Troll amnesty offer
Snit
there weak self image, out of bigotry, or whatever. They post absurd
flames, and quite often I respond. Then they respond. Etc.
Well, I would like to offer a chance at an amnesty to those that have been
disrupting CSMA and COLA with their flames. If they are willing to stop
flaming, I will not bring up their flames again.
If they can not, and insist on disrupting CSMA and COLA with their flames, I
will, of course, hold open the option to respond.
I hope they have enough self respect to take me up on this offer. I really
do.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> There have been a number of trolls who have been flaming - whether to boost
> there weak self image, out of bigotry, or whatever.
I think it's your self image you are trying to boost.
> They post absurd flames, and quite often I respond.
Yes, you have been known to respond to your sock puppets.
> Well, I would like to offer a chance at an amnesty to those that have been
> disrupting CSMA and COLA with their flames.
Ah, does this mean you will leave the group again? If so, I thank you in
advance - it would be the best thing you could ever do.
> If they are willing to stop
> flaming, I will not bring up their flames again.
So you will stop flaming AND you will stop consolidating your flaming as well?
That's good news!
> If they can not, and insist on disrupting CSMA and COLA with their flames, I
> will, of course, hold open the option to respond.
Ah, that's the problem - I don't think you CAN stop disrupting CSMA and thus
you are going to continue fuel your own flaming.
> I hope they have enough self respect to take me up on this offer. I really
> do.
Ah, that's another problem - I'm pretty sure you don't have the self respect to
stand by your word and thus you will continue to flame. Bah, typical!
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
mr-9DC1B0.08...@individual.net on 2/26/05 12:56 AM:
> In article <BE45057D.5227%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> There have been a number of trolls who have been flaming - whether to boost
>> there weak self image, out of bigotry, or whatever.
>
> I think it's your self image you are trying to boost.
I disagree, but you are welcome to think that. A strong indication of poor
self image is the need to attack others. You do that a lot. There may be
other reasons, but certainly fit into that category.
Your list off accusations below is mostly dishonest and not worth directly
commenting on. If you wish to continue disrupting CSMA with your flames, I
can not stop you.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> A strong indication of poor
> self image is the need to attack others.
Thanks for admitting to your poor self image.
Have a nice day.
--
Sandman[.net]
Andrew J. Brehm
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in post
> mr-9DC1B0.08...@individual.net on 2/26/05 12:56 AM:
>
> > In article <BE45057D.5227%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> There have been a number of trolls who have been flaming - whether to boost
> >> there weak self image, out of bigotry, or whatever.
> >
> > I think it's your self image you are trying to boost.
>
> I disagree, but you are welcome to think that. A strong indication of poor
> self image is the need to attack others. You do that a lot. There may be
> other reasons, but certainly fit into that category.
>
> Your list off accusations below is mostly dishonest and not worth directly
> commenting on. If you wish to continue disrupting CSMA with your flames, I
> can not stop you.
Get real, Snit.
It's not "a number of trolls", it's _one_ troll.
It's you.
Get that in your head.
Sandman doesn't attack others a lot. In fact, I cannot remember when he
ever attacked anybody at all. His list of "accusations" is not
dishonest, it is merely the same observations that so many people have
made about you.
I have been in some mean discussions with some people here in this
newsgroup, yet I suddenly find myself on the same side as them when it
comes to you.
You see many trolls, but everybody else only sees one.
You might not ever find out why so many people think you are a troll,
but you can at least believe us. What's the point in being the only one
to constantly tell everybody else that they are trolls anyway?
--
Andrew J. Brehm
Marx Brothers Fan
PowerPC User
Supporter of Chicken Pizza
Snit
1gsma9c.1q4xfb6in4nrkN%ajb...@gmail.com on 2/26/05 5:55 PM:
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in post
>> mr-9DC1B0.08...@individual.net on 2/26/05 12:56 AM:
>>
>>> In article <BE45057D.5227%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There have been a number of trolls who have been flaming - whether to boost
>>>> there weak self image, out of bigotry, or whatever.
>>>
>>> I think it's your self image you are trying to boost.
>>
>> I disagree, but you are welcome to think that. A strong indication of poor
>> self image is the need to attack others. You do that a lot. There may be
>> other reasons, but certainly fit into that category.
>>
>> Your list off accusations below is mostly dishonest and not worth directly
>> commenting on. If you wish to continue disrupting CSMA with your flames, I
>> can not stop you.
>
> Get real, Snit.
>
> It's not "a number of trolls", it's _one_ troll.
>
> It's you.
I am not Steve Carroll.
I am not Tim Adams.
I am not Sandman.
I am me, and only me.
No matter how much you try to argue otherwise, I am not these other people -
and they, clearly, often troll and flame.
>
> Get that in your head.
I understand that it is your claim.
>
> Sandman doesn't attack others a lot.
He does. Look at his posts. Do you need examples? I would be happy to
look at his last, say, 25 posts and get quotes for you.
> In fact, I cannot remember when he ever attacked anybody at all.
I am someone. But I am not the only one he flames.
> His list of "accusations" is not dishonest, it is merely the same observations
> that so many people have made about you.
>
> I have been in some mean discussions with some people here in this
> newsgroup, yet I suddenly find myself on the same side as them when it
> comes to you.
>
> You see many trolls, but everybody else only sees one.
>
> You might not ever find out why so many people think you are a troll,
> but you can at least believe us. What's the point in being the only one
> to constantly tell everybody else that they are trolls anyway?
One, your observations are not accurate. Two, if you want to make an
argument, you will need to provide support if you want me to believe you.
What is your support. What is it you think I do that the others I listed do
not. I can list multiple flames and lies from each of them...
The bottom line is I am working on reducing the number of flames and trolls.
I am offering to stop responding to them by pointing out my view of them if
they will do the same with me. This does not, of course, stop them from
flaming others, but if they agree to this with me it would be a good start.
I seriously doubt they will rise to the level of being able to do so. I
hope, however, that I am wrong. I truly hope they are mature enough to stop
the silly wars and that they really do have intentions other than to disrupt
the group. Their flaming accomplishes only that...
Andrew J. Brehm
> "Andrew J. Brehm" <ajb...@gmail.com> wrote in post
> 1gsma9c.1q4xfb6in4nrkN%ajb...@gmail.com on 2/26/05 5:55 PM:
>
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in post
> >> mr-9DC1B0.08...@individual.net on 2/26/05 12:56 AM:
> >>
> >>> In article <BE45057D.5227%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, Snit
> >>> <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> There have been a number of trolls who have been flaming - whether to
> >>>> boost there weak self image, out of bigotry, or whatever.
> >>>
> >>> I think it's your self image you are trying to boost.
> >>
> >> I disagree, but you are welcome to think that. A strong indication of
> >> poor self image is the need to attack others. You do that a lot.
> >> There may be other reasons, but certainly fit into that category.
> >>
> >> Your list off accusations below is mostly dishonest and not worth
> >> directly commenting on. If you wish to continue disrupting CSMA with
> >> your flames, I can not stop you.
> >
> > Get real, Snit.
> >
> > It's not "a number of trolls", it's _one_ troll.
> >
> > It's you.
>
> I am not Steve Carroll. Tim Adams. Sandman.
>
> I am me, and only me.
>
> No matter how much you try to argue otherwise, I am not these other people
> -
That was my point.
> and they, clearly, often troll and flame.
And that's the part you don't understand. These people are NOT known to
do this.
And believe me, I have had my fights with some of these people. I have
no reason to defend them other than the fact that you are very simply
absolutely wrong.
And the sooner you get that, the better will it be; not for them, but
for you.
> > Get that in your head.
>
> I understand that it is your claim.
It's not my claim, it's nearly everybody's claim by now. You have
managed to do what nobody else was ever capable of: you have united
comp.sys.mac.advocacy.
> > Sandman doesn't attack others a lot.
>
> He does.
No, he doesn't.
> Look at his posts.
I have. I have known him for years. I have been here longer than you.
Sandman is one of the oldest regulars. He is NOT known to attack others.
> Do you need examples? I would be happy to look at his last, say, 25 posts
> and get quotes for you.
And no doubt all of your examples would be silly semantic games, as
usual.
> > In fact, I cannot remember when he ever attacked anybody at all.
>
> I am someone. But I am not the only one he flames.
Snit, you don't get it. I told you, but you ignore it.
Sandman doesn't attack you. It is your trolling, your semantic games,
that people find offensive. Sandman is not attacking you, he is reacting
to what he (and everybody else here) perceives as your constant trolling
attacks.
And this is not opinion, the perception is due to the fact that you are
playing semantic games. YOU are the csma troll, not everybody else.
> > His list of "accusations" is not dishonest, it is merely the same
> > observations that so many people have made about you.
> >
> > I have been in some mean discussions with some people here in this
> > newsgroup, yet I suddenly find myself on the same side as them when it
> > comes to you.
> >
> > You see many trolls, but everybody else only sees one.
> >
> > You might not ever find out why so many people think you are a troll,
> > but you can at least believe us. What's the point in being the only one
> > to constantly tell everybody else that they are trolls anyway?
>
> One, your observations are not accurate.
You will find that most people here will agree that they are.
> Two, if you want to make an argument, you will need to provide support if
> you want me to believe you.
I do not want to make an argument, I am simply TELLING you something.
If you believe me, you'll find that the flame wars in csma will come to
an end or at least will change to a much lower level.
And if you don't believe me, you will simply continue to fight
everybody.
It's up to you. I am not making a case here, I am merely stating the
obvious. Stop the silly semantic games and the flame war will end;
continue the silly semantic games and people will remain angry at you
for your constant trolling.
And your accusing everybody else of being trolls doesn't change a thing.
> What is your support. What is it you think I do that the others I listed
> do not. I can list multiple flames and lies from each of them...
You play semantic games. And I have pointed this out to you very very
often. As have others.
> The bottom line is I am working on reducing the number of flames and
trolls.
Snit, you are the number one reason for flames and the number one troll
in csma.
We have had some huge flame wars here and lots of trolling, but you
really took the cake.
The only way you could actually reduce the flaming and trolling is by
changing YOUR behaviour.
> I am offering to stop responding to them by pointing out my view of them
> if they will do the same with me. This does not, of course, stop them
> from flaming others, but if they agree to this with me it would be a good
> start.
They do not flame others, not regularly anyway. You don't have to worry
about their behaviour towards others, because it is YOU and your
trolling who brings out the worst in them.
> I seriously doubt they will rise to the level of being able to do so.
Snit, they are already at this level, which is why they are able to
communiocate with others in the newsgroup without causing frustration.
It is you who has to rise, not them.
> I hope, however, that I am wrong.
Your prayers have been answered.
> I truly hope they are mature enough to stop the silly wars and that they
> really do have intentions other than to disrupt the group. Their flaming
> accomplishes only that...
They have been here for years. The disruptions only came with you. Snit,
don't you get it? YOU are the cause, not the cure.
Snit
Then you and I disagree about those people. I post proof, below.
>
>> and they, clearly, often troll and flame.
>
> And that's the part you don't understand. These people are NOT known to
> do this.
They are. Read their posts. Look at the last 25... 50... 100... posts.
Any subset. This *is* what they are doing. This is something that would be
fairly easy to verify - simply pick some subset of their posts and see if
they are putting someone else down.
>
> And believe me, I have had my fights with some of these people. I have
> no reason to defend them other than the fact that you are very simply
> absolutely wrong.
>
> And the sooner you get that, the better will it be; not for them, but
> for you.
Look for yourself. The facts do not support your position. Look below, I
present facts, not just opinion.
You may agree or disagree with their flames and put downs, but it is clear
that is what they are doing. This is an easy to see objective fact.
>
>>> Get that in your head.
>>
>> I understand that it is your claim.
>
> It's not my claim, it's nearly everybody's claim by now. You have
> managed to do what nobody else was ever capable of: you have united
> comp.sys.mac.advocacy.
>
>>> Sandman doesn't attack others a lot.
>>
>> He does.
>
> No, he doesn't.
Again, it is easy to prove you wrong.
>
>> Look at his posts.
>
> I have. I have known him for years. I have been here longer than you.
> Sandman is one of the oldest regulars. He is NOT known to attack others.
The length of time he has been posting or the time you have known him is not
in question.
>
>> Do you need examples? I would be happy to look at his last, say, 25 posts
>> and get quotes for you.
>
> And no doubt all of your examples would be silly semantic games, as
> usual.
No. They would be direct quotes from Sandman. Here, from just few posts..
*all* from just today:
----------
"I suppose that's a compliment when it's coming from you."
"Only people considered to be the largest troll this group has ever seen and
the most killfiled person in the history of csma should leave."
"Click the link, Einstein. It talkes you here:"
"*zzzz*"
"Don't be afraid to post something relevant."
"You're pretty loony, Rick."
"Yes, leave the group. Your flaming will stop immediately."
"Why are you intentionally broken?"
"Thanks for admitting that your opinion means squat."
"I would have told you the value my Irony Gauge displayed, but it exploded
from overload due to your post."
" Uh, obviously, since csma was specifically created to attract the trolls
from the real Mac groups. The mac users in csma are here to make fun of
trolls such as John, Edwin, Snit, Mayor et all. It's fun! :)"
"No, I think you're immune to logic. :)"
----------
Most of those, by the way, were not directed to me or at me... not that it
would really matter if they were. The point is proven - Sandman does flame
and insult. He does it a lot.
Anyone who reads his posts knows he does so.
>
>>> In fact, I cannot remember when he ever attacked anybody at all.
>>
>> I am someone. But I am not the only one he flames.
>
> Snit, you don't get it. I told you, but you ignore it.
>
> Sandman doesn't attack you. It is your trolling, your semantic games,
> that people find offensive. Sandman is not attacking you, he is reacting
> to what he (and everybody else here) perceives as your constant trolling
> attacks.
You are wrong. He rarely responds to content but attacks me instead. Do
you need me to quote posts from him where he says he hates me?
>
> And this is not opinion, the perception is due to the fact that you are
> playing semantic games. YOU are the csma troll, not everybody else.
I have never said that everyone else is a troll... I have listed specific
trolls and can pull up specific quotes to support my claims.
Look at Steve Carroll's recent claims against me - where attributes a quote
to me that he authored. He is not merely mistaken - I have pointed his
"error" out to him, and even linked to his original post where he made the
statement and yet he persists. Steve is not playing a semantic game... he
is clearly lying. Do you defend that lie of Steve's? Do you need me to
point to multiple posts where he has repeated this lie? Do you need me to
point to my posts where I correct him?
I am guessing you will not take me up on any of that - it goes against your
claims and supports mine.
>
>>> His list of "accusations" is not dishonest, it is merely the same
>>> observations that so many people have made about you.
>>>
>>> I have been in some mean discussions with some people here in this
>>> newsgroup, yet I suddenly find myself on the same side as them when it
>>> comes to you.
>>>
>>> You see many trolls, but everybody else only sees one.
>>>
>>> You might not ever find out why so many people think you are a troll,
>>> but you can at least believe us. What's the point in being the only one
>>> to constantly tell everybody else that they are trolls anyway?
>>
>> One, your observations are not accurate.
>
> You will find that most people here will agree that they are.
I am not talking about group-think, I am talking about facts.
I am well aware that I have upset many people by pointing out their lies.
>
>> Two, if you want to make an argument, you will need to provide support if
>> you want me to believe you.
>
> I do not want to make an argument, I am simply TELLING you something.
You are telling me your opinion, and you are welcome to it. I am showing
you, with specific examples, that your opinion is not consistent with the
facts. You can continue to hold your opinion if you like.
>
> If you believe me, you'll find that the flame wars in csma will come to
> an end or at least will change to a much lower level.
I did leave for three weeks. The flame wars were not reduced as far as I
could tell.
>
> And if you don't believe me, you will simply continue to fight
> everybody.
I have no desire to fight people. I am even asking them to stop flaming. I
doubt, however, that they will take me up on the offer.
>
> It's up to you.
I do not hold myself accountable for their behavior. Their behavior is up
to them. I am only responsible for my behavior.
> I am not making a case here, I am merely stating the obvious. Stop the silly
> semantic games and the flame war will end; continue the silly semantic games
> and people will remain angry at you for your constant trolling.
Again, look up... the facts do not support your claims.
>
> And your accusing everybody else of being trolls doesn't change a thing.
If that is all I did there would be no reason to believe me. I, unlike you
and the trolls, present facts. There is no doubt that I am correct.
>
>> What is your support. What is it you think I do that the others I listed
>> do not. I can list multiple flames and lies from each of them...
>
> You play semantic games. And I have pointed this out to you very very
> often. As have others.
Just saying I do so is not evidence.
>
>> The bottom line is I am working on reducing the number of flames and
>> trolls.
>
> Snit, you are the number one reason for flames and the number one troll
> in csma.
You are welcome to that opinion... I find it a shame that you hold it
without support.
>
> We have had some huge flame wars here and lots of trolling, but you
> really took the cake.
>
> The only way you could actually reduce the flaming and trolling is by
> changing YOUR behaviour.
Please be specific with what you want me to change - including examples of
where I do what you accuse me of and I will consider it. I sincerely hope
you compile such a list, but I doubt you will. If you were to try, you
would find the facts do not support your claims.
>
>> I am offering to stop responding to them by pointing out my view of them
>> if they will do the same with me. This does not, of course, stop them
>> from flaming others, but if they agree to this with me it would be a good
>> start.
>
> They do not flame others, not regularly anyway. You don't have to worry
> about their behaviour towards others, because it is YOU and your
> trolling who brings out the worst in them.
Look above at the Sandman quotes. You are clearly not correct that they do
not flame others.
You are right that I bring out some of the worst of their trolling and
flaming. They do not like the fact that I point out their lies and games in
such a specific way.
>
>> I seriously doubt they will rise to the level of being able to do so.
>
> Snit, they are already at this level, which is why they are able to
> communiocate with others in the newsgroup without causing frustration.
>
> It is you who has to rise, not them.
I, too, communicate without playing their silly games. Again, look at
Sandman's quotes from today. The facts do not support your claims.
>
>> I hope, however, that I am wrong.
>
> Your prayers have been answered.
We shall see. I doubt it.
>
>> I truly hope they are mature enough to stop the silly wars and that they
>> really do have intentions other than to disrupt the group. Their flaming
>> accomplishes only that...
>
> They have been here for years. The disruptions only came with you. Snit,
> don't you get it? YOU are the cause, not the cure.
You have hit on another area which makes me the target - it is not just that
I point out their lies with such specific details, I also am the "new" guy,
even though I have been here a while.
I do not join the group-think of CSMA. I will always be an outsider here.
Wally
----------
In article <BE466A69.5924%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, Snit
<SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> .............Two, if you want to make an
> argument, you will need to provide support if you want me to believe you.
haaahahhahahaha, Just be prepared to have your support snipped, followed by
a query as to where your support is. LOL
> The bottom line is I am working on reducing the number of flames and trolls.
True! you do appear to be posting less, But I simply put that down to the
dwindling numbers of people that take you seriously!
> I am offering to stop responding to them by pointing out my view of them if
> they will do the same with me.
Just like your view of honor....for you it only works in a two way street!
what a load of BOLLO**S!
> I hope, however, that I am wrong.
At last you strive for consistency!.......Too little Too late!
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> He does. Look at his posts. Do you need examples? I would be happy to
> look at his last, say, 25 posts and get quotes for you.
Make sure they aren't replies to you.
--
Sandman[.net]
Mike Dee
news:BE467841.5940%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID:
> You have hit on another area which makes me the target
Always playing the victim, eh Snit? Ebot had you picked right from the
word go.
Y'now, I don't think I've ever come across anyone before such as
youself in any other NG, who could single-handedly unify troll and
advocate alike into a such coagulant mass of resistance against him or
herself.
But I believe that there is worse in here than your mischeif making,
Snit. That is; the constant cross-posts into COLA made by quite a few
of the regulars, troll and non troll alike. Gad, I might even be guilty
of that somewhere.
Anyways, I'm out of here. I'm leaving for a while... but like Edwin
maybe not for good. Ha! my final post to CSMA and it's to Snit! LOL
CU and the circus L8r.
--
dee
Wo es ermittlung gibt, gibt es möglichkeit.
Snit
Xns960B15BDE...@130.133.1.4 on 2/27/05 6:08 AM:
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in
> news:BE467841.5940%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID:
>
>> You have hit on another area which makes me the target
>
> Always playing the victim, eh Snit? Ebot had you picked right from the
> word go.
No. I am not playing the victim. I merely point out facts. If you
disagree, please look at the facts and respond to them, do not snip them and
post this inflammatory BS. You selected half a sentence to respond to and
did so very much out of context.
In other words, you are doing what others blame me of, but I am offering
evidence while they do not.
Snit
Why? I, too, am a person... in any case, I looked at your posts from the
day in question and found that almost all contained flames, trolling, or
other inflammatory remarks. I posted specific quotes, which I have copied
below, to prove my point. Most of the quotes are not directed at me or are
about me, not that it would change my point if they were. You incite
disruption in almost every post you make. You say the same about me, but
you have not produced any examples.
Andrew J. Brehm
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in post
> mr-DD6648.09...@individual.net on 2/27/05 1:10 AM:
>
> > In article <BE466A69.5924%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> He does. Look at his posts. Do you need examples? I would be happy to
> >> look at his last, say, 25 posts and get quotes for you.
> >
> > Make sure they aren't replies to you.
>
> Why? I, too, am a person... in any case, I looked at your posts from the
> day in question and found that almost all contained flames, trolling, or
> other inflammatory remarks. I posted specific quotes, which I have copied
> below, to prove my point. Most of the quotes are not directed at me or are
> about me, not that it would change my point if they were. You incite
> disruption in almost every post you make. You say the same about me, but
> you have not produced any examples.
That's because everybody already knows you and your posting style.
And the reason people flame you is because of your trolling, not because
everybody is evil.
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
> ----------
> In article <BE466A69.5924%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, Snit
> <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
> > .............Two, if you want to make an
> > argument, you will need to provide support if you want me to believe you.
>
> haaahahhahahaha, Just be prepared to have your support snipped, followed by
> a query as to where your support is. LOL
Exactly. And then I would point out that he is playing semantic games
again, followed by one of the three standard Snit replies:
1. A list of unrelated quotes from a two-year old discussion between
Snit and some sort of Steve.
2. A longish essay about how Snit is so good and everybody else is a
troll out to get Snit.
3. A short paragraph pointout out that morality and legality must be a
part of any discussion and how I have lost the argument because I
haven't addressed these issues (preferably after it has been made clear
to Snit for several years that everybody disagrees with his views of
morality and legality).
Andrew J. Brehm
> "Andrew J. Brehm" <ajb...@gmail.com> wrote in post
> 1gsmb2p.mo8dbvgxqtc6N%ajb...@gmail.com on 2/26/05 6:22 PM:
>
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I am not Steve Carroll. Tim Adams. Sandman.
> >>
> >> I am me, and only me.
> >>
> >> No matter how much you try to argue otherwise, I am not these other people
> >> -
> >
> > That was my point.
>
> Then you and I disagree about those people. I post proof, below.
We already know that we disagree about those people.
The only person there seems to be no disagreement about is you.
Everybody agrees that you are a frustrating troll.
> >> and they, clearly, often troll and flame.
> >
> > And that's the part you don't understand. These people are NOT known to
> > do this.
>
> They are. Read their posts. Look at the last 25... 50... 100... posts.
> Any subset. This *is* what they are doing. This is something that would
> be fairly easy to verify - simply pick some subset of their posts and see
> if they are putting someone else down.
I have had dozens of discussions with these people. I find myself
disagreeing with very many people. But most of the people you list as
flamers have not flamed me.
When they talk to you, however, they become frustrated by your semantic
games and flame you, because they consider your silly games attacks.
It's quite simple really.
> > And believe me, I have had my fights with some of these people. I have
> > no reason to defend them other than the fact that you are very simply
> > absolutely wrong.
> >
> > And the sooner you get that, the better will it be; not for them, but
> > for you.
>
> Look for yourself. The facts do not support your position. Look below, I
> present facts, not just opinion.
>
> You may agree or disagree with their flames and put downs, but it is clear
> that is what they are doing. This is an easy to see objective fact.
They are merely flaming a disruptive, frustrating troll. If you would
only realise that people regard your semantic games as trolling and very
impolute behaviour, you would understand why everybody seems to attack
you.
> >>> Get that in your head.
> >>
> >> I understand that it is your claim.
> >
> > It's not my claim, it's nearly everybody's claim by now. You have
> > managed to do what nobody else was ever capable of: you have united
> > comp.sys.mac.advocacy.
And you are not even proud of it.
> >>> Sandman doesn't attack others a lot.
> >>
> >> He does.
> >
> > No, he doesn't.
>
> Again, it is easy to prove you wrong.
How? Look up Sandman's postings when he doesn't address you and scan
them for swearwords?
> >> Look at his posts.
> >
> > I have. I have known him for years. I have been here longer than you.
> > Sandman is one of the oldest regulars. He is NOT known to attack others.
>
> The length of time he has been posting or the time you have known him is not
> in question.
Yes it is. When you want to make the claim that Sandman typically
attacks people, you better don't make the claim to someone who has known
Sandman in the newsgroup for several years.
What you claim about Sandman doesn't match my experiences. It's very
simple.
> >> Do you need examples? I would be happy to look at his last, say, 25 posts
> >> and get quotes for you.
> >
> > And no doubt all of your examples would be silly semantic games, as
> > usual.
>
> No. They would be direct quotes from Sandman. Here, from just few posts..
> *all* from just today:
>
> ----------
> "I suppose that's a compliment when it's coming from you."
I suggest he addresses you here.
> "Only people considered to be the largest troll this group has ever seen and
> the most killfiled person in the history of csma should leave."
Also you?
> "Click the link, Einstein. It talkes you here:"
Again you?
> "*zzzz*"
Not a flame.
> "Don't be afraid to post something relevant."
Witticism. Probably address at you?
> "You're pretty loony, Rick."
Depends on who the Rick is. There was one here who really couldn't write
a single post without flaming somebody.
> "Yes, leave the group. Your flaming will stop immediately."
Addressed to you again?
> "Why are you intentionally broken?"
You again?
> "Thanks for admitting that your opinion means squat."
You again?
> "I would have told you the value my Irony Gauge displayed, but it exploded
> from overload due to your post."
Hehe.
> " Uh, obviously, since csma was specifically created to attract the trolls
> from the real Mac groups. The mac users in csma are here to make fun of
> trolls such as John, Edwin, Snit, Mayor et all. It's fun! :)"
>
> "No, I think you're immune to logic. :)"
> ----------
>
> Most of those, by the way, were not directed to me or at me... not that it
> would really matter if they were. The point is proven - Sandman does flame
> and insult. He does it a lot.
Really? I would assume that most of the above were addressed at you.
Want me to check?
It seems to me that Sandman flames merely you and Rick. I can certainly
understand his motives. But baseless attacks these are not.
> Anyone who reads his posts knows he does so.
That is plain wrong. I know his posts and I don't know.
> >>> In fact, I cannot remember when he ever attacked anybody at all.
> >>
> >> I am someone. But I am not the only one he flames.
> >
> > Snit, you don't get it. I told you, but you ignore it.
> >
> > Sandman doesn't attack you. It is your trolling, your semantic games,
> > that people find offensive. Sandman is not attacking you, he is reacting
> > to what he (and everybody else here) perceives as your constant trolling
> > attacks.
>
> You are wrong. He rarely responds to content but attacks me instead. Do
> you need me to quote posts from him where he says he hates me?
There is no content, Snit. That's what people are frustrated about. Once
you enter a discussion, the subject is gone and the discussion revolves
only around you and your silly games, around people flaming you because
of them and around you not understanding that you were the troll who
caused the flame war.
How can he possibly respond to content when there is none?
> > And this is not opinion, the perception is due to the fact that you are
> > playing semantic games. YOU are the csma troll, not everybody else.
>
> I have never said that everyone else is a troll... I have listed specific
> trolls and can pull up specific quotes to support my claims.
All of them addressed at a well-known troll who nobody can have a
discussion with without becoming frustrated about his behaviour.
> Look at Steve Carroll's recent claims against me - where attributes a quote
> to me that he authored. He is not merely mistaken - I have pointed his
> "error" out to him, and even linked to his original post where he made the
> statement and yet he persists. Steve is not playing a semantic game... he
> is clearly lying. Do you defend that lie of Steve's? Do you need me to
> point to multiple posts where he has repeated this lie? Do you need me to
> point to my posts where I correct him?
I don't care about your Steve obsession.
> I am guessing you will not take me up on any of that - it goes against your
> claims and supports mine.
I do not deny that these people flame you. I deny that they are known to
flame regularly in conversations with people who do npot play semantic
games.
> >>> His list of "accusations" is not dishonest, it is merely the same
> >>> observations that so many people have made about you.
> >>>
> >>> I have been in some mean discussions with some people here in this
> >>> newsgroup, yet I suddenly find myself on the same side as them when it
> >>> comes to you.
> >>>
> >>> You see many trolls, but everybody else only sees one.
> >>>
> >>> You might not ever find out why so many people think you are a troll,
> >>> but you can at least believe us. What's the point in being the only one
> >>> to constantly tell everybody else that they are trolls anyway?
> >>
> >> One, your observations are not accurate.
> >
> > You will find that most people here will agree that they are.
>
> I am not talking about group-think, I am talking about facts.
And everybody disagrees with you about what these facts are.
Your facts are opinions, Snit. And you won't find anybody who agrees
with you that your opinions are facts.
> I am well aware that I have upset many people by pointing out their lies.
No, Snit. You have upset many people by playing semantic games and
snipping replies and changing the subject and so on.
> >> Two, if you want to make an argument, you will need to provide support if
> >> you want me to believe you.
> >
> > I do not want to make an argument, I am simply TELLING you something.
>
> You are telling me your opinion, and you are welcome to it. I am showing
> you, with specific examples, that your opinion is not consistent with the
> facts. You can continue to hold your opinion if you like.
In that case you will continue to be the sole isolated believer in your
facts. What good is that?
> > If you believe me, you'll find that the flame wars in csma will come to
> > an end or at least will change to a much lower level.
>
> I did leave for three weeks. The flame wars were not reduced as far as I
> could tell.
And I assume when everybody disagrees with you here, your opinion will
be "fact" again, and everybody will be a liar?
And soon we'll have another flame war when you point out everybody's
lies while everybody points out your stupid semantic games?
> > And if you don't believe me, you will simply continue to fight
> > everybody.
>
> I have no desire to fight people.
Then stop your silly semantic games. It's very very simple.
> I am even asking them to stop flaming.
It's up to you to stop the trolling they are so upset about, not up to
them to stop calling your trolls.
> I doubt, however, that they will take me up on the offer.
That's because the offer is empty.
While you make the "offer" in one thread you are already trolling in the
next.
> > It's up to you.
>
> I do not hold myself accountable for their behavior. Their behavior is up
> to them. I am only responsible for my behavior.
Then change your behaviour.
> > I am not making a case here, I am merely stating the obvious. Stop the silly
> > semantic games and the flame war will end; continue the silly semantic games
> > and people will remain angry at you for your constant trolling.
>
> Again, look up... the facts do not support your claims.
What exactly are you pointing me to to support that you don't play
semantic games?
> > And your accusing everybody else of being trolls doesn't change a thing.
>
> If that is all I did there would be no reason to believe me. I, unlike you
> and the trolls, present facts. There is no doubt that I am correct.
Boy, you are really either a very good troll or a really frutsrtaingly
ignorant advocate.
An Eliza script could do what you do.
Snit
You, clearly, are the one playing games right now.
Do you deny it?
If not, please support your claims... LOL... like you would even try.
Snit
I notice you provide no examples or evidence of your claims.
When I make accusations against others I am happy to provide support in the
form of quotes directly from the person I am accusing - and, if needed, any
explanation to prove the point.
I note that you, and the others who make baseless accusations against me
fail to do so.
Facts are not on your side. Groupthink may or may not be, but facts are
not.
Snit
Once again you provide no support for your accusations. You have made
references to places where I have shown you to be incorrect, and where you
become quite frustrated.
So what?
>
>>>>> Get that in your head.
>>>>
>>>> I understand that it is your claim.
>>>
>>> It's not my claim, it's nearly everybody's claim by now. You have
>>> managed to do what nobody else was ever capable of: you have united
>>> comp.sys.mac.advocacy.
>
> And you are not even proud of it.
>
>>>>> Sandman doesn't attack others a lot.
>>>>
>>>> He does.
>>>
>>> No, he doesn't.
>>
>> Again, it is easy to prove you wrong.
>
> How? Look up Sandman's postings when he doesn't address you and scan
> them for swearwords?
>
>>>> Look at his posts.
>>>
>>> I have. I have known him for years. I have been here longer than you.
>>> Sandman is one of the oldest regulars. He is NOT known to attack others.
>>
>> The length of time he has been posting or the time you have known him is not
>> in question.
>
> Yes it is. When you want to make the claim that Sandman typically
> attacks people, you better don't make the claim to someone who has known
> Sandman in the newsgroup for several years.
>
> What you claim about Sandman doesn't match my experiences. It's very
> simple.
I am not talking about your experience. I am talking about Sandman's
actions, and I provide proof of my claims. Your recollections of your
experiences are not relevant.
>
>>>> Do you need examples? I would be happy to look at his last, say, 25 posts
>>>> and get quotes for you.
>>>
>>> And no doubt all of your examples would be silly semantic games, as
>>> usual.
>>
>> No. They would be direct quotes from Sandman. Here, from just few posts..
>> *all* from just today:
>>
>> ----------
>> "I suppose that's a compliment when it's coming from you."
>
> I suggest he addresses you here.
No.
>
>> "Only people considered to be the largest troll this group has ever seen and
>> the most killfiled person in the history of csma should leave."
>
> Also you?
Yes.
>
>> "Click the link, Einstein. It talkes you here:"
>
> Again you?
No.
>
>> "*zzzz*"
>
> Not a flame.
It is a rude comment.
>
>> "Don't be afraid to post something relevant."
>
> Witticism. Probably address at you?
No, again.
>
>> "You're pretty loony, Rick."
>
> Depends on who the Rick is. There was one here who really couldn't write
> a single post without flaming somebody.
>
>> "Yes, leave the group. Your flaming will stop immediately."
>
> Addressed to you again?
Yes.
>
>> "Why are you intentionally broken?"
>
> You again?
No.
>
>> "Thanks for admitting that your opinion means squat."
>
> You again?
>
>> "I would have told you the value my Irony Gauge displayed, but it exploded
>> from overload due to your post."
>
> Hehe.
And again, not to me.
>
>> " Uh, obviously, since csma was specifically created to attract the trolls
>> from the real Mac groups. The mac users in csma are here to make fun of
>> trolls such as John, Edwin, Snit, Mayor et all. It's fun! :)"
>>
>> "No, I think you're immune to logic. :)"
>> ----------
>>
>> Most of those, by the way, were not directed to me or at me... not that it
>> would really matter if they were. The point is proven - Sandman does flame
>> and insult. He does it a lot.
>
> Really? I would assume that most of the above were addressed at you.
> Want me to check?
Sure. And now we get to proving my point - your experience does not match
the reality of his actions as shown by his quotes. Please note, I took
quotes from the majority of his posts on that day.
>
> It seems to me that Sandman flames merely you and Rick. I can certainly
> understand his motives. But baseless attacks these are not.
I am not asking if you agree or disagree with his attacks, I am merely
pointing out that he does attack, flame, or troll in most of his posts.
>
>> Anyone who reads his posts knows he does so.
>
> That is plain wrong. I know his posts and I don't know.
OK, I stand corrected. Anyone who is observant who reads his posts knows he
does what I say.
>
>>>>> In fact, I cannot remember when he ever attacked anybody at all.
>>>>
>>>> I am someone. But I am not the only one he flames.
>>>
>>> Snit, you don't get it. I told you, but you ignore it.
>>>
>>> Sandman doesn't attack you. It is your trolling, your semantic games,
>>> that people find offensive. Sandman is not attacking you, he is reacting
>>> to what he (and everybody else here) perceives as your constant trolling
>>> attacks.
>>
>> You are wrong. He rarely responds to content but attacks me instead. Do
>> you need me to quote posts from him where he says he hates me?
>
> There is no content, Snit. That's what people are frustrated about. Once
> you enter a discussion, the subject is gone and the discussion revolves
> only around you and your silly games, around people flaming you because
> of them and around you not understanding that you were the troll who
> caused the flame war.
>
> How can he possibly respond to content when there is none?
Funny you should mention that - in the very topic we are discussing *I*, not
you, am the one providing content - in the form of claims and then proof of
my claims. You provide your opinion and then can not back it up. Not very
meaningful content, unless you think the discussion is about you and your
views. I prefer to look at facts.
This is common in my discussions in CSMA. Look at my recent discussion with
"hoo". I found specific proof to counter his faulty interpretation of
Apple's EULA. The conversation should be over, yet he continues to play
games.
Do you blame me for his games?
>
>>> And this is not opinion, the perception is due to the fact that you are
>>> playing semantic games. YOU are the csma troll, not everybody else.
>>
>> I have never said that everyone else is a troll... I have listed specific
>> trolls and can pull up specific quotes to support my claims.
>
> All of them addressed at a well-known troll who nobody can have a
> discussion with without becoming frustrated about his behaviour.
Your opinion. You are welcome to it, but please note you provide no
support.
>
>> Look at Steve Carroll's recent claims against me - where attributes a quote
>> to me that he authored. He is not merely mistaken - I have pointed his
>> "error" out to him, and even linked to his original post where he made the
>> statement and yet he persists. Steve is not playing a semantic game... he
>> is clearly lying. Do you defend that lie of Steve's? Do you need me to
>> point to multiple posts where he has repeated this lie? Do you need me to
>> point to my posts where I correct him?
>
> I don't care about your Steve obsession.
I am providing you with what you say I do not provide - content. I give you
specific examples and proof of my claims and you do not respond with an
intelligent response.
Do you blame Steve Carroll's lie on me? Do you deny his lie?
Again - this is the topic... who is at fault. Clearly Steve is lying. It
is easy to verify. You complain about a lack of content, but when I present
it you do not even look at it.
You are playing a game. Do you blame me for your game?
>
>> I am guessing you will not take me up on any of that - it goes against your
>> claims and supports mine.
>
> I do not deny that these people flame you. I deny that they are known to
> flame regularly in conversations with people who do npot play semantic
> games.
Will you continue this claim now that I have shown specific proof to show
you are wrong - at least in the case of Sandman. Will you admit that Steve
Carroll is lying.
What more evidence do you need? What more content?
>
>>>>> His list of "accusations" is not dishonest, it is merely the same
>>>>> observations that so many people have made about you.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been in some mean discussions with some people here in this
>>>>> newsgroup, yet I suddenly find myself on the same side as them when it
>>>>> comes to you.
>>>>>
>>>>> You see many trolls, but everybody else only sees one.
>>>>>
>>>>> You might not ever find out why so many people think you are a troll,
>>>>> but you can at least believe us. What's the point in being the only one
>>>>> to constantly tell everybody else that they are trolls anyway?
>>>>
>>>> One, your observations are not accurate.
>>>
>>> You will find that most people here will agree that they are.
>>
>> I am not talking about group-think, I am talking about facts.
>
> And everybody disagrees with you about what these facts are.
Can you support your claim that it is everyone. Look at recent posts and
you will see people who do not agree. You are simply wrong.
>
> Your facts are opinions, Snit. And you won't find anybody who agrees
> with you that your opinions are facts.
In what way are the specific quotes I find opinions? You have shown that
you could not tell Sandman's flames against me from his flames against
others. You have run from commenting on Steve Carroll's clear and easy to
prove lie.
The Google record is not based on my opinion.
>
>> I am well aware that I have upset many people by pointing out their lies.
>
> No, Snit. You have upset many people by playing semantic games and
> snipping replies and changing the subject and so on.
Your opinion. You are welcome to it, but please note you provide no
support.
>
>>>> Two, if you want to make an argument, you will need to provide support if
>>>> you want me to believe you.
>>>
>>> I do not want to make an argument, I am simply TELLING you something.
>>
>> You are telling me your opinion, and you are welcome to it. I am showing
>> you, with specific examples, that your opinion is not consistent with the
>> facts. You can continue to hold your opinion if you like.
>
> In that case you will continue to be the sole isolated believer in your
> facts. What good is that?
If you are not going to acknowledge the facts, and will not even refute
them, but just repeat your mantra that so much is my fault, this discussion
does little good.
You are playing a silly game and I can not stop you from doing so.
>
>>> If you believe me, you'll find that the flame wars in csma will come to
>>> an end or at least will change to a much lower level.
>>
>> I did leave for three weeks. The flame wars were not reduced as far as I
>> could tell.
>
> And I assume when everybody disagrees with you here, your opinion will
> be "fact" again, and everybody will be a liar?
I do not think you will get "everyone" to agree on anything. But if you
want to show I am incorrect, please let's work toward a reasonable way to
objectively quantify posts as a "flame" and then look at the posts while I
am here and while I am gone.
I am not interested in having you gather opinions from people I have
embarrassed and then having you present it as some sort of "proof". What
value would there be in that? I suggest we look at facts, not opinions.
>
> And soon we'll have another flame war when you point out everybody's
> lies while everybody points out your stupid semantic games?
Your opinion. You are welcome to it, but please note you provide no
support.
>
>>> And if you don't believe me, you will simply continue to fight
>>> everybody.
>>
>> I have no desire to fight people.
>
> Then stop your silly semantic games.
Your opinion. You are welcome to it, but please note you provide no
support.
> It's very very simple.
If it is so simple than surely you can provide examples. So far you have
failed.
>
>> I am even asking them to stop flaming.
>
> It's up to you to stop the trolling they are so upset about, not up to
> them to stop calling your trolls.
I can not control others actions. You may think I have super powers and can
do so, but I assure you I can not.
>
>> I doubt, however, that they will take me up on the offer.
>
> That's because the offer is empty.
Your opinion. You are welcome to it, but please note you provide no
support.
>
> While you make the "offer" in one thread you are already trolling in the
> next.
Your opinion. You are welcome to it, but please note you provide no
support.
>
>>> It's up to you.
>>
>> I do not hold myself accountable for their behavior. Their behavior is up
>> to them. I am only responsible for my behavior.
>
> Then change your behaviour.
Why not change yours? As has been shown, with clear examples, you are
playing a game in this thread. Do you deny it? I am playing your game -
where others would likely just ditch the thread. In that I am guilty...
>
>>> I am not making a case here, I am merely stating the obvious. Stop the silly
>>> semantic games and the flame war will end; continue the silly semantic games
>>> and people will remain angry at you for your constant trolling.
>>
>> Again, look up... the facts do not support your claims.
>
> What exactly are you pointing me to to support that you don't play
> semantic games?
I am pointing to the specific evidence where you have been proven wrong
about Sandman.
I can not prove that I do not do something... it is up to you to present
evidence to support your weak position.
>
>>> And your accusing everybody else of being trolls doesn't change a thing.
>>
>> If that is all I did there would be no reason to believe me. I, unlike you
>> and the trolls, present facts. There is no doubt that I am correct.
>
> Boy, you are really either a very good troll or a really frutsrtaingly
> ignorant advocate.
>
> An Eliza script could do what you do.
Your opinion. You are welcome to it, but please note you provide no
support.
Note that when you play your games, I can cut and paste the same reply and
it makes just as much sense... in that way you are playing games that reduce
this thread to something Eliza could respond to.
Edwin
Andrew is well known in this group as a calm, logical, level-headed
poster who isn't prone to trolling or unfounded attacks. I respect him
and his word, even though we've often disagreed in the past.
> When I make accusations against others I am happy to provide support
in the
> form of quotes directly from the person I am accusing - and, if
needed, any
> explanation to prove the point.
That mass of insanity you puke into this group will never count as
"support" or "proof" of any kind.
> I note that you, and the others who make baseless accusations against
me
> fail to do so.
Then you are a shameless liar, as you have been given the proof you
demand on innumerable occasions. You ignore it, snip it, and then
demand it again.
Or even worse, you'll acknowledge it, agree with it at least in part,
and then go on as if none of that happened. I've had you do that to
me, demand proof, then accept my quotes, then go right back to calling
me a liar, and you even went so far to invent a convoluted argument
whereby I was a liar whether or not my quotes showed I told the truth.
> Facts are not on your side. Groupthink may or may not be, but facts
are
> not.
Facts are on his side.
You're just sick in the head, Snit. Your goal is to have everyone
talking about you, and whether its good or bad things they're saying
doesen't matter to you. Arguing pro or con about the Mac isn't your
goal. You've got the most die-hard Mac supporters as much against you
as you do the Wintrolls. All that matters to you is being the center
of attention, all the time.
Seek professional help. Seriously. No flame or slam. You need help.
Really.
Snit
1109539432....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com on 2/27/05 2:23 PM:
>>>> Why? I, too, am a person... in any case, I looked at your posts from the
>>>> day in question and found that almost all contained flames, trolling, or
>>>> other inflammatory remarks. I posted specific quotes, which I have copied
>>>> below, to prove my point. Most of the quotes are not directed at me or are
>>>> about me, not that it would change my point if they were. You incite
>>>> disruption in almost every post you make. You say the same about me, but
>>>> you have not produced any examples.
>>>>
>>> That's because everybody already knows you and your posting style.
>>>
>>> And the reason people flame you is because of your trolling, not because
>>> everybody is evil.
>>>
>>> You are not flamed because you speak the truth, you are flamed because you
>>> are a hideous troll and keep disrupting the newsgroup.
>>>
>> I notice you provide no examples or evidence of your claims.
>>
> Andrew is well known in this group as a calm, logical, level-headed poster who
> isn't prone to trolling or unfounded attacks. I respect him and his word,
> even though we've often disagreed in the past.
I said nothing to contradict what you are saying - I simply pointed out an
accurate point that is important for this discussion: accusations are being
made against me that are based on support. Group think is not a form of
support - facts are. The facts of what I have and have not done are easy to
find with Google. If someone wants to make a claim against me they could do
so with facts. This is what I do when I make accusations.
I can easily point to my recent accusations against Sandman, Steve Carroll,
and, yes, even you. I can bring up support. In this very thread I have
shown Sandman to be someone who frequently flames and makes trolling
remarks, and I have made references to Steve Carroll dishonestly attributing
his own comments to me. While you have not come up as much in this
conversation, I can just as easily point to your recent game of making
claims about my comments - claims I was able to show were not consistent
with my actual views.
Do you doubt any of those? Do you need me to point to the specifics? I
easily can, and would be happy to. My guess is you will run from the chance
to see who is being accurate based on the actual facts.
Look below at your comments - can you support any of your accusations? Any
at all?
Snit
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in post
1109539432....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com on 2/27/05 2:23 PM:
>>>> Why? I, too, am a person... in any case, I looked at your posts from the
>>>> day in question and found that almost all contained flames, trolling, or
>>>> other inflammatory remarks. I posted specific quotes, which I have copied
>>>> below, to prove my point. Most of the quotes are not directed at me or are
>>>> about me, not that it would change my point if they were. You incite
>>>> disruption in almost every post you make. You say the same about me, but
>>>> you have not produced any examples.
>>>>
>>> That's because everybody already knows you and your posting style.
>>>
>>> And the reason people flame you is because of your trolling, not because
>>> everybody is evil.
>>>
>>> You are not flamed because you speak the truth, you are flamed because you
>>> are a hideous troll and keep disrupting the newsgroup.
>>>
>> I notice you provide no examples or evidence of your claims.
>>
> Andrew is well known in this group as a calm, logical, level-headed poster who
> isn't prone to trolling or unfounded attacks. I respect him and his word,
> even though we've often disagreed in the past.
I said nothing to contradict what you are saying - I simply pointed out an
accurate point that is important for this discussion: accusations are being
made against me that are *NOT* based on support. Group think is not a form
of support - facts are. The facts of what I have and have not done are easy
to find with Google. If someone wants to make a claim against me they could
do so with facts. This is what I do when I make accusations.
I can easily point to my recent accusations against Sandman, Steve Carroll,
and, yes, even you. I can bring up support. In this very thread I have
shown Sandman to be someone who frequently flames and makes trolling
remarks, and I have made references to Steve Carroll dishonestly attributing
his own comments to me. While you have not come up as much in this
conversation, I can just as easily point to your recent game of making
claims about my comments - claims I was able to show were not consistent
with my actual views.
Do you doubt any of those? Do you need me to point to the specifics? I
easily can, and would be happy to. My guess is you will run from the chance
to see who is being accurate based on the actual facts.
Look below at your comments - can you support any of your accusations? Any
at all?
>
Edwin
Everyone must ignore Snit and his sock puppets. The man is never
going to improve. Unless you want this group to be
alt.fan.snit.circus, you must resist all temptation to reply to Snit.
For your own good, for the good of the group, and even for the good of
Snit himself, reign in the madness. Please.
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Andrew J. Brehm" <ajb...@gmail.com> wrote in post
> 1gsnqo0.1wm5jgi19fw7dcN%ajb...@gmail.com on 2/27/05 12:57 PM:
>
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> Anyone who reads his posts knows he does so.
> >
> > That is plain wrong. I know his posts and I don't know.
>
> OK, I stand corrected. Anyone who is observant who reads his posts knows he
> does what I say.
> >
The problem being that every one of your 'quotes' were taken out of
context so nobody can really tell if they were flames or not. Something
snit does ALL THE TIME.
--
reguarding 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
Tim
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >> He does. Look at his posts. Do you need examples? I would be happy to
> >> look at his last, say, 25 posts and get quotes for you.
> >
> > Make sure they aren't replies to you.
>
> Why?
Because you would be attempting to build a case where these imaginary "trolls"
you claim exist troll people. And since the reality is that you are the troll
and everyone interact with you - you have to support your claim with examples
of flames and trolls that do not include you.
So, let's assume there are thirty people in csma that think you're the biggest
troll in the group. We know the number is biggeer, but let's just assume it's
as low as thirty. What you need to do is to find cases for all these thirty
people that you write off as "trolls" or something similar ("kooks" is the name
Tholen use - your identical twin) are constantly abusing other users than
yourself.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
Yeah, that would be utopia. This group was so peaceful and enjoyable when he
was away.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
ajb...@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> Really? I would assume that most of the above were addressed at you.
> Want me to check?
>
> It seems to me that Sandman flames merely you and Rick. I can certainly
> understand his motives. But baseless attacks these are not.
I've had lively discussion with Peter Kohlman and "hoo" lately from cola. I
believe some quotes was from them.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > That is plain wrong. I know his posts and I don't know.
>
> OK, I stand corrected. Anyone who is observant who reads his posts knows he
> does what I say.
Isn't it funny that you are the only one you could ever call "observant" in
this manner?
Have you noticed that no one - not even the people that I -DO- generally engage
in wild discussions with, such as Edwin, hjas come to your aid and aghreed what
a horrible person I am?
Don't you just feel awfully lonely in being the last "sane" person in csma
which according to you pretty much only consists of trolls that attack and
flame you?
Frustrating, to say the least.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Let me guess - Andrew is the latest "troll" on your list? He should be honored.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Why do you think I, or anyone, would call Andrew a troll?
Snit
I note that you are avoiding the evidence - in the form of direct quotes
from you - that prove my claim.
In any case, I thought you did not want us replying to each other. Why are
you going back on your request.
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)
Snit
> In article <BE47190A.5D5B%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>>> He does. Look at his posts. Do you need examples? I would be happy to
>>>> look at his last, say, 25 posts and get quotes for you.
>>>
>>> Make sure they aren't replies to you.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Because you would be attempting to build a case where these imaginary "trolls"
> you claim exist troll people. And since the reality is that you are the troll
> and everyone interact with you - you have to support your claim with examples
> of flames and trolls that do not include you.
Well, the examples were not all to me - and they were indistinguishable.
Your flames against me, while sometimes more extreme than your flames
against others, are not that different.
Now we have proof.
>
> So, let's assume there are thirty people in csma that think you're the biggest
> troll in the group. We know the number is biggeer, but let's just assume it's
> as low as thirty. What you need to do is to find cases for all these thirty
> people that you write off as "trolls" or something similar ("kooks" is the
> name Tholen use - your identical twin) are constantly abusing other users than
> yourself.
You say this with no proof.
This is the type thing that I am talking about - I offer proof, you do not.
Group think is not proof.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>> So, let's assume there are thirty people in csma that think you're
>> the biggest troll in the group. We know the number is biggeer, but
>> let's just assume it's as low as thirty. What you need to do is to
>> find cases for all these thirty people that you write off as "trolls"
>> or something similar ("kooks" is the name Tholen use - your identical
>> twin) are constantly abusing other users than yourself.
>
> You say this with no proof.
Incorrect.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-B89748.16...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 2/27/05
2:55 PM:
> In article <BE478188.5EB9%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Andrew J. Brehm" <ajb...@gmail.com> wrote in post
>> 1gsnqo0.1wm5jgi19fw7dcN%ajb...@gmail.com on 2/27/05 12:57 PM:
>>
>>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>
>
>>>> Anyone who reads his posts knows he does so.
>>>
>>> That is plain wrong. I know his posts and I don't know.
>>
>> OK, I stand corrected. Anyone who is observant who reads his posts knows he
>> does what I say.
>>>
>
> The problem being that every one of your 'quotes' were taken out of
> context so nobody can really tell if they were flames or not. Something
> snit does ALL THE TIME.
Do you expect me to copy the entire posts.
Your comment is silly. I have provided clear and unambiguous proof of my
claim.
Nothing but group think has supported the claims against me.
Snit
This whole thread has sunk to the level that Edwin displays here.
Several people make accusations against me, but not one shred of evidence
has been provided to support those accusations. Not one. People have
quoted each other making comments *about* me, but not one comment of mine
has been shown as an example of what I am accused of. Not one.
I, on the other hand, have provided specific quotes that offer conclusive
proof of my accusations. I pointed to Sandman's trolling / flaming and I
pointed to just one of Steve Carroll's many lies.
Nobody has found any reason to excuse there actions - but they do anyway.
These are the facts of this thread: zero evidence has been presented against
me - undisputed proof has been presented against those I make accusations
against.
So, sure, if those that want to make baseless accusations against me wish to
place me in their KF, I would appreciate it - maybe you will be less likely
to continue to make baseless accusations.
Snit
I can see many lies in your comments:
1) You *know* that the number of people who see me as you suggest is larger
than 30. If that is true, list the names: we both know you can not and will
not, because you are lying.
2) I need to do anything that you suggest. I have no such need to follow
your wishes. I have provided quotes from you proving that you troll and
flame - not just me, but others. Your comments attacking me and others were
indistinguishable - you flame often, just as I said.
3) Tholen and I are twins - even if you meant this in a colloquial sense,
you are connecting me to someone who I have very little in common with. You
will claim commonality, but you will never support your claim.
The sad thing is that the same people who make baseless accusations against
me will not chastise you for your lies. Is there any reason why I do not
look to their biased views as any type of support?
Who will prove me wrong and make it clear that you recognize Sandman's
trolling, flaming, and lying. If you are not willing to make comments on
something which has been proven, do not expect me to respect your views on
my actions. You are showing yourself to be biased and to ignore facts.
Snit
You flame and troll many people - and, as you say, in multiple groups. I
have no argument with that.
Anyone who chastises me - esp. in the absence of any quotes from me - while
giving you a pass after seeing your quotes is showing their bias.
Why should I take anyone seriously who is clearly showing a strong bias?
Andrew J. Brehm
Snit
> Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> To CSMA, an ernest plea:
>>
>> Everyone must ignore Snit and his sock puppets. The man is never
>> going to improve. Unless you want this group to be
>> alt.fan.snit.circus, you must resist all temptation to reply to Snit.
>>
>> For your own good, for the good of the group, and even for the good of
>> Snit himself, reign in the madness. Please.
>
> We aren't organised enough to get there.
And face it, if I did not want to respond to the tolling of others, I would
not. If people do not want to respond to any post of mine, for any reason,
they do not have to.
People talk to me because they enjoy doing so. There is no other reason to
respond to someone's post.
Snit
I do not want all people to like me - I would think worse of myself if some
people did.
The way you define utopia is scary... you define it as the absence of
someone who points out your actions that embarrass you?
Why not just stop your lying and trolling and flaming? Wouldn't that make
things more pleasant for you, or do you find that you are unable to stop?
Please remember: just recently I have shown solid proof that you flame and
attack and troll not just against me, but against others.
You have been asking me to not respond to your posts, but here we see you
can not prevent yourself from discussing me and how I make you feel. Not
very wise of you, is it?
Snit
_cfUd.3517503$f47.6...@news.easynews.com on 2/27/05 1:07 AM:
>
>
> ----------
> In article <BE466A69.5924%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, Snit
> <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> .............Two, if you want to make an
>> argument, you will need to provide support if you want me to believe you.
>
> haaahahhahahaha, Just be prepared to have your support snipped, followed by
> a query as to where your support is. LOL
>
>> The bottom line is I am working on reducing the number of flames and trolls.
>
> True! you do appear to be posting less, But I simply put that down to the
> dwindling numbers of people that take you seriously!
>
>> I am offering to stop responding to them by pointing out my view of them if
>> they will do the same with me.
>
> Just like your view of honor....for you it only works in a two way street!
> what a load of BOLLO**S!
>
>> I hope, however, that I am wrong.
>
> At last you strive for consistency!.......Too little Too late!
What did you hope to accomplish with your flames?
Wally
----------
In article <BE477CCD.5EAB%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, Snit
<SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
And also "if needed" you are quite capable, in fact you again seem happy to
alter any quote, or combine parts of quotes in any inappropriate manner that
you think works in your favor!
> I note that you, and the others who make baseless accusations against me
> fail to do so.
It may appear that way....'after' you snip the proof from their posts!
> Facts are not on your side. Groupthink may or may not be, but facts are
> not.
Another instance where the group is wrong and Snit is being wrongly
maligned! LOL
Snit
>>> Why? I, too, am a person... in any case, I looked at your posts from the
>>>> day in question and found that almost all contained flames, trolling, or
>>>> other inflammatory remarks. I posted specific quotes, which I have copied
>>>> below, to prove my point. Most of the quotes are not directed at me or are
>>>> about me, not that it would change my point if they were. You incite
>>>> disruption in almost every post you make. You say the same about me, but
>>>> you have not produced any examples.
>>>
>>> That's because everybody already knows you and your posting style.
>>>
>>> And the reason people flame you is because of your trolling, not because
>>> everybody is evil.
>>>
>>> You are not flamed because you speak the truth, you are flamed because
>>> you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting the newsgroup.
>>
>> I notice you provide no examples or evidence of your claims.
>>
>> When I make accusations against others I am happy to provide support in the
>> form of quotes directly from the person I am accusing - and, if needed, any
>> explanation to prove the point.
>
> And also "if needed" you are quite capable, in fact you again seem happy to
> alter any quote, or combine parts of quotes in any inappropriate manner that
> you think works in your favor!
So you say, without a single example or shred of evidence. Yet I can easily
find such examples about you. Here is one of my favorites:
See, it is easy to point to a post where your lies are made very, very
clear. You repeatedly pretend - LIE - that when I talked about a specific
timeline on 10/19/04 that it took place on some other day... you actually
tried to pretend - LIE - that it took place over multiple days.
You repeated this lie many times.
Here is a specific lie from you, where you pretend and lie about the time
before 10/19/04 being important to the timeline:
ooop's, 'this' lie still isn't working for Snit, the "days off" occurred
*before* "then". ("then" being 19 Oct 04)
You knew, for the record, that this comment of yours was a lie. You even
stated:
Snit has claimed that Steve ran away *AFTER* john's post on the 19th,
that was in fact the crux of his argument......
You knew that the time line was on 10/19. You may have thought that it
continued past that date, but you clearly knew that your comments about it
being before that date was a lie. You knowingly lied, and, if history is
any predictor, you will lie in response to this post.
See, when I say you lie, I can back it up with quotes from you that are
clear and unambiguous. If someone has a question about it and wants more
details on your lie, I am happy to provide more evidence.
>
>> I note that you, and the others who make baseless accusations against me
>> fail to do so.
>
> It may appear that way....'after' you snip the proof from their posts!
So you say without a shred of support.
>
>> Facts are not on your side. Groupthink may or may not be, but facts are
>> not.
>
> Another instance where the group is wrong and Snit is being wrongly
> maligned! LOL
Do you need proof of the concept of groupthink now? In any case, if you
think the "maligning" is not wrong, then please present your support. I
quoted one of your lies, above. I could quote more. Do you need me to in
order to make my point about your lies? Remember all the lies you told to
avoid answering this question:
If someone breaks a law, is the very fact that a law has been broken
an immoral act in your view
Remember how you were completely unable to answer the question and had to
spew lies to try to hide behind your inability to answer. Care to prove me
wrong: do so now. Answer the question.
You know and I know you can not. You never were before, and you will not be
able to now. This has been fully discussed, and you denied it in the past.
And, let me guess: you will repeat the same lies now.
Yet the same people who accuse me with zero support will not comment on your
lies, at least not in an honest way.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > I've had lively discussion with Peter Kohlman and "hoo" lately from cola. I
> > believe some quotes was from them.
>
> You flame and troll many people
I am not you, Michael. Stop projecting.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >> You say this with no proof.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> I can see many lies in your comments
Yes, I know you see lots of things that doesn't exist - nothing new there.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > Yeah, that would be utopia. This group was so peaceful and enjoyable when he
> > was away.
>
> I do not want all people to like me
No, you seem to want all to dislike you, since that's what you have achieved.
Congratulations.
--
Sandman[.net]
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
A post made by snit is proof that Wally lied?
>
> And, let me guess: you will repeat the same lies now.
>
> Yet the same people who accuse me with zero support will not comment on your
> lies, at least not in an honest way.
--
reguarding 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
Tim
Wally
----------
In article <BE47FCA6.6053%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, Snit
<SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> Here is a specific lie from you, where you pretend and lie about the time
> before 10/19/04 being important to the timeline:
No pretence...NO lie...My quote that follows IS important to the time line
as it proves your comments about Steve posting as John and then ceasing to
post was complete nonsense and a total fabrication by you!
Snit....
"Hey, Steve, funny how you stopped posting right after John offered
you such splendid support. Wonder why...."
When did John offer this "support"?
Snit....
""John" posts: 10:05" (on the 19th).
When does Snit claim Steve stops posting....
Snit....
"Steve posts: 10:10 and then stops
(but not for 4 days, as his reply implied)" (on the 19th)
Interestingly the above extract shows another of Snits lies....it clearly
shows Steve implying that he had 4 days break, the truth is that this is
Snits interpretation as Steve's actual post was.....
Steve...
"Snit. I just took a few days off with my wife and kids who had a
4 day weekend. You should try it sometime:)"
So when does Snit agree Steve took a break from posting?
Snit...
"Steve did not post on 10/16 ,10/17 , or 10/18"
So we have a situation where if Snit is to be believed John posts in support
of Steve on the 19th, Steve then has a break from posting after Johns post,
but for that to be true the "10/16 ,10/17 , or 10/18" must have occurred
'after' the 19th ........really?
> ooop's, 'this' lie still isn't working for Snit, the "days off" occurred
> *before* "then". ("then" being 19 Oct 04)
See no lie!
> You knew, for the record, that this comment of yours was a lie. You even
> stated:
No lie!
> Snit has claimed that Steve ran away *AFTER* john's post on the 19th,
> that was in fact the crux of his argument......
Correct you said...
"Hey, Steve, funny how you stopped posting right after John offered
you such splendid support. Wonder why...."
So again ..No lie!
> You knew that the time line was on 10/19.
Nonsense! unless you can have John posting and Steve ceasing to post for a
few days ALL occurring on the 19th. LOL
> You may have thought that it continued past that date,
No dear boy, It is you who would have Steve ceasing to post after John's
post on the 19th not I, that has been your undoing all along......that and
your general dishonesty that is!
> but you clearly knew that your comments about it
> being before that date was a lie. > You knowingly lied, and, if history is
> any predictor, you will lie in response to this post.
You have not, and cannot, show any lie of mine...period!
> See, when I say you lie, I can back it up with quotes from you that are
> clear and unambiguous.
About as unambiguous as your claim that Steve tried to obfuscate the
issue.......
"Steve tried to obfuscate the issue by talking about a 4 day period"
When in actual fact it was you that tried to obfuscate the issue when you
said......
"Steve posts: 10:10 and then stops
(but not for 4 days, as his reply implied)"
Steve implied no such thing, that was another of your lies, Steve was quite
explicit wrt the 4 days and who they applied to, as shown above!
> If someone has a question about it and wants more
> details on your lie, I am happy to provide more evidence.
Of the same caliber as the previous?........oh dear! LOL
>>> I note that you, and the others who make baseless accusations against me
>>> fail to do so.
>>
>> It may appear that way....'after' you snip the proof from their posts!
>
> So you say without a shred of support.
Been there done that!
>>> Facts are not on your side. Groupthink may or may not be, but facts are
>>> not.
>>
>> Another instance where the group is wrong and Snit is being wrongly
>> maligned! LOL
>
> Do you need proof of the concept of groupthink now?
Multiple instances of your dishonesty does not equate to "groupthink"!
> In any case, if you
> think the "maligning" is not wrong,
It would be wrong only if unwarranted, this clearly is not the case wrt you!
> then please present your support. I quoted one of your lies,
No!
> above. I could quote more.
And I would deal with such an attempt as easily as I have here!
> Do you need me to in
> order to make my point about your lies?
Go for it!
> Remember all the lies you told to
> avoid answering this question:
>
> If someone breaks a law, is the very fact that a law has been broken
> an immoral act in your view
>
> Remember how you were completely unable to answer the question and had to
> spew lies to try to hide behind your inability to answer. Care to prove me
> wrong: do so now. Answer the question.
The fact that you wish me to answer a moral question wrt "a law" and yet not
be able to allow me to judge this law in the context of my moral attitude to
it, speaks volumes about your lack of understanding when it comes to morals!
>
> You know and I know you can not.
Quite right, and I explained exactly why I would not answer such an
ambiguous question.
> You never were before, and you will not be
> able to now.
That's consistency for you, ain't it a bitch!
> This has been fully discussed, and you denied it in the past.
>
> http://snipurl.com/d3n6
>
> And, let me guess: you will repeat the same lies now.
>
> Yet the same people who accuse me with zero support will not comment on your
> lies, at least not in an honest way.
You expect others to comment on that which does not exist?.....yer right!
--
"Lay on, Macduff,
: And damn'd be him that first cries, 'Hold, enough!'"
William Shakespeare
TravelinMan
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
I'm really curious about this idiot. What is it that drives him to come
back day after day only to be lambasted by nearly every single person
here.
Does he really crave attention that much?
Snit
I will not let you start your circus over this all over again, but I will
point to a post where the timeline, and your lies, were described in great
detail:
You have been caught lying. Your denial does not change a thing, Wally, not
a thing at all.
"Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> wrote in post
sgEUd.3344551$B07.5...@news.easynews.com on 2/28/05 5:37 AM:
Snit
Your dishonest snipping gets very old, Sandman - please find a new trolling
method, one that is a bit more fresh.
Or, this is an idea: why don't you stop trolling. Really. I would love to
see it.
Snit
12:54 AM:
>> You know and I know you can not. You never were before, and you will not be
>> able to now. This has been fully discussed, and you denied it in the past.
>>
>> http://snipurl.com/d3n6
>
> A post made by snit is proof that Wally lied?
Do you not see Wally's quotes? Do you really not understand how Usenet
quoting works? Wow... you are a dim one.
Here, a post with quotes from you and Wally, where you were both caught
lying.
This is not insinuation or conjecture or opinion... this is proof. You both
tried to pretend I meant something other than what I said. You both lied.
Now that I have brought your lies up again, you will both try to re-start
your circus instead of admitting to your lies.
I have no interest in re-hashing what was made very, very clear. You and
Wally lied. Period.
Snit
Your dishonest snipping gets very old, Sandman - please find a new trolling
Snit
Your dishonest snipping gets very old, Sandman - please find a new trolling
method, one that is a bit more fresh.
Or, this is an idea: why don't you stop trolling. Really. I would love to
see it.
--
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> Really. I would love to see it.
I would also like to see you stop trolling.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
TravelinMan <tr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Yeah, that would be utopia. This group was so peaceful and
>>>> enjoyable when he was away.
>>>
>>> I do not want all people to like me
>>
>> No, you seem to want all to dislike you, since that's what you have
>> achieved. Congratulations.
>
> I'm really curious about this idiot. What is it that drives him to
> come back day after day only to be lambasted by nearly every single
> person here.
>
> Does he really crave attention that much?
Yes.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Your dishonest snipping gets very old, Sandman - please find a new trolling
method, one that is a bit more fresh.
Or, this is an idea: why don't you stop trolling. Really. I would love to
see it.
Snit
> In article <trman-F9DE0D....@news.central.cox.net>,
> TravelinMan <tr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Yeah, that would be utopia. This group was so peaceful and
>>>>> enjoyable when he was away.
>>>>
>>>> I do not want all people to like me
>>>
>>> No, you seem to want all to dislike you, since that's what you have
>>> achieved. Congratulations.
>>
>> I'm really curious about this idiot. What is it that drives him to
>> come back day after day only to be lambasted by nearly every single
>> person here.
I enjoy watching to see how far the trolls will go. It is, you must admit,
quite amusing.
Note all the accusations against me. Not a single shred of evidence.
I, on the other hand, support my accusation. The trolls pretend to not get
the difference.
>>
>> Does he really crave attention that much?
>
> Yes.
And you crave my attention so much you keep responding. Why is that,
Sandman?
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> As predicted, Wally, you continued your lie.
>
> I will not let you start your circus over this all over again, but I will
> point to a post where the timeline, and your lies, were described in great
> detail:
>
> http://snipurl.com/d3vl
>
Oh, like WOW. Another post, made by snit to prove Wally lied.
Why not post Wally's posts, in his own words, to prove it?
Oh, that's right, you need to rewrite what he wrote to make it fit what
you want it to say.
~ Big snip
--
reguarding 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
Tim
Snit
7:15 AM:
> In article <BE486D9B.6174%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> As predicted, Wally, you continued your lie.
>>
>> I will not let you start your circus over this all over again, but I will
>> point to a post where the timeline, and your lies, were described in great
>> detail:
>>
>> http://snipurl.com/d3vl
>>
>
> Oh, like WOW. Another post, made by snit to prove Wally lied.
>
> Why not post Wally's posts, in his own words, to prove it?
Ok.
His lies (along with yours), are quoted and discussed in detail in this
post:
>
> Oh, that's right, you need to rewrite what he wrote to make it fit what
> you want it to say.
Nope. He lied. Period. As did you.
You can both run from that, but there is no doubt. You both pretended that
a timeline that happened in one day, 10/19/04, took place on other days.
You both were caught lying. Neither of you is man enough to admit it.
>
> ~ Big snip
Wally
----------
In article <BE486D9B.6174%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, Snit
<SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
> As predicted, Wally, you continued your lie.
NO! not one lie can you show.
>
> I will not let you start your circus over this all over again, but I will
> point to a post where the timeline, and your lies, were described in great
> detail:
>
> http://snipurl.com/d3vl
OK lets look at your "timeline" and let IT show who here is lying...
Your Timeline...
"Steve posts: 8:56, 8:58, 9:03, 9:05, 9:06, 9:10, 9:16, 9:33,
9:35, 9:52, 9:59, 10:00
"John" posts: 10:05
Steve posts: 10:10 and then stops....
Now as far as my recollection goes these times were all on the 19th?.
And they were posted by you to show how Steve stopped posting straight after
Johns post @ 10:10, as you said...
"Hey, Steve, funny how you stopped posting right after John offered
you such splendid support. Wonder why...."
Immediately you are in trouble as your own timeline shows that not to be the
case, as Steve posted 5 minutes after John according to your own timeline,
but even ignoring that slip up, How does that timeline show what you say it
does when you go on to state that ........
"Steve did not post on 10/16 ,10/17 , or 10/18"
Explain how your timeline of the 19th shows how Steve stopped posting after
Johns post and yet the only break you can document of Steve's started 3 days
prior to it on the 16th........ooops!
> You have been caught lying. Your denial does not change a thing, Wally, not
> a thing at all.
You should add the proviso that it changes nothing in your mind, It will
appear differently to someone of sound mind!
Wally
----------
In article <BE4877C4.61BF%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, Snit
<SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-C88FBE.09...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 2/28/05
> 7:15 AM:
>
>> In article <BE486D9B.6174%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>>> As predicted, Wally, you continued your lie.
>>>
>>> I will not let you start your circus over this all over again, but I will
>>> point to a post where the timeline, and your lies, were described in great
>>> detail:
>>>
>>> http://snipurl.com/d3vl
>>>
>>
>> Oh, like WOW. Another post, made by snit to prove Wally lied.
>>
>> Why not post Wally's posts, in his own words, to prove it?
>
> Ok.
>
> http://snipurl.com/d3wn
So where is the lie? everything at that url is correct!
"My lists show him not posting on 17 & 18, but hey big deal its still not 4
days."
Do tell me that you are unaware how it could be 3 days on your list and yet
2 days on mine, LOL
and
"Now this is really cute, by your own admission Steve is shown to have taken
his break *BEFORE* the post by john, and yet you claim that Steve ran away
*AFTER* johns post, so if you are correct...
Steve had a 4 day vacation that only lasted 2or3 days,
He made the 16th,17th,& 18th appear after the 19th, then he ran away!
Only he couldn't have run very far as he was back posting on the 19th, but
of course before he could post on the 19th he had to replace it back where
it belongs after the 16th, 17th, & 18th, OK Snit I believe you ...ROTFLMAO"
Absolutely true, and consistent with my later posts on the subject.
Tim Adams
In article <BE4877C4.61BF%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, Snit
<SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-C88FBE.09...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 2/28/05
> 7:15 AM:
>
>> In article <BE486D9B.6174%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>>> As predicted, Wally, you continued your lie.
>>>
>>> I will not let you start your circus over this all over again, but I
will
>>> point to a post where the timeline, and your lies, were described in
great
>>> detail:
>>>
>>> http://snipurl.com/d3vl
>>>
>>
>> Oh, like WOW. Another post, made by snit to prove Wally lied.
>>
>> Why not post Wally's posts, in his own words, to prove it?
>
> Ok.
>
> http://snipurl.com/d3wn
Yup; your right, it does prove one of you is a liar.
To bad for you it isn't Wally!
Snit
>> As predicted, Wally, you continued your lie.
>
> NO! not one lie can you show.
>>
>> I will not let you start your circus over this all over again, but I will
>> point to a post where the timeline, and your lies, were described in great
>> detail:
>>
>> http://snipurl.com/d3vl
>
> OK lets look at your "timeline" and let IT show who here is lying...
Which timeline are you in reference to, the one from 10/19 (which I brought
up) or the one from the days prior (which Steve Carroll brought up).
> Your Timeline...
>
> "Steve posts: 8:56, 8:58, 9:03, 9:05, 9:06, 9:10, 9:16, 9:33,
> 9:35, 9:52, 9:59, 10:00
> "John" posts: 10:05
> Steve posts: 10:10 and then stops....
>
> Now as far as my recollection goes these times were all on the 19th?.
So far we agree - this is timeline in question. Can we also agree that this
timeline does not show who did or did not post on the days prior?
> And they were posted by you to show how Steve stopped posting straight after
> Johns post @ 10:10, as you said...
>
> "Hey, Steve, funny how you stopped posting right after John offered
> you such splendid support. Wonder why...."
>
> Immediately you are in trouble as your own timeline shows that not to be the
> case, as Steve posted 5 minutes after John according to your own timeline,
> but even ignoring that slip up, How does that timeline show what you say it
> does when you go on to state that ........
You could have an *honest* disagreement about the timeline on the 19th, but
instead you focus on the following:
> "Steve did not post on 10/16 ,10/17 , or 10/18"
>
> Explain how your timeline of the 19th shows how Steve stopped posting after
> Johns post and yet the only break you can document of Steve's started 3 days
> prior to it on the 16th........ooops!
The timeline of 10/19/04 does not show that Steve did not post before that
date. Nor, of course, have I ever said it did. I pointed out the timeline
of the 19th, Steve responded with comments about the 4 days prior. It was
only then that those four days were brought into the conversation.
Above we agree the timeline in question takes place solely on 10/19. Here
you dishonestly try to connect it to the days prior.
We have done as you asked. We have looked at the timeline (and the comments
about it). They show, clearly and with no room for confusion, that you are
lying. Your specific lie is trying to tie two timelines from different days
into one.
Andrew J. Brehm
That's odd.
Sandman, this is odd. Did you notice that Snit immidiately accuses
people of the latest thing he was accused of?
--
Andrew J. Brehm
Marx Brothers Fan
PowerPC User
Supporter of Chicken Pizza
Snit
My comment: http://snipurl.com/d4ck
You flame and troll many people - and, as you say, in multiple groups.
I have no argument with that.
Anyone who chastises me - esp. in the absence of any quotes from me -
while giving you a pass after seeing your quotes is showing their bias.
Why should I take anyone seriously who is clearly showing a strong bias?
Sandman's dishonest snipping, as seen above:
You flame and troll many people
Again: I post proof of my accusations. Those people who accuse me do not,
for they can not. They are lying.
There is no possible way I could have altered the Google record to make it
appear Sandman is doing what he is doing - there is no doubt I am correct
about his dishonest snipping.
Steve Carroll
It would be odd if Snit didn't do this.
--
"stop forcing me to confront truths I can't deal with." - Snit
Wally
----------
In article <BE48D06C.62B9%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, Snit
<SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> wrote in post
> edIUd.3641791$f47.6...@news.easynews.com on 2/28/05 10:07 AM:
>
>>> As predicted, Wally, you continued your lie.
>>
>> NO! not one lie can you show.
>>>
>>> I will not let you start your circus over this all over again, but I will
>>> point to a post where the timeline, and your lies, were described in great
>>> detail:
>>>
>>> http://snipurl.com/d3vl
>>
>> OK lets look at your "timeline" and let IT show who here is lying...
>
> Which timeline are you in reference to, the one from 10/19 (which I brought
> up) or the one from the days prior (which Steve Carroll brought up).
Did you really not understand the words "your "timeline""?.
>> Your Timeline...
>>
>> "Steve posts: 8:56, 8:58, 9:03, 9:05, 9:06, 9:10, 9:16, 9:33,
>> 9:35, 9:52, 9:59, 10:00
>> "John" posts: 10:05
>> Steve posts: 10:10 and then stops....
>>
>> Now as far as my recollection goes these times were all on the 19th?.
>
> So far we agree - this is timeline in question. Can we also agree that this
> timeline does not show who did or did not post on the days prior?
All that is not in question is the fact that your timeline was posted in an
effort to show Steve stopped posting sometime *after* Johns post, in that
regard you failed miserably as the only break you can identify started
several days prior to Johns post!
>> And they were posted by you to show how Steve stopped posting straight after
>> Johns post @ 10:10, as you said...
>>
>> "Hey, Steve, funny how you stopped posting right after John offered
>> you such splendid support. Wonder why...."
>>
>> Immediately you are in trouble as your own timeline shows that not to be the
>> case, as Steve posted 5 minutes after John according to your own timeline,
>> but even ignoring that slip up, How does that timeline show what you say it
>> does when you go on to state that ........
>
> You could have an *honest* disagreement about the timeline on the 19th, but
> instead you focus on the following:
I could not have an "*honest* disagreement" with you, as your dishonesty is
so deeply rooted in your methods.
>> "Steve did not post on 10/16 ,10/17 , or 10/18"
>>
>> Explain how your timeline of the 19th shows how Steve stopped posting after
>> Johns post and yet the only break you can document of Steve's started 3 days
>> prior to it on the 16th........ooops!
>
> The timeline of 10/19/04 does not show that Steve did not post before that
> date.
Your own admission does that ...a timeline is unnecessary, unfortunately for
you your timeline is useless wrt that which you attempted to show, that
being that Steve stopped posting on the 19th.
> Nor, of course, have I ever said it did.
Nor, of course, have I ever said it did, I simply say that it proves your
comment of "Hey, Steve, funny how you stopped posting right after John
offered you such splendid support. Wonder why...." a complete fabrication
by you, your later admission as to when Steve *actually* stopped posting
proves just how incompetent your effort was!
> I pointed out the timeline of the 19th,
To show ...What? do elaborate.
> Steve responded with comments about the 4 days prior. It was
> only then that those four days were brought into the conversation.
You think it strange that when asked about a break in posting that Steve
would comment on the circumstances surrounding an ACTUAL break rather that
your phantom one?
> Above we agree the timeline in question takes place solely on 10/19. Here
> you dishonestly try to connect it to the days prior.
It has to connect to the days prior, as that is the only time that the facts
that your timeline attempted to prove actually occurred, you stuffed up big
time, and now you want the timeline to stand but its failed conclusion to be
ignored......priceless LOL
> We have done as you asked. We have looked at the timeline (and the comments
> about it). They show, clearly and with no room for confusion, that you are
> lying. Your specific lie is trying to tie two timelines from different days
> into one.
In that case you can back up your statement that....
"Hey, Steve, funny how you stopped posting right after John offered
you such splendid support. Wonder why...."
where is this break *after* John offered such splendid support, I have shown
where it could only have happened *before* Johns post by quoting you...
"Steve did not post on 10/16 ,10/17 , or 10/18"
Who is lying simply rests on your ability to show this break after Johns
post, your inevitable failure to do so prove your lie........simple!
I look forward to a top posted reply. LOL
Snit
>>>> As predicted, Wally, you continued your lie.
>>>
>>> NO! not one lie can you show.
>>>>
>>>> I will not let you start your circus over this all over again, but I will
>>>> point to a post where the timeline, and your lies, were described in great
>>>> detail:
>>>>
>>>> http://snipurl.com/d3vl
>>>
>>> OK lets look at your "timeline" and let IT show who here is lying...
>>
>> Which timeline are you in reference to, the one from 10/19 (which I brought
>> up) or the one from the days prior (which Steve Carroll brought up).
>
> Did you really not understand the words "your "timeline""?.
>
>>> Your Timeline...
>>>
>>> "Steve posts: 8:56, 8:58, 9:03, 9:05, 9:06, 9:10, 9:16, 9:33,
>>> 9:35, 9:52, 9:59, 10:00
>>> "John" posts: 10:05
>>> Steve posts: 10:10 and then stops....
>>>
>>> Now as far as my recollection goes these times were all on the 19th?.
>>
>> So far we agree - this is timeline in question. Can we also agree that this
>> timeline does not show who did or did not post on the days prior?
>
> All that is not in question is the fact that your timeline was posted in an
> effort to show Steve stopped posting sometime *after* Johns post, in that
> regard you failed miserably as the only break you can identify started
> several days prior to Johns post!
Look at the timeline. It is all on 10/19. It is not before. Above you
agreed to that:
Now as far as my recollection goes these times were all on the 19th?.
Now you want to include times from before the 19th. That is your lie.
Below you continue to make insults and references to the days before the
19th - days that have nothing to do with the timeline of the 19th.
Steve and I were posting back and forth in rapid succession. I cornered
him. He stopped posting and his sock puppet came into his "rescue". He did
not post for several more hours - all on the 19th.
>
>> Steve responded with comments about the 4 days prior. It was
>> only then that those four days were brought into the conversation.
>
> You think it strange that when asked about a break in posting that Steve
> would comment on the circumstances surrounding an ACTUAL break rather that
> your phantom one?
Look at Steve's posting times on 10/19. He stopped posting for several
hours right after John posted.
>
>> Above we agree the timeline in question takes place solely on 10/19. Here
>> you dishonestly try to connect it to the days prior.
>
> It has to connect to the days prior, as that is the only time that the facts
> that your timeline attempted to prove actually occurred, you stuffed up big
> time, and now you want the timeline to stand but its failed conclusion to be
> ignored......priceless LOL
You are still trying to connect the timeline of 10/19 to the days before.
You are lying when you do so.
>
>> We have done as you asked. We have looked at the timeline (and the comments
>> about it). They show, clearly and with no room for confusion, that you are
>> lying. Your specific lie is trying to tie two timelines from different days
>> into one.
>
> In that case you can back up your statement that....
>
> "Hey, Steve, funny how you stopped posting right after John offered
> you such splendid support. Wonder why...."
Notice the word "after". After the morning of 10/19. Look below, you
reference the days *before* the 19th. In other words, you are lying.
>
> where is this break *after* John offered such splendid support, I have shown
> where it could only have happened *before* Johns post by quoting you...
>
> "Steve did not post on 10/16 ,10/17 , or 10/18"
This has nothing to do with the timeline of 10/19. Why do you quote it?
>
> Who is lying simply rests on your ability to show this break after Johns
> post, your inevitable failure to do so prove your lie........simple!
Do you need me to help you find the timeline of my posts, Steve's posts, and
John's posts on 10/19?
Sandman
ajb...@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> > >>> I've had lively discussion with Peter Kohlman and "hoo" lately from
> > >>> cola. I believe some quotes was from them.
> > >>
> > >> You flame and troll many people
> > >
> > > I am not you, Michael. Stop projecting.
> >
> > Your dishonest snipping gets very old, Sandman - please find a new trolling
> > method, one that is a bit more fresh.
> >
> > Or, this is an idea: why don't you stop trolling. Really. I would love to
> > see it.
>
> That's odd.
>
> Sandman, this is odd. Did you notice that Snit immidiately accuses
> people of the latest thing he was accused of?
Well, I think I am the first person in this group to call Michael a troll. It
didn't take long before I was the first one to be labeled a troll by Michael.
At least as far as I can remember.
I think Michael is very single-track minded. If all of people call him a troll
(as they are), then all people are...trolls. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> there is no doubt I am correct
> about his dishonest snipping.
Other from the fact that it is a very honest snipping, and is done for your
benefit. If I snip out most of your posts, you come across as a rather normal
person. I rather have you be a normal person, and I do my best to make it
appear as if you at least had some rudimentary intelligence.
NOT snipping would brake this illusion.
--
Sandman[.net]
Wally
----------
In article <BE49486C.655F%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, Snit
<SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> wrote in post
> 1ySUd.3402156$B07.5...@news.easynews.com on 2/28/05 9:52 PM:
>
>>>>> As predicted, Wally, you continued your lie.
>>>>
>>>> NO! not one lie can you show.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will not let you start your circus over this all over again, but I will
>>>>> point to a post where the timeline, and your lies, were described in great
>>>>> detail:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://snipurl.com/d3vl
>>>>
>>>> OK lets look at your "timeline" and let IT show who here is lying...
>>>
>>> Which timeline are you in reference to, the one from 10/19 (which I brought
>>> up) or the one from the days prior (which Steve Carroll brought up).
>>
>> Did you really not understand the words "your "timeline""?.
Well did you?
>>>> Your Timeline...
>>>>
>>>> "Steve posts: 8:56, 8:58, 9:03, 9:05, 9:06, 9:10, 9:16, 9:33,
>>>> 9:35, 9:52, 9:59, 10:00
>>>> "John" posts: 10:05
>>>> Steve posts: 10:10 and then stops....
>>>>
>>>> Now as far as my recollection goes these times were all on the 19th?.
>>>
>>> So far we agree - this is timeline in question. Can we also agree that this
>>> timeline does not show who did or did not post on the days prior?
>>
>> All that is not in question is the fact that your timeline was posted in an
>> effort to show Steve stopped posting sometime *after* Johns post, in that
>> regard you failed miserably as the only break you can identify started
>> several days prior to Johns post!
>
> Look at the timeline. It is all on 10/19. It is not before. Above you
> agreed to that:
Your failed timeline is on the 19th, correct.
> Now as far as my recollection goes these times were all on the 19th?.
>
> Now you want to include times from before the 19th. That is your lie.
Try to reign in your confusion Snit and show *ONE* instance where I have
mentioned any "times" prior to the 19th as you state above, do you really
find the difference between a time and a date that confusing? that would
explain for a lot.
> Below you continue to make insults and references to the days before the
> 19th - days that have nothing to do with the timeline of the 19th.
In your case showing you to be an idiot is not an insult......it is an
inevitability!
And yet *your* timeline contradicts you....
"John" posts: 10:05
Steve posts: 10:10 and then stops...."
Duck and Dive all you want, but your timeline has defeated you!
> He did not post for several more hours - all on the 19th.
And where is that shown on your timeline....quite simply it isn't!
>>> Steve responded with comments about the 4 days prior. It was
>>> only then that those four days were brought into the conversation.
>>
>> You think it strange that when asked about a break in posting that Steve
>> would comment on the circumstances surrounding an ACTUAL break rather that
>> your phantom one?
>
> Look at Steve's posting times on 10/19. He stopped posting for several
> hours right after John posted.
And you are stating that you knew that when you posted ......
"Hey, Steve, funny how you stopped posting right after John offered
you such splendid support. Wonder why...."
If that were true then the above must also have been posted several hours
after John's post also, how else could you have noticed the break in
posting...was it? here let me help you out....
>>
>>> Above we agree the timeline in question takes place solely on 10/19. Here
>>> you dishonestly try to connect it to the days prior.
>>
>> It has to connect to the days prior, as that is the only time that the facts
>> that your timeline attempted to prove actually occurred, you stuffed up big
>> time, and now you want the timeline to stand but its failed conclusion to be
>> ignored......priceless LOL
>
> You are still trying to connect the timeline of 10/19 to the days before.
> You are lying when you do so.
>>
>>> We have done as you asked. We have looked at the timeline (and the comments
>>> about it). They show, clearly and with no room for confusion, that you are
>>> lying. Your specific lie is trying to tie two timelines from different days
>>> into one.
>>
>> In that case you can back up your statement that....
>>
>> "Hey, Steve, funny how you stopped posting right after John offered
>> you such splendid support. Wonder why...."
>
> Notice the word "after". After the morning of 10/19. Look below, you
> reference the days *before* the 19th. In other words, you are lying.
Of course because by your own admission that is the only break from posting
that Steve had....before the 19th, that was your mistake!
>> where is this break *after* John offered such splendid support, I have shown
>> where it could only have happened *before* Johns post by quoting you...
>>
>> "Steve did not post on 10/16 ,10/17 , or 10/18"
>
> This has nothing to do with the timeline of 10/19. Why do you quote it?
Because those dates were offered by you as when Steve took a break from
posting, to date you have offered no others, and your timeline shows no
break at all after Johns post, in fact quite the opposite it shows Steve
posting 5 minutes after John, perhaps its the 5 minute break that has you
all twisted up? LOL
>> Who is lying simply rests on your ability to show this break after Johns
>> post, your inevitable failure to do so prove your lie........simple!
>
> Do you need me to help you find the timeline of my posts, Steve's posts, and
> John's posts on 10/19?
Do you mean this one...
"Steve posts: 8:56, 8:58, 9:03, 9:05, 9:06, 9:10, 9:16, 9:33,
9:35, 9:52, 9:59, 10:00
"John" posts: 10:05
Steve posts: 10:10 and then stops...."
which shows ....
"Hey, Steve, funny how you stopped posting right after John offered
you such splendid support. Wonder why...."
to be a lie! Thanks for playing LOL
Wally
----------
In article <BE49486C.655F%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, Snit
<SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> wrote in post
> 1ySUd.3402156$B07.5...@news.easynews.com on 2/28/05 9:52 PM:
>
Snit...I have heard it said that it is a fine line between madness and
genius.....lets see which label best fits you..
Snit's Timeline...
"Steve posts: 8:56, 8:58, 9:03, 9:05, 9:06, 9:10, 9:16, 9:33,
9:35, 9:52, 9:59, 10:00
"John" posts: 10:05
Steve posts: 10:10 and then stops....
Snit...
"I pointed out the timeline of the 19th,"
Wally...
"To show ...What? do elaborate."
Snit...
"Steve and I were posting back and forth in rapid succession. I cornered
him. He stopped posting and his sock puppet came into his "rescue".
He did not post for several more hours - all on the 19th."
-------------------------
Now Snit you have denied that the dates that I referenced many times prior
to the 19th are immaterial to your comments about Steve taking a break from
posting, here is your exact quote to Steve...
"Hey, Steve, funny how you stopped posting right after John offered
you such splendid support. Wonder why...."
So when did this period of non posting by Steve occur? you would have me
believe that it occurred after John's post, in fact you clarify the point by
saying...
"He stopped posting and his sock puppet came into his "rescue".
He did not post for several more hours - all on the 19th."
So, according to you you were referring to the several hours after John's
post when you said to Steve..."funny how you stopped posting right after
John.............."
Unfortunately for you that doesn't gel when Google is consulted, because
that would mean that at... 2004-10-19 10:32:11 PST, you would have to have
known that Steve wasn't going to be posting until... 2004-10-19 13:06:52
PST, how does that work Snit? how did you know at 10:32:11 PST what was
going to happen at 13:06:52 some two and a half hours later?
you like timelines..try this one...
At 2004-10-19 10:19:04 PST
John posts......
"Steve has every right to respond to Snit's lies."
At 2004-10-19 10:32:11 PST
Snit posts......
"Hey, Steve, funny how you stopped posting right after John offered you such
splendid support.
Wonder why...."
At 2004-10-19 13:06:52 PST
Steve responds
"Runs away? You need a break from your computer, Snit. I just took a few
days off with my wife and kids who had a 4 day weekend. You should try
it sometime:)"
So come on Snit Madman or Genius?...how did you know at 10:32:11 PST that
Steve was not going to post until 13:06:52 PST?
Andrew J. Brehm
> In article <1gspr5t.1qpbgqzoobm1yN%ajb...@gmail.com>, ajb...@gmail.com
> (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
>
> > > >>> I've had lively discussion with Peter Kohlman and "hoo" lately
> > > >>> from cola. I believe some quotes was from them.
> > > >>
> > > >> You flame and troll many people
> > > >
> > > > I am not you, Michael. Stop projecting.
> > >
> > > Your dishonest snipping gets very old, Sandman - please find a new
> > > trolling method, one that is a bit more fresh.
> > >
> > > Or, this is an idea: why don't you stop trolling. Really. I would
> > > love to see it.
> >
> > That's odd.
> >
> > Sandman, this is odd. Did you notice that Snit immidiately accuses
> > people of the latest thing he was accused of?
>
> Well, I think I am the first person in this group to call Michael a troll.
> It didn't take long before I was the first one to be labeled a troll by
> Michael. At least as far as I can remember.
Possibly.
I believe I was originally involved in his "discussion" with at least
one of he Steves. After that I have been in and out of the fights.
But I think you were among the second wave who became frustrated with
Snit and among the first wave of people who usually disagree with me in
NORMAL (polite) discussions.
The fact that advocates and trolls alike as well as supporters of all
political views (including his!) all label Snit as a troll and become
frustrated by him should tip Michael off, shouldn't it?
> I think Michael is very single-track minded. If all of people call him a
> troll (as they are), then all people are...trolls. :)
I think he is currently avoiding calling me a troll in order to not
create that image. (The picture is alread there though.)
Sandman
ajb...@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> > > Sandman, this is odd. Did you notice that Snit immidiately accuses
> > > people of the latest thing he was accused of?
> >
> > Well, I think I am the first person in this group to call Michael a troll.
> > It didn't take long before I was the first one to be labeled a troll by
> > Michael. At least as far as I can remember.
>
> Possibly.
>
> I believe I was originally involved in his "discussion" with at least
> one of he Steves. After that I have been in and out of the fights.
I started writing a long post about the process of how I came to killfile
Michael - from my very first post about him where I wwelcomed him to the group
and said he was a very cogent Mac advocate to the inevitable killfile.
> But I think you were among the second wave who became frustrated with
> Snit and among the first wave of people who usually disagree with me in
> NORMAL (polite) discussions.
If I recall correctly, we've had some debate with regards to alcohol, drugs and
weapons. :)
> The fact that advocates and trolls alike as well as supporters of all
> political views (including his!) all label Snit as a troll and become
> frustrated by him should tip Michael off, shouldn't it?
It should indeed. :)
> > I think Michael is very single-track minded. If all of people call him a
> > troll (as they are), then all people are...trolls. :)
>
> I think he is currently avoiding calling me a troll in order to not
> create that image. (The picture is alread there though.)
Yes, he is quite aware of this... limitations of his. He realizes that he has
hit some form of limit and the threshold after which he calls someone a troll
must be raised, which is why he desperately try to get as much milage out of
the people already in his "troll bin" with his constant attention-cravings.
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
Snit underestimated how the group would react to him because a group
reaction didn't occur right away (like it had with some other well know
trolls), but it was only a matter of time before Snit would reach
critical mass, alienating most of the NG and solidifying this image in
the minds of others. Now, even he realizes to what extent he has done
this and he's trying to change that image. As both of you have obviously
seen, Snit's immediate motives are relatively easy to spot once you
realize why he comes to csma. He's not here to troll, that's just sport
he's picked up along the way.
Andrew J. Brehm
> > But I think you were among the second wave who became frustrated with
> > Snit and among the first wave of people who usually disagree with me in
> > NORMAL (polite) discussions.
>
> If I recall correctly, we've had some debate with regards to alcohol,
> drugs and weapons. :)
That sounds like something I could be involved in, yes.
> > The fact that advocates and trolls alike as well as supporters of all
> > political views (including his!) all label Snit as a troll and become
> > frustrated by him should tip Michael off, shouldn't it?
>
> It should indeed. :)
I wonder if he even notices that.
> > > I think Michael is very single-track minded. If all of people call him
> > > a troll (as they are), then all people are...trolls. :)
> >
> > I think he is currently avoiding calling me a troll in order to not
> > create that image. (The picture is alread there though.)
>
> Yes, he is quite aware of this... limitations of his. He realizes that he
> has hit some form of limit and the threshold after which he calls someone
> a troll must be raised, which is why he desperately try to get as much
> milage out of the people already in his "troll bin" with his constant
> attention-cravings.
That could be an explanation for it.
Andrew J. Brehm
> Now, even he realizes to what extent he has done this and he's trying to
> change that image. As both of you have obviously seen, Snit's immediate
> motives are relatively easy to spot once you realize why he comes to csma.
> He's not here to troll, that's just sport he's picked up along the way.
On a sidenote, the robot name generator gives us the following for Snit:
<http://www.cyborgname.com/cyborger.cgi?acronym=snit&robotchoice=handyva
c>
"Synthetic Networked Infiltration Technician"
Which I think is rather fitting; "technician" could be replaced by
"troll" and "synthetic" by some other suitable word.
For me it gives "Artifical Networked Device Responsible for Exploration
and Warfare", which I think is also quite fitting, although I prefer my
sys admin variant "Advanced Non-Determinable Replication Errors Writer"
which is more suitable for my job.
Steve Carroll
ajb...@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > Now, even he realizes to what extent he has done this and he's trying to
> > change that image. As both of you have obviously seen, Snit's immediate
> > motives are relatively easy to spot once you realize why he comes to csma.
> > He's not here to troll, that's just sport he's picked up along the way.
>
> On a sidenote, the robot name generator gives us the following for Snit:
>
> <http://www.cyborgname.com/cyborger.cgi?acronym=snit&robotchoice=handyva
> c>
>
> "Synthetic Networked Infiltration Technician"
>
> Which I think is rather fitting; "technician" could be replaced by
> "troll" and "synthetic" by some other suitable word.
>
Really:)
Elizabot v2.0.2
> In article <1gsr3p2.wnmrww11bkh6oN%ajb...@gmail.com>,
> ajb...@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
>
>
>>Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Now, even he realizes to what extent he has done this and he's trying to
>>>change that image. As both of you have obviously seen, Snit's immediate
>>>motives are relatively easy to spot once you realize why he comes to csma.
>>>He's not here to troll, that's just sport he's picked up along the way.
>>
>>On a sidenote, the robot name generator gives us the following for Snit:
>>
>><http://www.cyborgname.com/cyborger.cgi?acronym=snit&robotchoice=handyva
>>c>
>>
>>"Synthetic Networked Infiltration Technician"
>>
>>Which I think is rather fitting; "technician" could be replaced by
>>"troll" and "synthetic" by some other suitable word.
>>
>
>
> Really:)
How about these:
Schizoid/Scatterbrained/Scurrilous
Narcissistic/Nitwitted/Noxious
Imprudent/Irrational/Irresponsible
Troll.
>
>>For me it gives "Artifical Networked Device Responsible for Exploration
>>and Warfare", which I think is also quite fitting, although I prefer my
>>sys admin variant "Advanced Non-Determinable Replication Errors Writer"
>>which is more suitable for my job.
--
By responding to Elizabot v2.0.2 you implicitly agree to the TOS at:
http://elizabot.spymac.net/
Steve Carroll
"Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote:
> Steve Carroll wrote:
> > In article <1gsr3p2.wnmrww11bkh6oN%ajb...@gmail.com>,
> > ajb...@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Now, even he realizes to what extent he has done this and he's trying to
> >>>change that image. As both of you have obviously seen, Snit's immediate
> >>>motives are relatively easy to spot once you realize why he comes to csma.
> >>>He's not here to troll, that's just sport he's picked up along the way.
> >>
> >>On a sidenote, the robot name generator gives us the following for Snit:
> >>
> >><http://www.cyborgname.com/cyborger.cgi?acronym=snit&robotchoice=handyva
> >>c>
> >>
> >>"Synthetic Networked Infiltration Technician"
> >>
> >>Which I think is rather fitting; "technician" could be replaced by
> >>"troll" and "synthetic" by some other suitable word.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Really:)
>
> How about these:
>
> Schizoid/Scatterbrained/Scurrilous
> Narcissistic/Nitwitted/Noxious
> Imprudent/Irrational/Irresponsible
> Troll.
Hmmm... they all fit, too... but isn't that a... list? :)