there are other accusations - but none are supported well. I
simply am not guilty of doing the things Carroll accuses me of.
You, Zara, hit the nail right on the head - Carroll has been targeting me
for *years* with his lies and his trolling... starting with when I made a
political comment and argument he did not like and could not refute.
As a note: not all of the above individuals made each of the accusations,
above. I do not want it to sound like they each have done so.
--
"The music is not inside the piano." - Alan Kay
Snit
mr-481323.20...@News.Individual.NET on 4/9/08 11:17 AM:
Why ouch, even with the smiley?
--
The answer to the water shortage is to dilute it.
Tim Adams
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
never said ""It is noteworthy, however, that Tim Adams claims to be so perverted
that...". That is just another in the long list of lies by michael glasser, aka
snit,aka the prescott computer guy.
Don't like me using your name or the name of your company? Stop posting your
lies about me. it's that simple.
--
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-E2CBF9.17...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net on
4/9/08 2:40 PM:
>> Funny how you make all sorts of accusations but cannot support them. Not
>> even a little.
>>
>> Oh, and my accusations against Tim are very, very well supported with
>> specific quotes from him... Tim Adams clearly *has*
>>
> never said ""It is noteworthy, however, that Tim Adams claims to be so
> perverted that...". That is just another in the long list of lies by michael
> gxxxxxx, aka snit,aka the pxxxxxxx cxxxxxxx gxx.
>
> Don't like me using your name or the name of your company? Stop posting your
> lies about me. it's that simple.
Before your snippage:
-----
Funny how you make all sorts of accusations but cannot
support them. Not even a little.
Oh, and my accusations against Tim are very, very well
supported with specific quotes from him... Tim Adams clearly
*has* said he thinks incest and sex are "identical". Yes,
that is the perverts *exact* word. He also claimed that to
him, by definition, sex "MUST" have all the "features" of
incest.
Do you not find those claims to be perverted? If not in what
way do you defend them as anything but a perversion?
Of course, Steve, you will run... you accuse me of making
false accusations against Tim but you cannot counter the fact
that he makes the exact claims I say he does... and those
claims are clearly perverted.
-----
You claim I am lying about you - and yet it is a fact, as proved by Google,
that you claimed, to you, sex and incest were "identical" and you claimed
that sex, "by definition", "MUST contain all the elements of incest".
I find those claims of yours to be perverted. And, yes, as you try to tie
my noting of your perversions to my business name and show your obsession
with trolling me in your .sig I shall continue to report you to your ISP. I
do not appreciate either and both are above and beyond the level of behavior
that a reasonable person would consider accept able - even in a forum such
as CSMA.
Your behavior is reprehensible... and your claimed views on sexuality are
perverted.
--
When thinking changes your mind, that's philosophy.
When God changes your mind, that's faith.
When facts change your mind, that's science.
Steve Carroll
<teadams$2$0$0$3-E2CBF9.17...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
I'm aware that you never wrote what Snit lied about here, Tim. But more
importantly, notice how this lie of Snit's is only *days* old, yet, he
lied again (today) by saying that I'm only bringing up his old lies (as
if they have some sort of an expiration date) when he wrote:
"It is weird... he does so, I believe, because not only cannot he not
really find any current evidence to support his claims about me but
because he knows by bringing up past accusations he can run from the
present."
Naturally, Snit snipped out from zara's post (that Snit responded to)
where I showed one of Snit's current trolling lies:
Message-ID: <C4223BB9.B2C1D%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Here is zara's full post:
Message-ID: <_V5Lj.20748$%15....@bignews7.bellsouth.net>
The snipping by Snit is obvious, as is his reason for doing it... to
tell his new lie without having to gaze upon the reality of his old lie.
It's quite obvious who is 'running from the present' here... the same
guy that runs from every single piece of concrete proof that he is a
lying troll... the guy that has been labeled a troll, liar or worse by
the vast majority of people who post to this newsgroup.
> Don't like me using your name or the name of your company? Stop posting your
> lies about me. it's that simple.
--
Snit
> I'm aware that you never wrote what Snit lied about here, Tim. But more
> importantly, notice how this lie of Snit's is only *days* old, yet, he
> lied again (today) by saying that I'm only bringing up his old lies (as
> if they have some sort of an expiration date) when he wrote:
>
> "It is weird... he does so, I believe, because not only cannot he not
> really find any current evidence to support his claims about me but
> because he knows by bringing up past accusations he can run from the
> present."
>
> Naturally, Snit snipped out from zara's post (that Snit responded to)
> where I showed one of Snit's current trolling lies:
> Message-ID: <C4223BB9.B2C1D%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
>
> Here is zara's full post:
> Message-ID: <_V5Lj.20748$%15....@bignews7.bellsouth.net>
>
> The snipping by Snit is obvious, as is his reason for doing it... to
> tell his new lie without having to gaze upon the reality of his old lie.
> It's quite obvious who is 'running from the present' here... the same
> guy that runs from every single piece of concrete proof that he is a
> lying troll... the guy that has been labeled a troll, liar or worse by
> the vast majority of people who post to this newsgroup.
>
>> Don't like me using your name or the name of your company? Stop posting your
>> lies about me. it's that simple.
If you believe I have lied, Steve, then quote it. If I have said something
that is incorrect (and not just one of your asinine nits or an example of
your inability to understand what you read) I shall surely apologize.
I would love to get the same offer from you... but you are not able to act
in such an adult way. For example, you have claimed that Tim did not write
the perverted things I have claimed he did. It is a fact, however, as shown
by the Google record, that Tim Adams did use the term "identical" to
describe incest and sex:
<teadams$2$0$0$3-B5939C.11...@news.east.earthlink.net>
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/54792dffec498419>
Incest IS sex by the very definition of the words. Therefore
they ARE identical when presented in that order.
I have spoken at some length, in the past, about the absurdity of his view
that those things being "identical" is somehow tied to their "order". That
is utter nonsense... but it is clear he called the two "identical". Also
notice how I responded:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/35d08df112e61230>
Contrary to the claim that I try to twist words, I made it clear I was open
to him re-stating his perverted claim:
Note: If you honestly admit to your error I will remove the
correction from my .sig, if not I get to add keep it there as
another truth someone in CSMA (you) has ignorantly tried to
argue against.
It is also true that Tim Adams stated that "by definition", in his view,
"sex MUST include all of the features of incest"
<a3911e26-a220-4b6c...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
-----
by definition sex MUST include all of the features of incest.
-----
Do you agree that "sex MUST include all the features of incest"?
Do you agree the two are "identical"
I do not - and can say without a moments hesitation or regret that someone
who does think in such ways is, without a doubt, a pervert... at least in
any modern Western context.
And you, Steve, will run from those questions. You will not come right out
and say you agree with Tim but you will claim I am lying when I quote him
and speak about his views in an honest way - they show him to be a perverted
person.
Again: if Tim wants to say, even at this late date, that he did not really
mean the two were identical and he did not mean that sex, for him, must
include all the features of incest I will take him at his word and not speak
of his perverse claims again. If I were trying to twist his words I would
not make that offer. Look at how Sandman has repeatedly tried to twist my
view that the incest, as a group of behaviors, is a subset of sex as a group
of behaviors. It is - nothing perverted about noting this... but Sandman
repeatedly lies and claims otherwise.
Joey is fucked@demoncaller.com The zara
"Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> wrote in message
I respectfully submit that reality is only a perspective. In fact, I'll go
as far as to say; nothing is real.
Joey is fucked@demoncaller.com The zara
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C422342B.B2BF1%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
Truly unconscionable.
Joey is fucked@demoncaller.com The zara
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
news:mr-481323.20...@News.Individual.NET...
Why ouch, even with the smiley?
Snit
While no single test is a full "litmus test" of morality, how people "line
up" on this is a good indicator of their moral standing.
Those that claim it is perfectly fine to try to derogatorily tie someone's
personal and business life over a CSMA debate are, clearly, immoral. And
no, of course, that does not mean contacting someone's ISP or legal
authorities over such actions is immoral... as Carroll has tried to twist
that to mean in the past.
Snit
0XbLj.30277$dT....@bignews1.bellsouth.net on 4/9/08 4:03 PM:
>>> I respectfully disagree with you.
>>
>> I have no problem with you disagreeing with the reality that I provided
>> via the above message ID.
>
> I respectfully submit that reality is only a perspective. In fact, I'll go
> as far as to say; nothing is real.
>
>
Some numbers are. By definition. :)
--
I know how a jam jar feels...
... full of jam!
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
I think you know :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"The zara" <Scumbag Joey is fuc...@demoncaller.com> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
> news:mr-481323.20...@News.Individual.NET...
> > In article <_V5Lj.20748$%15....@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
> > "The zara" <Scumbag Joey is fuc...@demoncaller.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > Notably, Snit's lie here is based on his favorite topic again...
> >> > incest.
> >> > Numerous posters have stated their belief that Snit is in need of
> >> > mental
> >> > help... and the main reason is that he obviously can't differentiate
> >> > fantasy from reality; this thread proves it beyond any doubt.
> >>
> >> I respectfully disagree with you. I have read many of Snits posts, and
> >> have
> >> always found them to be honest, fair and well balanced. I like Snit.
> >
> > Ouch :)
>
> Why ouch, even with the smiley?
Hahaha! Best one so far. Kudos :-D
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Nope. Why? Do you find someone countering your unsupported accusations to
be painful?
--
Is Swiss cheese made out of hole milk?
Tim Adams
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-E2CBF9.17...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net on
> 4/9/08 2:40 PM:
>
> >> Funny how you make all sorts of accusations but cannot support them. Not
> >> even a little.
> >>
> >> Oh, and my accusations against Tim are very, very well supported with
> >> specific quotes from him... Tim Adams clearly *has*
> >>
> > never said ""It is noteworthy, however, that Tim Adams claims to be so
> > perverted that...". That is just another in the long list of lies by michael
> > glasser, aka snit,aka the prescott computer guy.
> >
> > Don't like me using your name or the name of your company? Stop posting your
> > lies about me. it's that simple.
>
> Before your snippage:
Which was merely more of your lies. Funny how you never address them when
pointed out to you isn't it michael.
Tim Adams
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
funny how Steve DID quote it and michael glasser, aka snit, aka the prescott
computer guy snipped it out of his reply, ie: ran away from it. So typical of
you michael, but then it was totally expected.
Snit
> In article <C42297B4.B2CFB%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
>
>
>
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > trollkiller-0364DA.16290009042...@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/9/08 3:29 PM:
>
> > > I'm aware that you never wrote what Snit lied about here, Tim. But more
> > > importantly, notice how this lie of Snit's is only *days* old, yet, he
> > > lied again (today) by saying that I'm only bringing up his old lies (as
> > > if they have some sort of an expiration date) when he wrote:
>
> > > "It is weird... he does so, I believe, because not only cannot he not
> > > really find any current evidence to support his claims about me but
> > > because he knows by bringing up past accusations he can run from the
> > > present."
>
> > > Naturally, Snit snipped out from zara's post (that Snit responded to)
> > > where I showed one of Snit's current trolling lies:
> > > Message-ID: <C4223BB9.B2C1D%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
>
> > > Here is zara's full post:
>
> > > The snipping by Snit is obvious, as is his reason for doing it... to
> > > tell his new lie without having to gaze upon the reality of his old lie.
> > > It's quite obvious who is 'running from the present' here... the same
> > > guy that runs from every single piece of concrete proof that he is a
> > > lying troll... the guy that has been labeled a troll, liar or worse by
> > > the vast majority of people who post to this newsgroup.
>
> > >> Don't like me using your name or the name of your company? Stop posting
> > >> your
> > >> lies about me. it's that simple.
>
> > If you believe I have lied, Steve, then quote it.
>
> funny how Steve DID quote it and michael glasser, aka snit, aka the prescott
> computer guy snipped it out of his reply, ie: ran away from it. So typical of
> you michael, but then it was totally expected.
>
> --
> 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
one: Steve quoted no lie from me. None.
two: reported to your ISP.
Are you looking to see if I will push a civil case against you? I am
asking you, kindly, to stop trying to tie your trolling to my personal
and business name. Please, Tim, your actions are outrageous.
Snit
4/9/08 7:08 PM:
>> Before your snippage:
>
>
> Which was merely more of your lies. Funny how you never address them when
> pointed out to you isn't it michael.
Before your snippage:
-----
Funny how you make all sorts of accusations but cannot
support them. Not even a little.
Oh, and my accusations against Tim are very, very well
supported with specific quotes from him... Tim Adams clearly
*has* said he thinks incest and sex are "identical". Yes,
that is the perverts *exact* word. He also claimed that to
him, by definition, sex "MUST" have all the "features" of
incest.
Do you not find those claims to be perverted? If not in what
way do you defend them as anything but a perversion?
Of course, Steve, you will run... you accuse me of making
false accusations against Tim but you cannot counter the fact
that he makes the exact claims I say he does... and those
claims are clearly perverted.
-----
You claim I am lying about you - and yet it is a fact, as proved by Google,
that you did use the term "identical" to describe incest and sex:
<teadams$2$0$0$3-B5939C.11...@news.east.earthlink.net>
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/54792dffec498419>
Incest IS sex by the very definition of the words. Therefore
they ARE identical when presented in that order.
I have spoken at some length, in the past, about the absurdity of your view
that those things being "identical" is somehow tied to their "order". That
is utter nonsense... but it is clear you called the two "identical".
It is also true that you stated that "by definition", in your view, "sex
MUST include all of the features of incest"
<a3911e26-a220-4b6c...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
-----
by definition sex MUST include all of the features of incest.
-----
It is perverted to say "sex MUST include all the features of incest"?
It is perverted to say the two are "identical"
Your behavior of trying to tie your perverted views to *my* business is
reprehensible... and your claimed views on sexuality are perverted.
--
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments
that take our breath away.
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-0188F9.01...@News.Individual.NET on 4/9/08 4:20 PM:
>
> > In article <C4226946.B2C8D%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> >> mr-481323.20...@News.Individual.NET on 4/9/08 11:17 AM:
> >>
> >>> In article <_V5Lj.20748$%15....@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
> >>> "The zara" <Scumbag Joey is fuc...@demoncaller.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Notably, Snit's lie here is based on his favorite topic again... incest.
> >>>>> Numerous posters have stated their belief that Snit is in need of mental
> >>>>> help... and the main reason is that he obviously can't differentiate
> >>>>> fantasy from reality; this thread proves it beyond any doubt.
> >>>>
> >>>> I respectfully disagree with you. I have read many of Snits posts, and
> >>>> have
> >>>> always found them to be honest, fair and well balanced. I like Snit.
> >>>
> >>> Ouch :)
> >>>
> >> Why ouch, even with the smiley?
> >
> > I think you know :)
> >
> Nope. Why? Do you find someone countering your unsupported accusations to
> be painful?
Nope. :-D
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Makes sense - from what I have see as long as you get attention you do not
mind people countering your unsupported accusations... and your accusations
just get more and more extreme over time... and as Carroll and crew are in
more need of help to dig them out of their repulsive actions. You are
seriously cowed.
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Ouch :)
> >>>>>
> >>>> Why ouch, even with the smiley?
> >>>
> >>> I think you know :)
> >>>
> >> Nope. Why? Do you find someone countering your unsupported accusations to
> >> be painful?
> >
> > Nope. :-D
>
> Makes sense - from what I have see as long as you get attention you do not
> mind people countering your unsupported accusations...
What people are you in reference to?
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Before your snippage:
-----
Makes sense - from what I have see as long as you get
attention you do not mind people countering your unsupported
accusations... and your accusations just get more and more
extreme over time... and as Carroll and crew are in more need
of help to dig them out of their repulsive actions. You are
seriously cowed.
-----
I am in reference to you, Sandman. Clearly.
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
Tim Adams
Snit <brockmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
yet it was in the post before you snipped it out. so typical of you michael.
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> Makes sense - from what I have see as long as you get attention you do not
> >> mind people countering your unsupported accusations...
> >
> > What people are you in reference to?
>
> <snip>
>
> I am in reference to you, Sandman. Clearly.
So, the people that are supposedly countering my claims is myself?
Well, no, I don't mind being countered by myself.
--
Sandman[.net]
Tim Adams
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-544167.22...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net on
> 4/9/08 7:08 PM:
>
> >> Before your snippage:
> >
> >
> > Which was merely more of your lies. Funny how you never address them when
> > pointed out to you isn't it michael.
>
> Before your snippage:
Which was merely more of your lies. Funny how you never address them when
pointed out to you isn't it michael.
keep snipping and running from reality michael.
Wally
On 10/4/08 3:24 PM, in article C4230EC1.B2D9D%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Would you kindly supply an example of Sandman countering his own alleged
"unsupported accusations"? And of course whatever led you to believe that
Sandman was "people" as opposed to a person Snit would also be welcome, and
would certainly be worth the read I'm sure! LOL
"...you do not mind people countering your unsupported accusations..."-Snit
"What people are you in reference to?"-Sandman
"I am in reference to you, Sandman. Clearly"-Snit
Joey is fucked@demoncaller.com The zara
Snit
4/9/08 7:08 PM:
>> Before your snippage:
>
>
> Which was merely more of your lies. Funny how you never address them when
> pointed out to you isn't it michael.
Before your snippage:
-----
Funny how you make all sorts of accusations but cannot
support them. Not even a little.
Oh, and my accusations against Tim are very, very well
supported with specific quotes from him... Tim Adams clearly
*has* said he thinks incest and sex are "identical". Yes,
that is the perverts *exact* word. He also claimed that to
him, by definition, sex "MUST" have all the "features" of
incest.
Do you not find those claims to be perverted? If not in what
way do you defend them as anything but a perversion?
Of course, Steve, you will run... you accuse me of making
false accusations against Tim but you cannot counter the fact
that he makes the exact claims I say he does... and those
claims are clearly perverted.
-----
You claim I am lying about you - and yet it is a fact, as proved by Google,
that you did use the term "identical" to describe incest and sex:
<teadams$2$0$0$3-B5939C.11...@news.east.earthlink.net>
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/54792dffec498419>
Incest IS sex by the very definition of the words. Therefore
they ARE identical when presented in that order.
I have spoken at some length, in the past, about the absurdity of your view
that those things being "identical" is somehow tied to their "order". That
is utter nonsense... but it is clear you called the two "identical".
It is also true that you stated that "by definition", in your view, "sex
MUST include all of the features of incest"
<a3911e26-a220-4b6c...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
-----
by definition sex MUST include all of the features of incest.
-----
It is perverted to say "sex MUST include all the features of incest"?
It is perverted to say the two are "identical"
Your behavior of trying to tie your perverted views to *my* business is
reprehensible... and your claimed views on sexuality are perverted.
--
Snit
C424113D.1A9E1%Wa...@wally.world.net on 4/10/08 3:47 AM:
What?
-----
Makes sense - from what I have see as long as you get
attention you do not mind people countering your unsupported
accusations... and your accusations just get more and more
extreme over time... and as Carroll and crew are in more need
of help to dig them out of their repulsive actions. You are
seriously cowed.
-----
I clearly was referencing Sandman.
--
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please
everyone. -- Bill Cosby
Snit
-----
Makes sense - from what I have see as long as you get
attention you do not mind people countering your unsupported
accusations... and your accusations just get more and more
extreme over time... and as Carroll and crew are in more need
of help to dig them out of their repulsive actions. You are
seriously cowed.
-----
I am in reference to you, Sandman. Clearly. Does it matter to you who
counters your unsupported accusations? Is that what you are getting at? If
so, Sandman, why would it matter... other than the fact that, as I have
repeatedly stated, you are cowed by the "bad people". You do not want the
people who troll in CSMA to speak poorly of you or to counter your BS - if
they did that would risk your idiotic proof-by-quote-scavenging. Thanks
for, again, showing how right I am about you.
--
Computers are incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid: humans are incredibly
slow, inaccurate and brilliant; together they are powerful beyond
imagination. - attributed to Albert Einstein, likely apocryphal
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>>> Makes sense - from what I have see as long as you get attention you do
> >>>> not
> >>>> mind people countering your unsupported accusations...
> >>>
> >>> What people are you in reference to?
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> I am in reference to you, Sandman. Clearly.
> >
> > So, the people that are supposedly countering my claims is myself?
> > Well, no, I don't mind being countered by myself.
>
> I am in reference to you, Sandman. Clearly. Does it matter to you who
> counters your unsupported accusations?
You're the one that claims they are being "countered", by "people",
but you don't seem to be able to pinpoint just who are in this
supposed group of "people" that allegedly "counters" my claims.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"The zara" <Scumbag Joey is fuc...@demoncaller.com> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
> news:mr-8A45DE.01...@News.Individual.NET...
> > In article <v_bLj.30280$dT.2...@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
> > "The zara" <Scumbag Joey is fuc...@demoncaller.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
> >> news:mr-481323.20...@News.Individual.NET...
> >> > In article <_V5Lj.20748$%15....@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
> >> > "The zara" <Scumbag Joey is fuc...@demoncaller.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > Notably, Snit's lie here is based on his favorite topic again...
> >> >> > incest.
> >> >> > Numerous posters have stated their belief that Snit is in need of
> >> >> > mental
> >> >> > help... and the main reason is that he obviously can't differentiate
> >> >> > fantasy from reality; this thread proves it beyond any doubt.
> >> >>
> >> >> I respectfully disagree with you. I have read many of Snits posts,
> >> >> and
> >> >> have
> >> >> always found them to be honest, fair and well balanced. I like Snit.
> >> >
> >> > Ouch :)
> >>
> >> Why ouch, even with the smiley?
> >
> > Hahaha! Best one so far. Kudos :-D
>
> :)
You've really put master trolls to shame as of lately. I appreciate
the effort :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> What?
>
> -----
> Makes sense - from what I have see as long as you get
> attention you do not mind people countering your unsupported
> accusations... and your accusations just get more and more
> extreme over time... and as Carroll and crew are in more need
> of help to dig them out of their repulsive actions. You are
> seriously cowed.
> -----
>
> I clearly was referencing Sandman.
My question was "what people are you in reference to?". The word
"people" is mentioned once in the above paragraph and I don't think
even you can try to claim that you meant "Sandman" when typing
"people" in the sentence;
"Makes sense - from what I have see as long as you get
attention you do not mind Sandman countering your
unsupported accusations..."
Hmmm, just doesn't look right.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
I am in reference to you, Sandman. Clearly. Does it matter to you who
counters your unsupported accusations? Is that what you are getting at? If
so, Sandman, why would it matter... other than the fact that, as I have
repeatedly stated, you are cowed by the "bad people". You do not want the
people who troll in CSMA to speak poorly of you or to counter your BS - if
they did that would risk your idiotic proof-by-quote-scavenging. Thanks
for, again, showing how right I am about you.
You, Sandman, care about *who* proves your idiotic accusations to be wrong
more than you are concerned about being accurate in the first place. That
is pathetic.
Snit
accusations... and your accusations just get more and more
extreme over time... and as Carroll and crew are in more need
of help to dig them out of their repulsive actions. You are
seriously cowed.
You, Sandman, care about *who* proves your idiotic accusations to be wrong
more than you are concerned about being accurate and honest in the first
place. You do not want the people who troll in CSMA to speak poorly of you
or to counter your BS - if they did that would risk your idiotic
proof-by-quote-scavenging. Thanks for, again, showing how right I am about
you.
Oh, and let me also note you are trying to change the topic from your
unsupported and even disproved accusations. You have no idea how
transparent your BS is.
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> You, Sandman, care about *who* proves your idiotic accusations to be wrong
> more than you are concerned about being accurate and honest in the first
> place.
You, Michael Glasser, claims that there are "people" that is
countering my claims, yet you fail to point to any such people, making
your claim unsubstantiated, and as such, invalid to any conclusions
you may or may not have drawn from it.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C423870D.B2E2C%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
accusations... and your accusations just get more and more
extreme over time... and as Carroll and crew are in more need
of help to dig them out of their repulsive actions. You are
seriously cowed.
You, Sandman, care about *who* proves your idiotic accusations to be wrong
more than you are concerned about being accurate and honest in the first
place. You do not want the people who troll in CSMA to speak poorly of you
or to counter your BS - if they did that would risk your idiotic
proof-by-quote-scavenging. Thanks for, again, showing how right I am about
you.
Oh, and let me also note you are trying to change the topic from your
Steve Carroll
<teadams$2$0$0$3-01F6B6.06...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Notably, he's threatening you with a frivolous lawsuit... and that's a
form of harassment that a civil court judge won't overlook in a case
where there is a plaintiff like him that has done what he's done. He has
threatened legal action numerous times on this newsgroup... and it's all
on record. The situation here is simple... he either doesn't realize
what his being participatory in csma the way he has would mean to such a
lawsuit... or, worse (for him), he's using threats of what he fully
knows is a frivolous lawsuit as a form of harassment. The reality is the
only way he could get a lawyer to represent him is if he found a total
crook of a lawyer who would seek to rip him off or he withheld
information regarding his own participation... which, as we all know and
google has proven over and over, amounts to him purposefully inciting
people with lies as he has just done with you here. There is a *ton* of
concrete proof of him inciting others... even many instances of him
flatly admitting how he enjoys messing with people. Imagine the shock on
his face when his own lawyer sues him and uses the person he initially
targeted with his frivolous lawsuit as a witness against him. To top it
off... in many states (like Colorado, for example) the loser pays all
legal fees. We're talking a chunk of change here... and... as he likes
to say... all over csma debates;)
--
"Apple is pushing how green this is - but it [Macbook Air] is
clearly disposable... when the battery dies you can pretty much
just throw it away". - Snit
Joey is fucked@demoncaller.com The zara
So today you like me. But your turn in the barrel is coming up.
Sandman
"like" is a strong word. You're still a newbie and your pride and
immaturity is your biggest enemy. I just wanted to make notice of your
current surge. Your play with Snit is genius. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Joey is fucked@demoncaller.com The zara
Just a test. I wanted to see how far you were going to stroke me.
>You're still a newbie and your pride and
> immaturity is your biggest enemy. I just wanted to make notice of your
> current surge. Your play with Snit is genius. :)
Not play. Not genius. Sincerity. Machiavelli you're not. If I were King, I
would have you hanging from your thumbs. Do you know what I meant when I
said "your turn in the barrel is coming up"?
FYI: It's an American joke.
Snit
y8yLj.19843$Q52...@bignews9.bellsouth.net on 4/10/08 5:20 PM:
Defend Carroll, Wally, and Adams and he will stroke you "all the way".
>> You're still a newbie and your pride and
>> immaturity is your biggest enemy. I just wanted to make notice of your
>> current surge. Your play with Snit is genius. :)
>
> Not play. Not genius. Sincerity. Machiavelli you're not. If I were King, I
> would have you hanging from your thumbs. Do you know what I meant when I
> said "your turn in the barrel is coming up"?
>
> FYI: It's an American joke.
Whereas Sandman is a Swedish joke. :)
--
Is Swiss cheese made out of hole milk?
Hasta La Vista
"The zara" <Scumbag Joey is fuc...@demoncaller.com> wrote in message
news:yvvLj.5338$DY1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
What does that mean?
Sandman
Sandman
"Hasta La Vista" <noe...@all.to.me> wrote:
> >> You've really put master trolls to shame as of lately. I appreciate
> >> the effort :)
> >
> > So today you like me. But your turn in the barrel is coming up.
>
> What does that mean?
"Shooting fish in a barrel". It's an american expression.
zara thinks he is good at trolling, but the only target he has ever
been successful with is Snit. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Wally
On 10/4/08 11:53 PM, in article C4238610.B2E22%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Unless you have suddenly lost the ability to read Snit the statements above
and the order that they were made is self explanatory!
> -----
> Makes sense - from what I have see as long as you get
> attention you do not mind people countering your unsupported
> accusations... and your accusations just get more and more
> extreme over time... and as Carroll and crew are in more need
> of help to dig them out of their repulsive actions. You are
> seriously cowed.
> -----
>
> I clearly was referencing Sandman.
>
The question was.....
"What people are you in reference to?"-Sandman
You clearly were not referencing Sandman by using the term "people"...unless
you have completely lost your mind Snit!
Wally
On 11/4/08 9:10 AM, in article C4240881.B2F18%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
That may be how it works for you with 'Sweet Tomato' Snit!... But really..
get your mind out of the gutter!
Joey is fucked@demoncaller.com The zara
"Hasta La Vista" <noe...@all.to.me> wrote in message
news:vKidnXlKI6s5RGPa...@comcast.com...
In olden days, a young sailor was "pressed" into service on a sailing ship.
After a couple of weeks at sea he asked an old salt what the sailors did for
sex.
The old salt pointed to a barrel lashed to the mast and said " see that hole
in the barrel, put your dick into it and you will be serviced. You can do
that on any day except Wednesday.
The young sailor asked; "what happens on Wednesday"?
The old salt replied; " Wednesday is your turn in the barrel".
Joey is fucked@demoncaller.com The zara
> In article <vKidnXlKI6s5RGPa...@comcast.com>,
> "Hasta La Vista" <noe...@all.to.me> wrote:
>
>> >> You've really put master trolls to shame as of lately. I appreciate
>> >> the effort :)
>> >
>> > So today you like me. But your turn in the barrel is coming up.
>>
>> What does that mean?
>
> "Shooting fish in a barrel". It's an american expression.
BZZZZZZZZZZTT!!!! WRONG!!
> zara thinks he is good at trolling, but the only target he has ever
> been successful with is Snit. :)
> Sandman[.net]
Steve Mackay
You're actually assuming he had a brain to begin with. :)
If you think about it, with how much Snit likes to bring up Strawmen
arguments... It makes *TOTAL* sense now!
Snit is the Strawman from the Wizard of OZ! I can just hear him singing
"if I only had a brain" :)
Snit
From what I told Sandman:
---------
Makes sense - from what I have see as long as you get
attention you do not mind people countering your unsupported
accusations... and your accusations just get more and more
extreme over time... and as Carroll and crew are in more need
of help to dig them out of their repulsive actions. You are
seriously cowed.
You, Sandman, care about *who* proves your idiotic accusations to be wrong
more than you are concerned about being accurate and honest in the first
place. You do not want the people who troll in CSMA to speak poorly of you
or to counter your BS - if they did that would risk your idiotic
proof-by-quote-scavenging. Thanks for, again, showing how right I am about
you.
Oh, and let me also note you are trying to change the topic from your
unsupported and even disproved accusations. You have no idea how
transparent your BS is.
----------
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
Snit
zTILj.20111$Q52....@bignews9.bellsouth.net on 4/11/08 5:33 AM:
>
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
> news:mr-6E7B5F.10...@News.Individual.NET...
>> In article <vKidnXlKI6s5RGPa...@comcast.com>,
>> "Hasta La Vista" <noe...@all.to.me> wrote:
>>
>>>>> You've really put master trolls to shame as of lately. I appreciate
>>>>> the effort :)
>>>>
>>>> So today you like me. But your turn in the barrel is coming up.
>>>
>>> What does that mean?
>>
>> "Shooting fish in a barrel". It's an american expression.
>
> BZZZZZZZZZZTT!!!! WRONG!!
Don't worry... Sandman will do a bit of Googling soon. :)
>> zara thinks he is good at trolling, but the only target he has ever
>> been successful with is Snit. :)
>
>> Sandman[.net]
>
>
--
BU__SH__
Snit
47ff73e2$0$22161$4c36...@roadrunner.com on 4/11/08 7:19 AM:
>> The question was.....
>>
>> "What people are you in reference to?"-Sandman
>>
>> You clearly were not referencing Sandman by using the term "people"...unless
>> you have completely lost your mind Snit!
>>
>
> You're actually assuming he had a brain to begin with. :)
> If you think about it, with how much Snit likes to bring up Strawmen
> arguments... It makes *TOTAL* sense now!
>
> Snit is the Strawman from the Wizard of OZ! I can just hear him singing
> "if I only had a brain" :)
Poor Mackay... I proved him wrong about his claims on formatting and four
months later he is *still* trolling me over it.
Oh well.
I already told Sandman why I am not going to follow his silly side issue BS:
---------
Makes sense - from what I have see as long as you get
attention you do not mind people countering your unsupported
accusations... and your accusations just get more and more
extreme over time... and as Carroll and crew are in more need
of help to dig them out of their repulsive actions. You are
seriously cowed.
You, Sandman, care about *who* proves your idiotic accusations to be wrong
more than you are concerned about being accurate and honest in the first
place. You do not want the people who troll in CSMA to speak poorly of you
or to counter your BS - if they did that would risk your idiotic
proof-by-quote-scavenging. Thanks for, again, showing how right I am about
you.
Oh, and let me also note you are trying to change the topic from your
unsupported and even disproved accusations. You have no idea how
transparent your BS is.
---------
Even if he begs I shall not play his silly game. It shall be fun to watch
him freak out.
--
Do you ever wake up in a cold sweat wondering what the world would be
like if the Lamarckian view of evolution had ended up being accepted
over Darwin's?
Wally
On 11/4/08 10:19 PM, in article 47ff73e2$0$22161$4c36...@roadrunner.com,
"Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Point taken!
> Snit is the Strawman from the Wizard of OZ! I can just hear him singing
> "if I only had a brain" :)
LOL
Steve Mackay
> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> stated in post
> 47ff73e2$0$22161$4c36...@roadrunner.com on 4/11/08 7:19 AM:
>
>>> The question was.....
>>>
>>> "What people are you in reference to?"-Sandman
>>>
>>> You clearly were not referencing Sandman by using the term "people"...unless
>>> you have completely lost your mind Snit!
>>>
>> You're actually assuming he had a brain to begin with. :)
>> If you think about it, with how much Snit likes to bring up Strawmen
>> arguments... It makes *TOTAL* sense now!
>>
>> Snit is the Strawman from the Wizard of OZ! I can just hear him singing
>> "if I only had a brain" :)
>
> Poor Mackay... I proved him wrong about his claims on formatting and four
> months later he is *still* trolling me over it.
LOL! You moron, I'm not trolling you for proving me wrong. I'm making
fun of you, because you're a slimy, lying little troll.
Snit
>>>> -----
>>>> Makes sense - from what I have see as long as you get
>>>> attention you do not mind people countering your unsupported
>>>> accusations... and your accusations just get more and more
>>>> extreme over time... and as Carroll and crew are in more need
>>>> of help to dig them out of their repulsive actions. You are
>>>> seriously cowed.
>>>> -----
>>>>
>>>> I clearly was referencing Sandman.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The question was.....
>>>
>>> "What people are you in reference to?"-Sandman
>>>
>>> You clearly were not referencing Sandman by using the term "people"...unless
>>> you have completely lost your mind Snit!
>>>
>>
>> You're actually assuming he had a brain to begin with. :)
>> If you think about it, with how much Snit likes to bring up Strawmen
>> arguments... It makes *TOTAL* sense now!
>
> Point taken!
>
>> Snit is the Strawman from the Wizard of OZ! I can just hear him singing
>> "if I only had a brain" :)
>
> LOL
And the trolls, predictably, start stroking each other.
Forgive me if I do not wait for the climax.
--
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/f351
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
Snit
Oh, poor Mackay lashes out again.
You know, Steve, if you really believed what you were saying you would at
least *try* to support your accusations. You don't. Not even a little.
That's right: it is completely clear that not even you believe the BS you
spew. You just lash out.
Steve Mackay
> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> stated in post
> 47ff793a$0$22182$4c36...@roadrunner.com on 4/11/08 7:42 AM:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> stated in post
>>> 47ff73e2$0$22161$4c36...@roadrunner.com on 4/11/08 7:19 AM:
>>>
>>>>> The question was.....
>>>>>
>>>>> "What people are you in reference to?"-Sandman
>>>>>
>>>>> You clearly were not referencing Sandman by using the term
>>>>> "people"...unless
>>>>> you have completely lost your mind Snit!
>>>>>
>>>> You're actually assuming he had a brain to begin with. :)
>>>> If you think about it, with how much Snit likes to bring up Strawmen
>>>> arguments... It makes *TOTAL* sense now!
>>>>
>>>> Snit is the Strawman from the Wizard of OZ! I can just hear him singing
>>>> "if I only had a brain" :)
>>> Poor Mackay... I proved him wrong about his claims on formatting and four
>>> months later he is *still* trolling me over it.
>> LOL! You moron, I'm not trolling you for proving me wrong. I'm making
>> fun of you, because you're a slimy, lying little troll.
>>
> Oh, poor Mackay lashes out again.
Aww, poor Glasser can't take a joke. Oh wait! YOU ARE THE JOKE! :)
> You know, Steve, if you really believed what you were saying you would at
> least *try* to support your accusations. You don't. Not even a little.
I don't need to. You've proven over the years that you are lacking the
mental capacities to carry on any adult debate. You're serious reading
comprehension problems(which have been proven, and documented over the
years, so no need to re-hash that stuff), etc...
> That's right: it is completely clear that not even you believe the BS you
> spew. You just lash out.
Come on Snit, keep singing... "If I only had a brain" It's quite fitting!
Wally
On 11/4/08 10:30 PM, in article C424C421.B2FE9%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
What part of ...
"The question was.....
"What people are you in reference to?"-Sandman
..... is too difficult for you to follow Snit?
>
> ---------
> Makes sense - from what I have see as long as you get
> attention you do not mind people countering your unsupported
> accusations...
With respect to the above Sandman asked...
"What people are you in reference to?"-Sandman
Can you follow along with this Snit?...you say "people" and Sandman asked
....which "people", you have already had one go at answering and you said
that clearly you was referencing ...Sandman? ROTFLMAO!
Would you like to try again as clearly Sandman isn't "people"? although with
you it's always possible that you think that he is more than one person you
have already stated that you consider it a real possibility that I am able
to alter your posts original text before they arrive at CSMA so clearly your
delusions have no boundaries !
> and your accusations just get more and more
> extreme over time... and as Carroll and crew are in more need
> of help to dig them out of their repulsive actions. You are
> seriously cowed.
>
> You, Sandman, care about *who* proves your idiotic accusations to be wrong
> more than you are concerned about being accurate and honest in the first
> place.
Says the guy that can't be either accurate by stating which "people" you
were referencing, nor honest by stating that you have no support that these
"people" even exist!
> You do not want the people who troll in CSMA to speak poorly of you
> or to counter your BS - if they did that would risk your idiotic
> proof-by-quote-scavenging. Thanks for, again, showing how right I am about
> you.
>
> Oh, and let me also note you are trying to change the topic from your
> unsupported and even disproved accusations. You have no idea how
> transparent your BS is.
Seriously Snit ...condemnation from you is akin to being called 'silly' by a
certified lunatic!
Snit
Above you imply that Sandman going off topic and proving me right about him
was, somehow, "too difficult" for me to follow. Your implication is a lie.
That Sandman cares more about *who* shows him to be wrong than *that* he was
wrong is the point Sandman just proved... and one you are not willing to
acknowledge. Notice, though, that since Sandman supports you even in such
times as when you spew your ignorance about set theory you now return the
favor and support his BS here.
Congrats on having him completely cowed...
--
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Snit
Gee: more accusations and insults from Mackay... accusations and insults he
would support if he really believed them.
Not even you believe your BS, Steve. Really - you are that transparent.
Mayor of R'lyeh
>In article <vKidnXlKI6s5RGPa...@comcast.com>,
> "Hasta La Vista" <noe...@all.to.me> wrote:
>
>> >> You've really put master trolls to shame as of lately. I appreciate
>> >> the effort :)
>> >
>> > So today you like me. But your turn in the barrel is coming up.
>>
>> What does that mean?
>
>"Shooting fish in a barrel". It's an american expression.
What he's referring is an old joke. It goes something like this.
A man new to his remote logging camp is being given a tour of the
place. He asks 'What do you do for sex up here since there's no
women?' He's shown a barrel with a hole in the side. He's told just
stick your willy in the barrel and you'll be taken care of. That's
great he says. I haven't told you everything yet his guide says.
Tuesday evenings are your turn to be in the barrel.
>
>zara thinks he is good at trolling, but the only target he has ever
>been successful with is Snit. :)
--
Why settle for the lesser evil?
Cthulhu for president 2008.
Mayor of R'lyeh
<mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
You're bound and determined to just get everyone in the world pissed
off at you, aren't you? 8)
Wally
On 11/4/08 11:38 PM, in article C424D41A.B3015%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Hahhahhahahaahahah! ....your serious?
> that Sandman going off topic and proving me right about him
> was, somehow, "too difficult" for me to follow. Your implication is a lie.
He asked a question concerning *your* comment, how is that off topic?
> That Sandman cares more about *who* shows him to be wrong than *that* he was
> wrong is the point Sandman just proved...
You stated that "people" had made certain comments, it would be natural to
know which people ...especially as he obviously believes that these "people"
are wrong, but of course we will never know because you will continue to run
from every attempt to get you to support your claim Snit! That is a fact!
> and one you are not willing to acknowledge.
So far these alleged "people" are no more than your delusion Snit what they
are supposed to have said is immaterial whilst they remain a figment of your
imagination!
> Notice, though, that since Sandman supports you even in such
> times as when you spew your ignorance about set theory you now return the
> favor and support his BS here.
I am simply supporting his right to have you state who made these statements
that you claim have been made about him, the same right that applies to
everyone in CSMA... You continue to run from answering a simple question
because you have no answer Snit!
Snit
Gee, what a shock! Contrary to all reason and logic and sensibility you
continue to support Sandman's side issues and avoid talking about the fact
that Sandman has proved me right that he cares more about *who* speaks the
truth about him and his comments than *what* the truth is.
--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Gee, what a shock! Contrary to all reason and logic and sensibility you
> continue to support Sandman's side issues and avoid talking about the fact
> that Sandman has proved me right that he cares more about *who* speaks the
> truth about him and his comments than *what* the truth is.
What is your motive for lying about me in responses to other people?
What kind of gain do you see for yourself?
Remember, you claim I have "proved you right", not that it "seems to
you". You made an explicit claim about what I care about, not what you
think I care about or how it seem to you. You claim to have proof
about what I care about.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Wally <Wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
> > That Sandman cares more about *who* shows him to be wrong than *that* he was
> > wrong is the point Sandman just proved...
>
> You stated that "people" had made certain comments, it would be natural to
> know which people ...especially as he obviously believes that these "people"
> are wrong
In fact, I don't think they exist. They are a product of Snits inner
wishes. I think he often talks about "people" doing this and that to
others here because he is very well aware of what "people" think of
him.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
On and on you go - ignoring the fact that you have made it clear, again,
that you care about *who* proves you wrong more than about *what* wrong
information you post.
You are, clearly, cowed by the folks you call the "bad people".
--
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?
Snit
People do not exist. Um, OK.
Come on, Sandman... people do exist... and people do prove you wrong. There
is no doubt I do - repeatedly.
And no doubt you bend over backwards to please the people who have you
cowed. You repeatedly prove that.
--
One who makes no mistakes, never makes anything.
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-26E02E.16...@News.Individual.NET on 4/12/08 7:48 AM:
>
> > In article <C426D5F3.1AB30%Wa...@wally.world.net>,
> > Wally <Wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
> >
> >>> That Sandman cares more about *who* shows him to be wrong than *that* he
> >>> was
> >>> wrong is the point Sandman just proved...
> >>
> >> You stated that "people" had made certain comments, it would be natural to
> >> know which people ...especially as he obviously believes that these
> >> "people"
> >> are wrong
> >
> > In fact, I don't think they exist. They are a product of Snits inner
> > wishes. I think he often talks about "people" doing this and that to
> > others here because he is very well aware of what "people" think of
> > him.
>
> People do not exist.
Is that an explicit claim from you? Mind if I quote you on that?
> Um, OK.
>
> Come on, Sandman... people do exist... and people do prove you wrong. There
> is no doubt I do - repeatedly.
What people, Michael? Could you please be a little more specific than
just calling them "people"? No? Why not?
> And no doubt you bend over backwards to please the people who have you
> cowed. You repeatedly prove that.
What people is this? In what way do I "bend over backwards"? And in
what way am I intimidated by them? What have they done to me to make
me fear them?
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-696C60.16...@News.Individual.NET on 4/12/08 7:46 AM:
>
> > In article <C42614ED.B3185%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Gee, what a shock! Contrary to all reason and logic and sensibility you
> >> continue to support Sandman's side issues and avoid talking about the fact
> >> that Sandman has proved me right that he cares more about *who* speaks the
> >> truth about him and his comments than *what* the truth is.
> >
> > What is your motive for lying about me in responses to other people?
> > What kind of gain do you see for yourself?
> >
> > Remember, you claim I have "proved you right", not that it "seems to
> > you". You made an explicit claim about what I care about, not what you
> > think I care about or how it seem to you. You claim to have proof
> > about what I care about.
>
> On and on you go - ignoring the fact that you have made it clear, again,
> that you care about *who* proves you wrong more than about *what* wrong
> information you post.
One is dependant on the other. You keep saying that "people" prove my
claims wrong. You can't tell me who these people are and if they don't
exist, then no one is proving my claims wrong.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C4261C48.B319D%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
>> mr-26E02E.16...@News.Individual.NET on 4/12/08 7:48 AM:
>>
>>> In article <C426D5F3.1AB30%Wa...@wally.world.net>,
>>> Wally <Wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> That Sandman cares more about *who* shows him to be wrong than *that* he
>>>>> was
>>>>> wrong is the point Sandman just proved...
>>>>
>>>> You stated that "people" had made certain comments, it would be natural to
>>>> know which people ...especially as he obviously believes that these
>>>> "people"
>>>> are wrong
>>>
>>> In fact, I don't think they exist. They are a product of Snits inner
>>> wishes. I think he often talks about "people" doing this and that to
>>> others here because he is very well aware of what "people" think of
>>> him.
>>
>> People do not exist.
>
> Is that an explicit claim from you? Mind if I quote you on that?
And here Sandman is trying to twist words. Amazing. How long until one of
his "bad people" uses it as a .sig?
>> Um, OK.
>>
>> Come on, Sandman... people do exist... and people do prove you wrong. There
>> is no doubt I do - repeatedly.
>
> What people, Michael? Could you please be a little more specific than
> just calling them "people"? No? Why not?
Because it only matters to *you* who it is that proves you wrong... the fact
is you are avoiding the actual topic of the fact you react differently based
on who proves you wrong and you act in ways to please the people you think
would treat you in outrageous ways - such as the people who clearly have you
cowed.
If you want to know about people proving you wrong just look at your recent
claims about application preferences being the same idea as the Windows
control panel (the better comparison is System Preferences, not application
preferences).
>> And no doubt you bend over backwards to please the people who have you
>> cowed. You repeatedly prove that.
>
> What people is this? In what way do I "bend over backwards"? And in
> what way am I intimidated by them? What have they done to me to make
> me fear them?
Look at how you bend over backwards to try to support Wally and Carroll and
Adams... you do all you can to prevent them (and other trolls) from speaking
poorly of you, that way you can pretend your idiotic
proof-by-quote-scavenging has *any* validity. Even then, of course, you
simply discount the quotes of people you do not like... just another sign of
your dishonesty.
--
Teachers open the door but you must walk through it yourself.
Snit
And Sandman breaks the world record for running!
Excellent work, I suppose.
--
I know how a jam jar feels...
... full of jam!
Hasta La Vista
> "Hasta La Vista" <noe...@all.to.me> wrote:
>
>> >> You've really put master trolls to shame as of lately. I appreciate
>> >> the effort :)
>> >
>> > So today you like me. But your turn in the barrel is coming up.
>>
>> What does that mean?
>
> "Shooting fish in a barrel". It's an american expression.
That one I know. "... your turn in the barrel is coming up" is one I've
never seen before.
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> On and on you go - ignoring the fact that you have made it clear, again,
> >> that you care about *who* proves you wrong more than about *what* wrong
> >> information you post.
> >
> > One is dependant on the other. You keep saying that "people" prove my
> > claims wrong. You can't tell me who these people are and if they don't
> > exist, then no one is proving my claims wrong.
>
> And Sandman breaks the world record for running!
>
> Excellent work, I suppose.
Still not any support for the claim that these supposed people exist.
Keep running, Michael. And keep projecting :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> People do not exist.
> >
> > Is that an explicit claim from you? Mind if I quote you on that?
>
> And here Sandman is trying to twist words.
In what way did I "twist" them, Michael Glasser? That's a direct quote
from you.
> >> Come on, Sandman... people do exist... and people do prove you wrong.
> >> There
> >> is no doubt I do - repeatedly.
> >
> > What people, Michael? Could you please be a little more specific than
> > just calling them "people"? No? Why not?
>
> Because it only matters to *you* who it is that proves you wrong...
It matters to me that such people even exist, because if they don't,
the action you claim they perform never took place.
> the fact is you are avoiding the actual topic of the fact you react
> differently based on who proves you wrong
Name some people that has proved me wrong and then highlight the
difference in my reaction to it. I think maybe at least ten people for
each reaction is sufficient to draw the kind of conclusion you're
trying to do here unsupported.
> If you want to know about people proving you wrong just look at your recent
> claims about application preferences being the same idea as the Windows
> control panel
I can't, I never said any such thing, so it's impossible for me to
look at that.
> > What people is this? In what way do I "bend over backwards"? And in
> > what way am I intimidated by them? What have they done to me to make
> > me fear them?
>
> Look at how you bend over backwards to try to support Wally and Carroll and
> Adams...
Don't just say "Look at how". Be specific, don't generalize. The above
sentence is not support for your claim. It's pontification.
> you do all you can to prevent them (and other trolls) from speaking
> poorly of you
How do I go about to do such a thing? Another unsupported claim.
> that way you can pretend your idiotic proof-by-quote-scavenging has
> *any* validity.
What "proof-by-quote-scavanging"?
> Even then, of course, you simply discount the
> quotes of people you do not like... just another sign of your
> dishonesty.
Are you talking about the relational troll scoring? I've submitted
maybe five quotes for that, all contemporary (i.e. when they occured).
And the rules for discounting is the same for you as for me.
--
Sandman[.net]
Wally
On 12/4/08 11:06 PM, in article
mr-D27A48.17...@News.Individual.NET, "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net>
wrote:
> In article <C4261C48.B319D%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
>> mr-26E02E.16...@News.Individual.NET on 4/12/08 7:48 AM:
>>
>>> In article <C426D5F3.1AB30%Wa...@wally.world.net>,
>>> Wally <Wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> That Sandman cares more about *who* shows him to be wrong than *that* he
>>>>> was
>>>>> wrong is the point Sandman just proved...
>>>>
>>>> You stated that "people" had made certain comments, it would be natural to
>>>> know which people ...especially as he obviously believes that these
>>>> "people"
>>>> are wrong
>>>
>>> In fact, I don't think they exist. They are a product of Snits inner
>>> wishes. I think he often talks about "people" doing this and that to
>>> others here because he is very well aware of what "people" think of
>>> him.
>>
>> People do not exist.
>
> Is that an explicit claim from you? Mind if I quote you on that?
He'll get back to you right after he's consulted his advisors!
"The wee little elephants that whisper in my ear disagree."-Snit
>
>> Um, OK.
>>
>> Come on, Sandman... people do exist... and people do prove you wrong. There
>> is no doubt I do - repeatedly.
>
> What people, Michael? Could you please be a little more specific than
> just calling them "people"? No? Why not?
They take off their name tags around Snit, shouldn't get too familiar with
*that* particular patient!
>
>> And no doubt you bend over backwards to please the people who have you
>> cowed. You repeatedly prove that.
>
> What people is this? In what way do I "bend over backwards"? And in
> what way am I intimidated by them? What have they done to me to make
> me fear them?
It's all a matter of Snits transference ..... He hates injections!
Snit
On and on you go, Sandman - and you completely avoid talking about how cowed
you are and how by your own admission it matters more to you *who* proves
you wrong than on *if* you are wrong. The idea you want me to do research
for you over *who* has proved you wrong and when is just silly. I can tell
you that the people you are cowed to will not speak poorly of you - no
matter how pathetic your claims are. The fact you support them no matter
how ignorant or dishonest their claims are is quite telling: look at how you
defended Wally's amazing ignorance about set theory or how you now refuse to
admit that you were wrong about OS X application settings being like the
Windows control panel (as opposed to the System Preferences), or, even more
pathetically, how you defend Carroll and Adams as they try to tie their
trolling to my name and my business name. You are completely cowed and live
to please the folks you call the "bad people"... and then you pretend the
fact they do not speak poorly of you says something *good* about you. That
is a complete lie from you, Sandman. And then you dishonestly pretend to
not know about your "proof-by-quote-scavanging" which is your full "proof"
against me... you are a liar, Sandman - plain and simple.
--
It usually takes me more than three weeks to prepare a good impromptu
speech. -- Mark Twain
Snit
Snit
zTILj.20111$Q52....@bignews9.bellsouth.net on 4/11/08 5:33 AM:
>
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
> news:mr-6E7B5F.10...@News.Individual.NET...
>> In article <vKidnXlKI6s5RGPa...@comcast.com>,
>> "Hasta La Vista" <noe...@all.to.me> wrote:
>>
>>>>> You've really put master trolls to shame as of lately. I appreciate
>>>>> the effort :)
>>>>
>>>> So today you like me. But your turn in the barrel is coming up.
>>>
>>> What does that mean?
>>
>> "Shooting fish in a barrel". It's an american expression.
>
> BZZZZZZZZZZTT!!!! WRONG!!
>
>> zara thinks he is good at trolling, but the only target he has ever
>> been successful with is Snit. :)
>
>> Sandman[.net]
>
>
This was just another example of Sandman being wrong. And you noted it.
What will Sandman do? Sandman asked me to point to people who noted he was
wrong...
--
Is Swiss cheese made out of hole milk?
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > Still not any support for the claim that these supposed people exist.
> > Keep running, Michael. And keep projecting :)
>
> On and on you go, Sandman - and you completely avoid talking about how cowed
> you are and how by your own admission
Your lie above disqualified the rest of your post from being read. If
you want me to read your posts, you have to stop lying and trolling.
Thanks.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
When did I do that? You claim there are people that are "countering
[my] unsupported accusations", and I asked you about who those
supposed people were. You have yet to answer that question.
Do you think me being mistaken about what zara meant amounts to him
"countering" and "unsupported accusation" of mine? Seriously?
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
On and on you go, Sandman - and you completely avoid talking about how cowed
Snit
Most of the people who even bother to post to you point out where you are
wrong.
I find that funny... especially given how you pretended to not know how
people proved you wrong.
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > When did I do that? You claim there are people that are "countering
> > [my] unsupported accusations", and I asked you about who those
> > supposed people were. You have yet to answer that question.
> >
> > Do you think me being mistaken about what zara meant amounts to him
> > "countering" and "unsupported accusation" of mine? Seriously?
>
> Most of the people who even bother to post to you point out where you are
> wrong.
Even if that was true, it's irrelevant to your claim about there being
people that "counter" my "unsupported aqccusations".
> I find that funny... especially given how you pretended to not know how
> people proved you wrong.
I find it funny that you lied about me asking you to point to people
that noted that I was wrong.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
On and on you go, Sandman - and you completely avoid talking about how cowed
you are and how by your own admission it matters more to you *who* proves
you wrong than on *if* you are wrong. The idea you want me to do research
for you over *who* has proved you wrong and when is just silly.
I can tell you that the people you are cowed to will not speak poorly of you
- no matter how pathetic your claims are. The fact you support them no
matter how ignorant or dishonest their claims are is quite telling: look at
how you defended Wally's amazing ignorance about set theory or how you now
refuse to admit that you were wrong about OS X application settings being
like the Windows control panel (as opposed to the System Preferences), or,
even more pathetically, how you defend Carroll and Adams as they try to tie
their trolling to my name and my business name.
You are completely cowed and live to please the folks you call the "bad
people"... and then you pretend the fact they do not speak poorly of you
says something *good* about you. That is a complete lie from you, Sandman.
And then you dishonestly pretend to not know about your
"proof-by-quote-scavanging" which is your full "proof" against me... you are
a liar, Sandman - plain and simple.
--
The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of
limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and
great nations. - David Friedman
Tim Adams
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-544167.22...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net on
> 4/9/08 7:08 PM:
>
> >> Before your snippage:
> >
> >
> > Which was merely more of your lies. Funny how you never address them when
> > pointed out to you isn't it michael.
>
> Before your snippage:
Which was merely more of your lies. Funny how you never address them when
pointed out to you isn't it michael.
--
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$3-544167.22...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net on
4/9/08 7:08 PM:
>> Before your snippage:
>
>
> Which was merely more of your lies. Funny how you never address them when
> pointed out to you isn't it michael.
Before your snippage:
-----
Funny how you make all sorts of accusations but cannot
support them. Not even a little.
Oh, and my accusations against Tim are very, very well
supported with specific quotes from him... Tim Adams clearly
*has* said he thinks incest and sex are "identical". Yes,
that is the perverts *exact* word. He also claimed that to
him, by definition, sex "MUST" have all the "features" of
incest.
Do you not find those claims to be perverted? If not in what
way do you defend them as anything but a perversion?
Of course, Steve, you will run... you accuse me of making
false accusations against Tim but you cannot counter the fact
that he makes the exact claims I say he does... and those
claims are clearly perverted.
-----
You claim I am lying about you - and yet it is a fact, as proved by Google,
that you did use the term "identical" to describe incest and sex:
<teadams$2$0$0$3-B5939C.11...@news.east.earthlink.net>
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/54792dffec498419>
Incest IS sex by the very definition of the words. Therefore
they ARE identical when presented in that order.
I have spoken at some length, in the past, about the absurdity of your view
that those things being "identical" is somehow tied to their "order". That
is utter nonsense... but it is clear you called the two "identical".
It is also true that you stated that "by definition", in your view, "sex
MUST include all of the features of incest"
<a3911e26-a220-4b6c...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
-----
by definition sex MUST include all of the features of incest.
-----
It is perverted to say "sex MUST include all the features of incest"?
It is perverted to say the two are "identical"
Your behavior of trying to tie your perverted views to *my* business is
reprehensible... and your claimed views on sexuality are perverted.
--
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments
that take our breath away.
Tim Adams
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-544167.22...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net on
> 4/9/08 7:08 PM:
>
> >> Before your snippage:
> >
> >
> > Which was merely more of your lies. Funny how you never address them when
> > pointed out to you isn't it michael.
>
> Before your snippage:
Which was merely more of michael glassers lies. Funny how you never address them
when pointed out to you isn't it michael.
--