Sandman's dishonest Sigmond FAQ
Snit
> Who is sigmond?
>
> sigmond was a poster that appeared in csma for a brief period of time in
> January of 2004. sigmond appeared in a debate between Michael and a number of
> other posters.
I believe sigmond appeared in more debates centering around Steve Carroll.
To leave Steve's name out of this is dishonest and inaccurate.
Sandman Deception 1
Someone by the name of sigmond has been referenced as far back as the
*charter* for csma.
http://smallurl.com/?i=15393
Aug 10 1992: "pollbook" of votes received in the comp.sys.mac.advocacy new
group poll
Sandman Deception 2
> sigmond had no earlier posting history to usenet prior to that
> and disappeared quickly when it was claimed he was a sock puppet of Michael.
First recent posting I can find referenced... sigmonds posts are
conveniently removed from Google... is from Jan 6:
http://smallurl.com/?i=15394
Jan 6: Steve Carroll responds to comments. Sigmond refers to Snit and Steve
as "dumbshits".
First claim that sigmond is a sockpuppet
http://smallurl.com/?i=15395
Jan 6: Elizabot already "knows" sigmond is a sock puppet. Funny how she
"knew" that before she had any evidence. The "evidence" appeared later.
Quite strange.
The claim came after the first or second posting by sigmond. Claiming that
sigmond disappearance had anything to do with the original claim is
dishonest, or at least based on information that has not been presented.
Sandman Deception 3
> sigmond also posted a specifically poor taste post about another poster in
> csma, Elizabot. sigmond has since then removed his posts from Google in what
> appears as an attempt to hide his origin. This means that no references to his
> actual posts can be made, only to replies to them. (Google) is a reply to the
> poor taste post from sigmond.
>
>
> Who is Michael (Snit)?
If this is a "sigmond FAQ", then information about me is irrelevant. If you
are trying to "prove" sigmond is me, then you are doing so in a faulty way -
assuming the conclusion without any support.
Sandman Deception 4
>
> Michael is an Mac advocate and a frequent poster to csma and has been since
> 2003-10-07 when he posted his first csma post (Google). Since then he has been
> deemed a troll by the majority of the people he has been engaged in argument
> with, including but not limited to, the general group of people that usually
> are found arguing with the trolls in the group.
Just about everyone has been called a troll. I have also been called the
only true Mac advocate... a fact you disingenuously leave out.
>
> What is this about a IP?
>
> Michael posts via SuperNews, which doesn't append a NNTP-Posting-Host header
> to posts posted through their service, making the posters anonymous, hence the
> IP of Michael isn't shown in posts he has made through SuperNews. sigmond
> posted through Google, which does include the NNTP-Posting-Host header and
> sigmonds IP was 24.117.214.4 and 24.117.214.36. Other IP's that sigmond posted
> from were:
>
> 24.117.41.8
>
> 24.117.43.83
>
> 24.119.230.189
>
> 24.117.214.36
>
> 24.116.66.89
I notice you have absolutely no evidence of this, nor do you have any reason
to believe my house IP is anything - being that I post from Supernews.
Sandman Deception 5
>
> Is 24.117.214.4 and 24.117.214.36 Michaels IP?
>
> Yes, it is. He has posted to usenet with this very IP (Google) and sent an
> email to Steve Mackay (Google) which was verified by Sandman (who was given
> the password to Steves mail account) (Google). There is no doubt that this is
> Michaels IP. So, the connection is as follows:
>
> 24.117.214.36 - sigmond (Google)
>
> 24.117.214.36 - Michaels mail to Mackay (Google)
>
> 24.117.214.4 - sigmond (Google)
>
> 24.117.214.4 - Michaels post to another group. (Google)
Those IP's are from public labs... that does not make them my IP. As far as
the e-mail, that is *not* the IP the e-mail was sent from. The e-mail
posted to csma and referenced by you has a forged header. When I asked to
see the actual e-mail, I was told I could not. The only "evidence" ever
provided was a screen shot - one that had been edited. Your failing to
mention that is dishonest.
Sandman Deception 6
>
> There is no doubt what so ever that this is Michaels IP. These are facts, not
> opinions.
You have never accounted for the comments above. Your "evidence" has been
shown to be faulty.
Sandman Deception 7
>
> Is Michael lying?
>
> Yes, he is. Given the actual proof found above, he stills deny that he created
> sigmond as a sock puppet, which means he is a liar.
Um, whatever. Your piling of lies on top of each other does not support
your case, even a little.
Sandman Deception 8
>
> Has Michael countered any of this proof?
>
> In short, no he hasn't.
That is clearly a lie. The evidence has been countered repeatedly.
Sandman Deception 9
> He has constructed some far fetched conspiracy theories about sigmond which
> can be found in (Google)
I notice you do not comment on the points in the post you link to in any
meaningful way. That is dishonest on your part.
Sandman Deception 10
> where the only point that tries to counter these facts is that he is pointing
> to the fact that there has been a poster by the name "Steve Sigmond" and
> implied that that means Steve Carroll is sigmond, even though that this "Steve
> Sigmond" hasn't posted since 1993 and never to csma, and never used the IP in
> question.
>
> One of his latest comments were: "As far as the "evidence" against me, I can
> not say I can explain it all or even care to... I have made guesses, and if my
> guess has been shown to not be 100% correct the mere fact that I have guessed
> has been held against me. All I need to know is my own actions." (Google)
Exactly. I have lost track of the lies. If someone wants to prove a lie,
then they need to prove it. It is not my responsibility to keep track of
their lies. You seem to be kind enough to compile many of the lies in one
place. Thanks.
They have been fully countered... here and elsewhere. Will you and the
Group Think Steve's now admit your error? Of course not! So you will try
to push the idea over and over.
Ok... good joke. It was funny. Ha ha... the Steve's faked an e-mail or
something... so what?
>
> What does Michael say to all of this?
>
> Nothing, really.
Clearly a lie. :)
Sandman Deception 11
> He will ignore posts containing these facts as much as he can.
Another clear lie on your part.
Sandman Deception 12
> He will either snip all of the facts away or try to counter it with something
> irrelevant, like trying to deem this collection of facts as trolling.
Wow.... when I call your trolling "trolling" you get bent out of shape.
Poor troll.
> He fails to realize that this FAQ is a collection of substantiated facts, not
> speculations.
Care to count the number of lies I have caught you in so far? This "FAQ" is
a collection of lies.
Sandman Deception 13
>
> He has also, during the course of these events, changed his story about the IP
> address in question. When first confronted with it, he jokingly said that this
> sigmond person must have broken into his house (Google), but verified that the
> IP belonged to the same network he uses.
The same ISP... a fairly large provider... main high speed connection for
*hundreds* of thousands of people and public labs.
Sandman Deception 14
> He then changed his story and claimed that Steve had access to the IP in
> question (Google) and not him (this is the ludicrous and totally illogical
> conspiracy theory Michael constructed from thin air).
When did I claim to not have access to cableone.net? I notice you have no
link to this claim... because you made it up. How many lies do I need to
catch you in before you would drop this? Oh, that is right... you and the
Group Think Steve's have no intention of dropping your silly claim... nor
will you post the "Sandman Trolling FAQ" on your biased site.
Sandman Deception 15
> Recently he did however verify that the IP (24.117.214.4) belongs to a "lab"
> he has used to post to usenet from (Google) - presumably at his school.
Once it was pointed out that a post I posted from a lab came from that IP...
uh, yeah, then that lab must have had that IP. What a shock! Where did you
get the idea it was a school lab? Another baseless assumption on your part.
Another lie. It gets tiring.
Sandman Deception 16
> He claims that all machines there shares this IP, but doesn't mention if it is
> dynamic or not.
Chances are all machines in that lab are on the same external IP. I have no
idea if it is dynamic or static. Who cares?
Sandman Deception 17
> This latest admission ties the IP to him more than anyone else
> in csma, so any made up conspiracy theory is noow out the window.
But you also tie it to an e-mail where I sent from a computer with a
*different* IP. Your whole story revolves around one faked e-mail.
Sandman Deception 18
>
> But you can fake IP addresses, right?
>
> Yes, you can. Plus, you can compromise the security of the servers related to
> these messages, such as hotmail, google, cableone mailservers and such. But
> what would the point be for a malicious user to fake an IP address of a user
> whose IP address is unknown?
It is very easy to cut and paste an e-mail and then substitute another IP.
That is *all* that seems to have happened here. Maybe the Steve's did more?
Who knows. Maybe they figured our how to fake header info on an e-mail...
not hard to do. Friends and I use to do that in college long ago. We would
get e-mail from the Whitehouse or wherever. You act like that is a huge
challenge.
Sandman Deception 19
> At the time, no one knew what IP address Michael had, since he used SuperNews,
Wait... look above. Part of your "evidence" is a post from me with that IP.
Your story has changed. Seems you are lying again.
Sandman Deception 20
> so there wouldn't be a point to post with any IP to try to "frame" Michael.
Do you not see how you are talking in circles? Create your time line...
your story makes no sense.
I posted to Usenet with an IP.
Later a forged e-mail was shown with that IP.
But here you claim nobody knew my IP. How can you say nobody knew when your
evidence is based on your "knowing"?
Sandman Deception 21
> Not until he mailed Mackay (Google) was his IP known.
Anyone can cut and paste an IP. So what? We still have not even shown that
*anything* more was done than that - not that it is out of the realm of
possibility that more was done.
Sandman Deception 22
> And while one could create a conspiracy theory involving Mackay spoofing this
> IP, it would be in vain since it was later found that Michael himself had
> posted to usenet with that very IP, long before all of this ever took place.
Here you admit that the IP was available "long before"... but above claim it
was not (At the time, no one knew what IP address Michael had).
Make up your mind.
Sandman Deception 23
----------------
There... fully and completely refuted. I have shown at least 23 deceptions
(or outright lies) in the sigmond FAQ.
I am sure you will apologize and pull it from your web site very soon. :)
Or maybe you will look at each of my accusations of lying and try to find
some way to explain them. I look forward to seeing you touch on all 23 of
your deceptions.
More likely, however, you will simply claim they are not relevant or that
they are not accurate, even though I clearly document just about every thing
I say.
In short... your claim has been shown to be a lie. More than that... it has
been shown to be twenty three lies... plain and simple.
Sigh... I have, again, spent too much time on this. If you actually make a
meaningful response I will probably comment... other than that I likely will
not... unless you say something that really amuses me as you try to lie your
way out of this one.
Toodles.
Sandman
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> Examination of Sandman's dishonest Sigmond FAQ
Nothing dishonest about it.
> > Who is sigmond?
> >
> > sigmond was a poster that appeared in csma for a brief period of time in
> > January of 2004. sigmond appeared in a debate between Michael and a number
> > of
> > other posters.
>
> I believe sigmond appeared in more debates centering around Steve Carroll.
> To leave Steve's name out of this is dishonest and inaccurate.
sigmond didn't, as far as I can see in my logs, appear in any discussion were
you weren't present as well. You have to prove this claim.
> Someone by the name of sigmond has been referenced as far back as the
> *charter* for csma.
Irrelevant. This specific sigmond used a specific email. Arbitarly "sigmonds"
in the history of usenet are irrelevant.
> > sigmond had no earlier posting history to usenet prior to that
> > and disappeared quickly when it was claimed he was a sock puppet of
> > Michael.
>
> First recent posting I can find referenced... sigmonds posts are
> conveniently removed from Google... is from Jan 6:
I know this already.
> http://smallurl.com/?i=15394
> Jan 6: Steve Carroll responds to comments. Sigmond refers to Snit and Steve
> as "dumbshits".
>
> First claim that sigmond is a sockpuppet
>
> http://smallurl.com/?i=15395
> Jan 6: Elizabot already "knows" sigmond is a sock puppet. Funny how she
> "knew" that before she had any evidence. The "evidence" appeared later.
> Quite strange.
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3ffb67be%240%24200%2475868355%40news.frii.
net>
One minute after that post, she posted the evidence she based her conclusion
on. This evidence hasn't been refuted.
>> sigmond also posted a specifically poor taste post about another
>> poster in csma, Elizabot. sigmond has since then removed his posts
>> from Google in what appears as an attempt to hide his origin. This
>> means that no references to his actual posts can be made, only to
>> replies to them. (Google) is a reply to the poor taste post from
>> sigmond.
>>
>> Who is Michael (Snit)?
>
> If this is a "sigmond FAQ", then information about me is irrelevant.
Incorrect, given that you are sigmond.
> If you are trying to "prove" sigmond is me, then you are doing so in a
> faulty way - assuming the conclusion without any support.
Incorrect, given the onslaught of substantiated facts in the FAQ.
>> Michael is an Mac advocate and a frequent poster to csma and has been
>> since
>> 2003- 10-07 when he posted his first csma post (Google). Since then he
>> has been deemed a troll by the majority of the people he has been
>> engaged in argument with, including but not limited to, the general
>> group of people that usually are found arguing with the trolls in the
>> group.
>
> Just about everyone has been called a troll. I have also been called
> the only true Mac advocate... a fact you disingenuously leave out.
Because it is irrelevant to the FAQ.
>> What is this about a IP?
>>
>> Michael posts via SuperNews, which doesn't append a NNTP-Posting-Host
>> header to posts posted through their service, making the posters
>> anonymous, hence the IP of Michael isn't shown in posts he has made
>> through SuperNews. sigmond posted through Google, which does include
>> the NNTP-Posting-Host header and sigmonds IP was 24.117.214.4 and
>> 24.117.214.36. Other IP's that sigmond posted from were:
>> 24. 117.41.8
>> 24. 117.43.83
>> 24. 119.230.189
>> 24. 117.214.36
>> 24. 116.66.89
>
> I notice you have absolutely no evidence of this, nor do you have any
> reason to believe my house IP is anything - being that I post from
> Supernews.
Apart from the fact that you have actually posted from one of the above IP's -
you know the little snippet of evidence you've been dodging these last few days:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BC172FBE.37F1C%25snit-nospam%40cableone.ne
t>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.117.214.4
From: Snit <snit-...@cableone.net>
>> Is 24.117.214.4 and 24.117.214.36 Michaels IP?
>>
>> Yes, it is. He has posted to usenet with this very IP (Google) and
>> sent an email to Steve Mackay (Google) which was verified by Sandman
>> (who was given the password to Steves mail account) (Google). There
>> is no doubt that this is Michaels IP. So, the connection is as
>> follows:
>>
>> 24. 117.214.36 - sigmond (Google)
>> 24. 117.214.36 - Michaels mail to Mackay (Google)
>> 24. 117.214.4 - sigmond (Google)
>> 24. 117.214.4 - Michaels post to another group. (Google)
>
> Those IP's are from public labs... that does not make them my IP.
That does make sigmond you, unless you can prove that someone else at these
labs conveniently showed up ini the same newsgroup as you posting stupid things
about your opponents.
> As far as the e-mail, that is *not* the IP the e-mail was sent from.
Incorrect. I have verified the email in Steves inbox at hotmail. This is hard
fact.
> The e-mail posted to csma and referenced by you has a forged header.
Incorrect. Or rather - prove it.
> When
> I asked to see the actual e-mail, I was told I could not. The only
> "evidence" ever provided was a screen shot - one that had been edited.
> Your failing to mention that is dishonest.
The evidence is through me - I was given the password to the email inbox and
reviewed the email myself. Remember though, that at the time, I didn't have
anything against you at all. I hadn't participated in any of your trollings up
til that point and was an "innocent bystander".
>> There is no doubt what so ever that this is Michaels IP. These are
>> facts, not opinions.
>
> You have never accounted for the comments above. Your "evidence" has
> been shown to be faulty.
The "comments above" are totally void from any proof or substantiation, they
are just empty claims - as opposed to the facts in the FAQ.
>> Is Michael lying?
>>
>> Yes, he is. Given the actual proof found above, he stills deny that
>> he created sigmond as a sock puppet, which means he is a liar.
>
> Um, whatever. Your piling of lies on top of each other does not
> support your case, even a little.
I not the lack of any supporting evidence for you position.
>> Has Michael countered any of this proof?
>>
>> In short, no he hasn't.
>
> That is clearly a lie. The evidence has been countered repeatedly.
As I've said - nothing have been countered. You have made some wild unsupported
claims, but you haven't actually proved anything.
>> He has constructed some far fetched conspiracy theories about sigmond
>> which can be found in (Google)
>
> I notice you do not comment on the points in the post you link to in
> any meaningful way. That is dishonest on your part.
Of course not, the reader is supposed to read the link themselves. I only offer
the facts, not any opinion or speculation.
>> where the only point that tries to counter these facts is that he is
>> pointing to the fact that there has been a poster by the name "Steve
>> Sigmond" and implied that that means Steve Carroll is sigmond, even
>> though that this "Steve Sigmond" hasn't posted since 1993 and never
>> to csma, and never used the IP in question.
>>
>> One of his latest comments were: "As far as the "evidence" against
>> me, I can not say I can explain it all or even care to... I have made
>> guesses, and if my guess has been shown to not be 100% correct the
>> mere fact that I have guessed has been held against me. All I need to
>> know is my own actions." (Google)
>
> Exactly. I have lost track of the lies. If someone wants to prove a
> lie, then they need to prove it. It is not my responsibility to keep
> track of their lies. You seem to be kind enough to compile many of
> the lies in one place. Thanks.
Not a single lie can be found in the FAQ, only substantiated facts.
> They have been fully countered... here and elsewhere. Will you and
> the Group Think Steve's now admit your error? Of course not! So you
> will try to push the idea over and over.
Not a single shred of proof or supporting evidence in this post, just claims -
and you think it has been countered? That's funny.
>> He will ignore posts containing these facts as much as he can.
>
> Another clear lie on your part.
Incorrect, given your dodging the latest few days.
>> He fails to realize that this FAQ is a collection of substantiated
>> facts, not speculations.
>
> Care to count the number of lies I have caught you in so far?
Of course - 0.
> This "FAQ" is a collection of lies.
Incorrect, given that every claim is substantiated with references and proof.
>> He has also, during the course of these events, changed his story
>> about the IP address in question. When first confronted with it, he
>> jokingly said that this sigmond person must have broken into his
>> house (Google), but verified that the IP belonged to the same network
>> he uses.
>
> The same ISP... a fairly large provider... main high speed connection
> for
>
> * hundreds* of thousands of people and public labs.
Irrelevant, given that you have used the IP yourself in posts.
>> He then changed his story and claimed that Steve had access to the IP
>> in question (Google) and not him (this is the ludicrous and totally
>> illogical conspiracy theory Michael constructed from thin air).
>
> When did I claim to not have access to cableone.net?
Irrelevant, the FAQ never claims that you have claimed that.
> I notice you have no link to this claim...
It's right there.
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BC9D9CA5.4839F%25snit%40nospam-cableone.ne
t>
> because you made it up. How many lies
> do I need to catch you in before you would drop this? Oh, that is
> right... you and the Group Think Steve's have no intention of dropping
> your silly claim... nor will you post the "Sandman Trolling FAQ" on
> your biased site.
You need to actually prove things wrong before you can conclude they are wrong,
Michael. You have done nothing of the sort.
>> Recently he did however verify that the IP (24.117.214.4) belongs to
>> a "lab" he has used to post to usenet from (Google) - presumably at
>> his school.
>
> Once it was pointed out that a post I posted from a lab came from that
> IP... uh, yeah, then that lab must have had that IP. What a shock!
> Where did you get the idea it was a school lab? Another baseless
> assumption on your part. Another lie. It gets tiring.
No lie - it is clearly labeled as an assumption. The whereabouts of the lab is
irrelevant to the FAQ.
>> He claims that all machines there shares this IP, but doesn't mention
>> if it is dynamic or not.
>
> Chances are all machines in that lab are on the same external IP. I
> have no idea if it is dynamic or static. Who cares?
Not I.
>> This latest admission ties the IP to him more than anyone else in
>> csma, so any made up conspiracy theory is noow out the window.
>
> But you also tie it to an e-mail where I sent from a computer with a
>
> * different* IP. Your whole story revolves around one faked e-mail.
Incorrect, the mmail has been verified.
>> But you can fake IP addresses, right?
>>
>> Yes, you can. Plus, you can compromise the security of the servers
>> related to these messages, such as hotmail, google, cableone
>> mailservers and such. But what would the point be for a malicious
>> user to fake an IP address of a user whose IP address is unknown?
>
> It is very easy to cut and paste an e-mail and then substitute another
> IP. That is *all* that seems to have happened here.
You are working from the assumption that the email is the only evidence against
you. that just isn't so. The FAQ would prove you to be sigmond even without
that mail.
> Maybe the Steve's
> did more? Who knows. Maybe they figured our how to fake header info
> on an e-mail... not hard to do. Friends and I use to do that in
> college long ago. We would get e-mail from the Whitehouse or
> wherever. You act like that is a huge challenge.
Unless you have any supporting proof, you're not countering anything, only
speculating - as opposed to the FAQ, where everything is supported by facts.
>> At the time, no one knew what IP address Michael had, since he used
>> SuperNews,
>
> Wait... look above. Part of your "evidence" is a post from me with
> that IP. Your story has changed. Seems you are lying again.
Incorrect, it is clearly labeled "at the time" given that the post where you
used the IP was from another group and before you even started posting in csma.
Only after it was suspected that you were sigmond did Elizabot find that post.
>> so there wouldn't be a point to post with any IP to try to "frame"
>> Michael.
>
> Do you not see how you are talking in circles? Create your time
> line... your story makes no sense.
Yes, it does.
> I posted to Usenet with an IP. Later a forged e-mail was shown with
> that IP.
No, it wasn't. The connection is in the FAQ. The IP in the mail is not the same
as the IP in your old post. The IP in the mail was 24.117.214.36, which was the
same ip as sigmond had posted from. Your old ip was 24.117.214.4, which ALSO
was a IP that sigmond had posted from.
There are two IP that you and sigmond share, not one. Even if the email would
be removed from the FAQ, the connection is still there.
> But here you claim nobody knew my IP. How can you say nobody knew
> when your evidence is based on your "knowing"?
At the time, nobody knew your IP. Only after sigmond started posting did
Elizabot find it in an earlier, unrelated post.
>> Not until he mailed Mackay (Google) was his IP known.
>
> Anyone can cut and paste an IP. So what? We still have not even
> shown that
> * anything* more was done than that - not that it is out of the realm of
> possibility that more was done.
Note lack of support for your claim.
>> And while one could create a conspiracy theory involving Mackay
>> spoofing this IP, it would be in vain since it was later found that
>> Michael himself had posted to usenet with that very IP, long before
>> all of this ever took place.
>
> Here you admit that the IP was available "long before"... but above
> claim it was not (At the time, no one knew what IP address Michael
> had).
>
> Make up your mind.
"it was later found" - "long before".
> There... fully and completely refuted. I have shown at least 23
> deceptions (or outright lies) in the sigmond FAQ.
Incorrect.
> I am sure you will apologize and pull it from your web site very soon.
> :)
Of course not. I welcome any -substantiated- facts you have to add to the FAQ
though. But since you are a proven liar, your wild claims and speculations
doesn't weigh much in all of this.
> Or maybe you will look at each of my accusations of lying and try to
> find some way to explain them. I look forward to seeing you touch on
> all 23 of your deceptions.
Done.
> More likely, however, you will simply claim they are not relevant or
> that they are not accurate, even though I clearly document just about
> every thing I say.
You haven't documented anything. The only thing you referenced was a couple of
posts regarding the timeline of when you were exposed, and you didn't get that
completely right either.
> In short... your claim has been shown to be a lie. More than that...
> it has been shown to be twenty three lies... plain and simple.
Incorrect. There can be no lies in a collection of substantiated facts unless
the one trying to counter these facts can show supporting, opposing evidence
that is more reliable than the one already present.
This was a very poor attempt to "counter" the FAQ. It was sad to see that you
had to focus on irrelevant stuff like "I have no idea if it is dynamic or
static" just to add what you call a "Sandman Deception" under it - as if you
actually countered anything! Very funny indeed.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
count of your lies.
Try to reply again... but this time in an honest way.
I will post the message again to give you another chance. My guess... you
will fail to reply in an honest way no matter how many times I post
information that shows your lies to be lies.
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in mr-B4CD84.07...@individual.net
on 8/9/04 10:59 PM:
--
"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law."
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)
Snit
> Who is sigmond?
>
> sigmond was a poster that appeared in csma for a brief period of time in
> January of 2004. sigmond appeared in a debate between Michael and a number of
> other posters.
I believe sigmond appeared in more debates centering around Steve Carroll.
To leave Steve's name out of this is dishonest and inaccurate.
Sandman Deception 1
Someone by the name of sigmond has been referenced as far back as the
*charter* for csma.
Aug 10 1992: "pollbook" of votes received in the comp.sys.mac.advocacy new
group poll
Sandman Deception 2
> sigmond had no earlier posting history to usenet prior to that
> and disappeared quickly when it was claimed he was a sock puppet of Michael.
First recent posting I can find referenced... sigmonds posts are
conveniently removed from Google... is from Jan 6:
Jan 6: Steve Carroll responds to comments. Sigmond refers to Snit and Steve
as "dumbshits".
First claim that sigmond is a sockpuppet
http://smallurl.com/?i=15395
Jan 6: Elizabot already "knows" sigmond is a sock puppet. Funny how she
"knew" that before she had any evidence. The "evidence" appeared later.
Quite strange.
The claim came after the first or second posting by sigmond. Claiming that
sigmond disappearance had anything to do with the original claim is
dishonest, or at least based on information that has not been presented.
Sandman Deception 3
> sigmond also posted a specifically poor taste post about another poster in
> csma, Elizabot. sigmond has since then removed his posts from Google in what
> appears as an attempt to hide his origin. This means that no references to his
> actual posts can be made, only to replies to them. (Google) is a reply to the
> poor taste post from sigmond.
>
>
> Who is Michael (Snit)?
If this is a "sigmond FAQ", then information about me is irrelevant. If you
are trying to "prove" sigmond is me, then you are doing so in a faulty way -
assuming the conclusion without any support.
Sandman Deception 4
>
> Michael is an Mac advocate and a frequent poster to csma and has been since
> 2003-10-07 when he posted his first csma post (Google). Since then he has been
> deemed a troll by the majority of the people he has been engaged in argument
> with, including but not limited to, the general group of people that usually
> are found arguing with the trolls in the group.
Just about everyone has been called a troll. I have also been called the
only true Mac advocate... a fact you disingenuously leave out.
Sandman Deception 5
>
> What is this about a IP?
>
> Michael posts via SuperNews, which doesn't append a NNTP-Posting-Host header
> to posts posted through their service, making the posters anonymous, hence the
> IP of Michael isn't shown in posts he has made through SuperNews. sigmond
> posted through Google, which does include the NNTP-Posting-Host header and
> sigmonds IP was 24.117.214.4 and 24.117.214.36. Other IP's that sigmond posted
> from were:
>
> 24.117.41.8
>
> 24.117.43.83
>
> 24.119.230.189
>
> 24.117.214.36
>
> 24.116.66.89
I notice you have absolutely no evidence of this, nor do you have any reason
to believe my house IP is anything - being that I post from Supernews.
Sandman Deception 6
>
> Is 24.117.214.4 and 24.117.214.36 Michaels IP?
>
> Yes, it is. He has posted to usenet with this very IP (Google) and sent an
> email to Steve Mackay (Google) which was verified by Sandman (who was given
> the password to Steves mail account) (Google). There is no doubt that this is
> Michaels IP. So, the connection is as follows:
>
> 24.117.214.36 - sigmond (Google)
>
> 24.117.214.36 - Michaels mail to Mackay (Google)
>
> 24.117.214.4 - sigmond (Google)
>
> 24.117.214.4 - Michaels post to another group. (Google)
Those IP's are from public labs... that does not make them my IP. As far as
the e-mail, that is *not* the IP the e-mail was sent from. The e-mail
posted to csma and referenced by you has a forged header. When I asked to
see the actual e-mail, I was told I could not. The only "evidence" ever
provided was a screen shot - one that had been edited. Your failing to
mention that is dishonest.
Sandman Deception 7
>
> There is no doubt what so ever that this is Michaels IP. These are facts, not
> opinions.
You have never accounted for the comments above. Your "evidence" has been
shown to be faulty.
Sandman Deception 8
>
> Is Michael lying?
>
> Yes, he is. Given the actual proof found above, he stills deny that he created
> sigmond as a sock puppet, which means he is a liar.
Um, whatever. Your piling of lies on top of each other does not support
your case, even a little.
Sandman Deception 9
>
> Has Michael countered any of this proof?
>
> In short, no he hasn't.
That is clearly a lie. The evidence has been countered repeatedly.
Sandman Deception 10
> He has constructed some far fetched conspiracy theories about sigmond which
> can be found in (Google)
I notice you do not comment on the points in the post you link to in any
meaningful way. That is dishonest on your part.
Sandman Deception 11
> where the only point that tries to counter these facts is that he is pointing
> to the fact that there has been a poster by the name "Steve Sigmond" and
> implied that that means Steve Carroll is sigmond, even though that this "Steve
> Sigmond" hasn't posted since 1993 and never to csma, and never used the IP in
> question.
>
> One of his latest comments were: "As far as the "evidence" against me, I can
> not say I can explain it all or even care to... I have made guesses, and if my
> guess has been shown to not be 100% correct the mere fact that I have guessed
> has been held against me. All I need to know is my own actions." (Google)
Exactly. I have lost track of the lies. If someone wants to prove a lie,
then they need to prove it. It is not my responsibility to keep track of
their lies. You seem to be kind enough to compile many of the lies in one
place. Thanks.
They have been fully countered... here and elsewhere. Will you and the
Group Think Steve's now admit your error? Of course not! So you will try
to push the idea over and over.
Ok... good joke. It was funny. Ha ha... the Steve's faked an e-mail or
something... so what?
>
> What does Michael say to all of this?
>
> Nothing, really.
Clearly a lie. :)
Sandman Deception 12
> He will ignore posts containing these facts as much as he can.
Another clear lie on your part.
Sandman Deception 13
> He will either snip all of the facts away or try to counter it with something
> irrelevant, like trying to deem this collection of facts as trolling.
Wow.... when I call your trolling "trolling" you get bent out of shape.
Poor troll.
> He fails to realize that this FAQ is a collection of substantiated facts, not
> speculations.
Care to count the number of lies I have caught you in so far? This "FAQ" is
a collection of lies.
Sandman Deception 14
>
> He has also, during the course of these events, changed his story about the IP
> address in question. When first confronted with it, he jokingly said that this
> sigmond person must have broken into his house (Google), but verified that the
> IP belonged to the same network he uses.
The same ISP... a fairly large provider... main high speed connection for
*hundreds* of thousands of people and public labs.
Sandman Deception 15
> He then changed his story and claimed that Steve had access to the IP in
> question (Google) and not him (this is the ludicrous and totally illogical
> conspiracy theory Michael constructed from thin air).
When did I claim to not have access to cableone.net? I notice you have no
link to this claim... because you made it up. How many lies do I need to
catch you in before you would drop this? Oh, that is right... you and the
Group Think Steve's have no intention of dropping your silly claim... nor
will you post the "Sandman Trolling FAQ" on your biased site.
Sandman Deception 16
> Recently he did however verify that the IP (24.117.214.4) belongs to a "lab"
> he has used to post to usenet from (Google) - presumably at his school.
Once it was pointed out that a post I posted from a lab came from that IP...
uh, yeah, then that lab must have had that IP. What a shock! Where did you
get the idea it was a school lab? Another baseless assumption on your part.
Another lie. It gets tiring.
Sandman Deception 17
> He claims that all machines there shares this IP, but doesn't mention if it is
> dynamic or not.
Chances are all machines in that lab are on the same external IP. I have no
idea if it is dynamic or static. Who cares?
Sandman Deception 18
> This latest admission ties the IP to him more than anyone else
> in csma, so any made up conspiracy theory is noow out the window.
But you also tie it to an e-mail where I sent from a computer with a
*different* IP. Your whole story revolves around one faked e-mail.
Sandman Deception 19
>
> But you can fake IP addresses, right?
>
> Yes, you can. Plus, you can compromise the security of the servers related to
> these messages, such as hotmail, google, cableone mailservers and such. But
> what would the point be for a malicious user to fake an IP address of a user
> whose IP address is unknown?
It is very easy to cut and paste an e-mail and then substitute another IP.
That is *all* that seems to have happened here. Maybe the Steve's did more?
Who knows. Maybe they figured our how to fake header info on an e-mail...
not hard to do. Friends and I use to do that in college long ago. We would
get e-mail from the Whitehouse or wherever. You act like that is a huge
challenge.
Sandman Deception 20
> At the time, no one knew what IP address Michael had, since he used SuperNews,
Wait... look above. Part of your "evidence" is a post from me with that IP.
Your story has changed. Seems you are lying again.
Sandman Deception 21
> so there wouldn't be a point to post with any IP to try to "frame" Michael.
Do you not see how you are talking in circles? Create your time line...
your story makes no sense.
I posted to Usenet with an IP.
Later a forged e-mail was shown with that IP.
But here you claim nobody knew my IP. How can you say nobody knew when your
evidence is based on your "knowing"?
Sandman Deception 22
> Not until he mailed Mackay (Google) was his IP known.
Anyone can cut and paste an IP. So what? We still have not even shown that
*anything* more was done than that - not that it is out of the realm of
possibility that more was done.
Sandman Deception 23
> And while one could create a conspiracy theory involving Mackay spoofing this
> IP, it would be in vain since it was later found that Michael himself had
> posted to usenet with that very IP, long before all of this ever took place.
Here you admit that the IP was available "long before"... but above claim it
was not (At the time, no one knew what IP address Michael had).
Make up your mind.
Sandman Deception 24
----------------
There... fully and completely refuted. I have shown at least 24 deceptions
(or outright lies) in the sigmond FAQ.
I am sure you will apologize and pull it from your web site very soon. :)
Or maybe you will look at each of my accusations of lying and try to find
some way to explain them. I look forward to seeing you touch on all 24 of
your deceptions. If you talk about one an hour you can be done in a day.
:)
More likely, however, you will simply claim they are not relevant or that
they are not accurate, even though I clearly document just about every thing
I say.
In short... your claim has been shown to be a lie. More than that... it has
been shown to be twenty four lies... plain and simple.
Sandman
> > He then changed his story and claimed that Steve had access to the IP in
> > question (Google) and not him (this is the ludicrous and totally illogical
> > conspiracy theory Michael constructed from thin air).
>
> When did I claim to not have access to cableone.net? I notice you have no
> link to this claim...
Now I understand what you mean by this - sorry about that. Yes, you are
correct, that sentence could be read as if you have claimed to not have access
to the IP (which your post implies of course given hat Steve doesn't even live
in the same town as you) but you didn't explicitly say that, so I have edited
out that part of the FAQ.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> Sigh... I see you snipped all sorts of things from my post, including the
> count of your lies.
They were irrelevant.
> Try to reply again... but this time in an honest way.
I never lie.
> I will post the message again to give you another chance. My guess... you
> will fail to reply in an honest way no matter how many times I post
> information that shows your lies to be lies.
Note - still not a single counter of any of the facts in the FAQ.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> <lack of substantiations snipped>
Please try again when you have some substantiated facts.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
on 8/9/04 11:49 PM:
> In article <BD3DB630.5B902%snit-...@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> Sigh... I see you snipped all sorts of things from my post, including the
>> count of your lies.
>
> They were irrelevant.
>
>> Try to reply again... but this time in an honest way.
>
> I never lie.
You make contradictory claims: that sigmond went away almost immediately
after I was "caught", and that I was "caught" almost immediately. How do
you explain your lie?
>
>> I will post the message again to give you another chance. My guess... you
>> will fail to reply in an honest way no matter how many times I post
>> information that shows your lies to be lies.
>
> Note - still not a single counter of any of the facts in the FAQ.
If any proof was needed of your bias and dishonesty, that shows it. Over
twenty lies of yours were pointed out... none of which you were able to
refute. Thanks for playing.
Snit
Sandman Deception 1
Sandman Deception 2
Sandman Deception 3
Sandman Deception 10
Sandman Deception 11
Clearly a lie. :)
Sandman Deception 12
Sandman Deception 13
Sandman Deception 15
> He then changed his story and claimed that Steve had access to the IP in
> question (Google) and not him (this is the ludicrous and totally illogical
> conspiracy theory Michael constructed from thin air).
When did I claim to not have access to cableone.net? I notice you have no
Nashton
Things seem to be pretty slow at the office, Sandman. Idle hands are the
tool of the devil, after all;)
Nicolas
Sandman
Nashton <n...@nospam.nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
> Things seem to be pretty slow at the office, Sandman.
Yes, or I am getting old. I seem to be having a startup time in the morning,
where I just check my email, read some on usenet and stuff like that.
> Idle hands are the tool of the devil, after all;)
Indeed. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> >> Sigh... I see you snipped all sorts of things from my post, including the
> >> count of your lies.
> >
> > They were irrelevant.
> >
> >> Try to reply again... but this time in an honest way.
> >
> > I never lie.
>
> You make contradictory claims: that sigmond went away almost immediately
> after I was "caught", and that I was "caught" almost immediately. How do
> you explain your lie?
Where is my claim that you were caught almost immediately? Regardless of that,
those aren't contradictory claims.
> >> I will post the message again to give you another chance. My guess... you
> >> will fail to reply in an honest way no matter how many times I post
> >> information that shows your lies to be lies.
> >
> > Note - still not a single counter of any of the facts in the FAQ.
>
> If any proof was needed of your bias and dishonesty, that shows it.
No proof is needed of that, because my honesty or bias isn't the issue. The
as-of-yet uncountered evidence in the sigmond FAQ is the issue.
> Over twenty lies of yours were pointed out... none of which you were
> able to refute. Thanks for playing.
Note - still not a single counter of any of the facts in the FAQ.
This is your game, you dodge the facts and pretend you actually countered
something, and actually think anyone would miss the fact that none of your
claims had a shred of substantiation following them - as opposed to the sigmond
FAQ, which is a fountain of substantiated facts, and not a single opinion or
speculation.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> <snip>
Still no substantiated facts - as opposed to the sigmond FAQ.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> Who is sigmond?
>
> sigmond was a poster that appeared in csma for a brief period of time in
> January of 2004. sigmond appeared in a debate between Michael and a number of
> other posters.
I believe sigmond appeared in more debates centering around Steve Carroll.
To leave Steve's name out of this is dishonest and inaccurate.
Sandman Deception 1
Someone by the name of sigmond has been referenced as far back as the
*charter* for csma.
Aug 10 1992: "pollbook" of votes received in the comp.sys.mac.advocacy new
group poll
Sandman Deception 2
> sigmond had no earlier posting history to usenet prior to that
> and disappeared quickly when it was claimed he was a sock puppet of Michael.
First recent posting I can find referenced... sigmonds posts are
conveniently removed from Google... is from Jan 6:
Jan 6: Steve Carroll responds to comments. Sigmond refers to Snit and Steve
as "dumbshits".
First claim that sigmond is a sockpuppet
http://smallurl.com/?i=15395
Jan 6: Elizabot already "knows" sigmond is a sock puppet. Funny how she
"knew" that before she had any evidence. The "evidence" appeared later.
Quite strange.
The claim came after the first or second posting by sigmond. Claiming that
sigmond disappearance had anything to do with the original claim is
dishonest, or at least based on information that has not been presented.
Sandman Deception 3
> sigmond also posted a specifically poor taste post about another poster in
> csma, Elizabot. sigmond has since then removed his posts from Google in what
> appears as an attempt to hide his origin. This means that no references to his
> actual posts can be made, only to replies to them. (Google) is a reply to the
> poor taste post from sigmond.
>
>
> Who is Michael (Snit)?
If this is a "sigmond FAQ", then information about me is irrelevant. If you
are trying to "prove" sigmond is me, then you are doing so in a faulty way -
assuming the conclusion without any support.
Sandman Deception 4
>
> Michael is an Mac advocate and a frequent poster to csma and has been since
> 2003-10-07 when he posted his first csma post (Google). Since then he has been
> deemed a troll by the majority of the people he has been engaged in argument
> with, including but not limited to, the general group of people that usually
> are found arguing with the trolls in the group.
Just about everyone has been called a troll. I have also been called the
only true Mac advocate... a fact you disingenuously leave out.
Sandman Deception 5
>
> What is this about a IP?
>
> Michael posts via SuperNews, which doesn't append a NNTP-Posting-Host header
> to posts posted through their service, making the posters anonymous, hence the
> IP of Michael isn't shown in posts he has made through SuperNews. sigmond
> posted through Google, which does include the NNTP-Posting-Host header and
> sigmonds IP was 24.117.214.4 and 24.117.214.36. Other IP's that sigmond posted
> from were:
>
> 24.117.41.8
>
> 24.117.43.83
>
> 24.119.230.189
>
> 24.117.214.36
>
> 24.116.66.89
I notice you have absolutely no evidence of this, nor do you have any reason
to believe my house IP is anything - being that I post from Supernews.
Sandman Deception 6
>
> Is 24.117.214.4 and 24.117.214.36 Michaels IP?
>
> Yes, it is. He has posted to usenet with this very IP (Google) and sent an
> email to Steve Mackay (Google) which was verified by Sandman (who was given
> the password to Steves mail account) (Google). There is no doubt that this is
> Michaels IP. So, the connection is as follows:
>
> 24.117.214.36 - sigmond (Google)
>
> 24.117.214.36 - Michaels mail to Mackay (Google)
>
> 24.117.214.4 - sigmond (Google)
>
> 24.117.214.4 - Michaels post to another group. (Google)
Those IP's are from public labs... that does not make them my IP. As far as
the e-mail, that is *not* the IP the e-mail was sent from. The e-mail
posted to csma and referenced by you has a forged header. When I asked to
see the actual e-mail, I was told I could not. The only "evidence" ever
provided was a screen shot - one that had been edited. Your failing to
mention that is dishonest.
Sandman Deception 7
>
> There is no doubt what so ever that this is Michaels IP. These are facts, not
> opinions.
You have never accounted for the comments above. Your "evidence" has been
shown to be faulty.
Sandman Deception 8
>
> Is Michael lying?
>
> Yes, he is. Given the actual proof found above, he stills deny that he created
> sigmond as a sock puppet, which means he is a liar.
Um, whatever. Your piling of lies on top of each other does not support
your case, even a little.
Sandman Deception 9
>
> Has Michael countered any of this proof?
>
> In short, no he hasn't.
That is clearly a lie. The evidence has been countered repeatedly.
Sandman Deception 10
> He has constructed some far fetched conspiracy theories about sigmond which
> can be found in (Google)
I notice you do not comment on the points in the post you link to in any
meaningful way. That is dishonest on your part.
Sandman Deception 11
> where the only point that tries to counter these facts is that he is pointing
> to the fact that there has been a poster by the name "Steve Sigmond" and
> implied that that means Steve Carroll is sigmond, even though that this "Steve
> Sigmond" hasn't posted since 1993 and never to csma, and never used the IP in
> question.
>
> One of his latest comments were: "As far as the "evidence" against me, I can
> not say I can explain it all or even care to... I have made guesses, and if my
> guess has been shown to not be 100% correct the mere fact that I have guessed
> has been held against me. All I need to know is my own actions." (Google)
Exactly. I have lost track of the lies. If someone wants to prove a lie,
then they need to prove it. It is not my responsibility to keep track of
their lies. You seem to be kind enough to compile many of the lies in one
place. Thanks.
They have been fully countered... here and elsewhere. Will you and the
Group Think Steve's now admit your error? Of course not! So you will try
to push the idea over and over.
Ok... good joke. It was funny. Ha ha... the Steve's faked an e-mail or
something... so what?
>
> What does Michael say to all of this?
>
> Nothing, really.
Clearly a lie. :)
Sandman Deception 12
> He will ignore posts containing these facts as much as he can.
Another clear lie on your part.
Sandman Deception 13
> He will either snip all of the facts away or try to counter it with something
> irrelevant, like trying to deem this collection of facts as trolling.
Wow.... when I call your trolling "trolling" you get bent out of shape.
Poor troll.
> He fails to realize that this FAQ is a collection of substantiated facts, not
> speculations.
Care to count the number of lies I have caught you in so far? This "FAQ" is
a collection of lies.
Sandman Deception 14
>
> He has also, during the course of these events, changed his story about the IP
> address in question. When first confronted with it, he jokingly said that this
> sigmond person must have broken into his house (Google), but verified that the
> IP belonged to the same network he uses.
The same ISP... a fairly large provider... main high speed connection for
*hundreds* of thousands of people and public labs.
Sandman Deception 15
> He then changed his story and claimed that Steve had access to the IP in
> question (Google) and not him (this is the ludicrous and totally illogical
> conspiracy theory Michael constructed from thin air).
When did I claim to not have access to cableone.net? I notice you have no
link to this claim... because you made it up. How many lies do I need to
catch you in before you would drop this? Oh, that is right... you and the
Group Think Steve's have no intention of dropping your silly claim... nor
will you post the "Sandman Trolling FAQ" on your biased site.
Sandman Deception 16
> Recently he did however verify that the IP (24.117.214.4) belongs to a "lab"
> he has used to post to usenet from (Google) - presumably at his school.
Once it was pointed out that a post I posted from a lab came from that IP...
uh, yeah, then that lab must have had that IP. What a shock! Where did you
get the idea it was a school lab? Another baseless assumption on your part.
Another lie. It gets tiring.
Sandman Deception 17
> He claims that all machines there shares this IP, but doesn't mention if it is
> dynamic or not.
Chances are all machines in that lab are on the same external IP. I have no
idea if it is dynamic or static. Who cares?
Sandman Deception 18
> This latest admission ties the IP to him more than anyone else
> in csma, so any made up conspiracy theory is noow out the window.
But you also tie it to an e-mail where I sent from a computer with a
*different* IP. Your whole story revolves around one faked e-mail.
Sandman Deception 19
>
> But you can fake IP addresses, right?
>
> Yes, you can. Plus, you can compromise the security of the servers related to
> these messages, such as hotmail, google, cableone mailservers and such. But
> what would the point be for a malicious user to fake an IP address of a user
> whose IP address is unknown?
It is very easy to cut and paste an e-mail and then substitute another IP.
That is *all* that seems to have happened here. Maybe the Steve's did more?
Who knows. Maybe they figured our how to fake header info on an e-mail...
not hard to do. Friends and I use to do that in college long ago. We would
get e-mail from the Whitehouse or wherever. You act like that is a huge
challenge.
Sandman Deception 20
> At the time, no one knew what IP address Michael had, since he used SuperNews,
Wait... look above. Part of your "evidence" is a post from me with that IP.
Your story has changed. Seems you are lying again.
Sandman Deception 21
> so there wouldn't be a point to post with any IP to try to "frame" Michael.
Do you not see how you are talking in circles? Create your time line...
your story makes no sense.
I posted to Usenet with an IP.
Later a forged e-mail was shown with that IP.
But here you claim nobody knew my IP. How can you say nobody knew when your
evidence is based on your "knowing"?
Sandman Deception 22
> Not until he mailed Mackay (Google) was his IP known.
Anyone can cut and paste an IP. So what? We still have not even shown that
*anything* more was done than that - not that it is out of the realm of
possibility that more was done.
Sandman Deception 23
> And while one could create a conspiracy theory involving Mackay spoofing this
> IP, it would be in vain since it was later found that Michael himself had
> posted to usenet with that very IP, long before all of this ever took place.
Here you admit that the IP was available "long before"... but above claim it
was not (At the time, no one knew what IP address Michael had).
Make up your mind.
Sandman Deception 24
----------------
There... fully and completely refuted. I have shown at least 24 deceptions
(or outright lies) in the sigmond FAQ.
I am sure you will apologize and pull it from your web site very soon. :)
Or maybe you will look at each of my accusations of lying and try to find
some way to explain them. I look forward to seeing you touch on all 24 of
your deceptions. If you talk about one an hour you can be done in a day.
:)
More likely, however, you will simply claim they are not relevant or that
they are not accurate, even though I clearly document just about every thing
I say.
In short... your claim has been shown to be a lie. More than that... it has
Sandman
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> <snip>
Still no facts. Try harder.
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
The most bizarre part to me is Snit's assertion (an empty one, of
course) that a few of us have conspired against him to create these
facts. For instance, I didn't have anything to do with the email in
Steve M's hotmail account and, other than verifying it, I'm confident
you didn't either (he's really grasping at straws with this kind of
crap). His latest delusion has him pretending the items in the FAQ
weren't factual things that have been observed. Thanks to you bringing
it up, I didn't realize about his dual IP connection with sigmond until
just this morning. Not that it was necessary to prove he is sigmond but
I wonder how he seriously expects people to overlook something so
obvious. He should just admit it and be done with it. My personal
feeling is that he won't because he likes all the attention. When he
stops getting that attention, he creates threads where he thinks he will
get his craving fulfilled. He claims to be a psych major... but his
behavior is more that of a longtime psychiatric patient. Note: No smiley
here.
--
"I may just be the primary topic of this group"
"I am happy to say the overwhelming vast majority
of your posts clearly referenced me"
- Michael Glasser (AKA Snit)
--
Steve C
Sandman
Carroll <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
>>> Over twenty lies of yours were pointed out... none of which you were
>>> able to refute. Thanks for playing.
>>
>> Note - still not a single counter of any of the facts in the FAQ.
>>
>> This is your game, you dodge the facts and pretend you actually
>> countered something, and actually think anyone would miss the fact
>> that none of your claims had a shred of substantiation following them
>> - as opposed to the sigmond FAQ, which is a fountain of substantiated
>> facts, and not a single opinion or speculation.
>
> The most bizarre part to me is Snit's assertion (an empty one, of
> course) that a few of us have conspired against him to create these
> facts. For instance, I didn't have anything to do with the email in
> Steve M's hotmail account and, other than verifying it, I'm confident
> you didn't either (he's really grasping at straws with this kind of
> crap).
It's important to note that while it's true that I am quite disguested with his
behaviour today, I wasn't at the time. Mackay asked for someone to verify the
email and I volunteered. I didn't have an agenda against Michael at the time
(and frankly, I don't know either, apart from presenting the facts in this
sigmond issue).
> His latest delusion has him pretending the items in the FAQ
> weren't factual things that have been observed. Thanks to you bringing
> it up, I didn't realize about his dual IP connection with sigmond
> until just this morning.
That was exactly why this FAQ was constructed. Michaels trolling style is to
overshadow any facts with tons and tons of irrelevant material, which he hopes
will make people "forget" the facts. That is why I felt it was important to
create the sigmond FAQ, so everyone had access to substantiated facts in the
issue rather than just claims.
> Not that it was necessary to prove he is
> sigmond but I wonder how he seriously expects people to overlook
> something so obvious. He should just admit it and be done with it. My
> personal feeling is that he won't because he likes all the attention.
I doubt that. Since he came here, soon a year ago, he has been on a downward
spiral where he has just sunken deeper and deeper into his lies and
misinformation. I don't think he sees a way out, and I really do think he
thinks he is a victim here. He has grown blind from trying to ignore facts.
> When he stops getting that attention, he creates threads where he
> thinks he will get his craving fulfilled. He claims to be a psych
> major... but his behavior is more that of a longtime psychiatric
> patient. Note: No smiley here.
Hehe. While it may be true that I have said denigrating things about Michael in
the past (just covering my behind here, I can't remember any), I won't stoop to
his level and just throw insults around.
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
This wasn't intended as an insult, it's actually how I see him. He is
apparently suffering from a disassociative disorder. There is no
question whatsoever that he is a pathological liar. He definitely has a
victim mentality and often suffers from delusions that he obviously
believes are real. He lives in fantasyland, as many here have noted. Do
you really think we are the first people to notice these kind of
abnormalities in his behavior? I'd have a hard time buying that idea.
Snit
Sandman Deception 1
Sandman Deception 2
Sandman Deception 3
Sandman Deception 10
Sandman Deception 11
Clearly a lie. :)
Sandman Deception 12
Sandman Deception 13
Sandman Deception 15
Sandman Deception 16
Sandman Deception 17
Sandman Deception 18
Sandman Deception 19
Sandman Deception 20
Sandman Deception 21
Sandman Deception 22
Sandman Deception 23
Make up your mind.
Sandman Deception 24
----------------
The one that has been most vehemently argued is the idea that an IP I posted
from *must* have been from my house. Look at posts from Elizabot, Ed, and
Sandman on this topic. *No* support is made, some really silly claims are
made from all three of them, and not one admits that they can not support
the claim.
I am sure you will apologize and pull it from your web site very soon. :)
Or maybe you will look at each of my accusations of lying and try to find
some way to explain them. I look forward to seeing you touch on all 24 of
your deceptions. If you talk about one an hour you can be done in a day.
:)
More likely, however, you will simply claim they are not relevant or that
they are not accurate, even though I clearly document just about every thing
I say.
In short... your claim has been shown to be a lie. More than that... it has
been shown to be *at least* twenty four lies... plain and simple.
Snit
Sandman
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> Examination of Sandman's dishonest Sigmond FAQ
Nothing dishonest about it.
> > Who is sigmond?
> >
> > sigmond was a poster that appeared in csma for a brief period of time in
> > January of 2004. sigmond appeared in a debate between Michael and a number
> > of
> > other posters.
>
> I believe sigmond appeared in more debates centering around Steve Carroll.
> To leave Steve's name out of this is dishonest and inaccurate.
sigmond didn't, as far as I can see in my logs, appear in any discussion were
you weren't present as well. You have to prove this claim.
> Someone by the name of sigmond has been referenced as far back as the
> *charter* for csma.
Irrelevant. This specific sigmond used a specific email. Arbitarly "sigmonds"
in the history of usenet are irrelevant.
> > sigmond had no earlier posting history to usenet prior to that
> > and disappeared quickly when it was claimed he was a sock puppet of
> > Michael.
>
> First recent posting I can find referenced... sigmonds posts are
> conveniently removed from Google... is from Jan 6:
I know this already.
> http://smallurl.com/?i=15394
> Jan 6: Steve Carroll responds to comments. Sigmond refers to Snit and Steve
> as "dumbshits".
>
> First claim that sigmond is a sockpuppet
>
> http://smallurl.com/?i=15395
> Jan 6: Elizabot already "knows" sigmond is a sock puppet. Funny how she
> "knew" that before she had any evidence. The "evidence" appeared later.
> Quite strange.
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3ffb67be%240%24200%2475868355%40news.frii.
net>
One minute after that post, she posted the evidence she based her conclusion
on. This evidence hasn't been refuted.
>> sigmond also posted a specifically poor taste post about another
>> poster in csma, Elizabot. sigmond has since then removed his posts
>> from Google in what appears as an attempt to hide his origin. This
>> means that no references to his actual posts can be made, only to
>> replies to them. (Google) is a reply to the poor taste post from
>> sigmond.
>>
>> Who is Michael (Snit)?
>
> If this is a "sigmond FAQ", then information about me is irrelevant.
Incorrect, given that you are sigmond.
> If you are trying to "prove" sigmond is me, then you are doing so in a
> faulty way - assuming the conclusion without any support.
Incorrect, given the onslaught of substantiated facts in the FAQ.
>> Michael is an Mac advocate and a frequent poster to csma and has been
>> since
>> 2003- 10-07 when he posted his first csma post (Google). Since then he
>> has been deemed a troll by the majority of the people he has been
>> engaged in argument with, including but not limited to, the general
>> group of people that usually are found arguing with the trolls in the
>> group.
>
> Just about everyone has been called a troll. I have also been called
> the only true Mac advocate... a fact you disingenuously leave out.
Because it is irrelevant to the FAQ.
>> What is this about a IP?
>>
>> Michael posts via SuperNews, which doesn't append a NNTP-Posting-Host
>> header to posts posted through their service, making the posters
>> anonymous, hence the IP of Michael isn't shown in posts he has made
>> through SuperNews. sigmond posted through Google, which does include
>> the NNTP-Posting-Host header and sigmonds IP was 24.117.214.4 and
>> 24.117.214.36. Other IP's that sigmond posted from were:
>> 24. 117.41.8
>> 24. 117.43.83
>> 24. 119.230.189
>> 24. 117.214.36
>> 24. 116.66.89
>
> I notice you have absolutely no evidence of this, nor do you have any
> reason to believe my house IP is anything - being that I post from
> Supernews.
Apart from the fact that you have actually posted from one of the above IP's -
you know the little snippet of evidence you've been dodging these last few days:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BC172FBE.37F1C%25snit-nospam%40cableone.ne
t>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.117.214.4
From: Snit <snit-...@cableone.net>
>> Is 24.117.214.4 and 24.117.214.36 Michaels IP?
>>
>> Yes, it is. He has posted to usenet with this very IP (Google) and
>> sent an email to Steve Mackay (Google) which was verified by Sandman
>> (who was given the password to Steves mail account) (Google). There
>> is no doubt that this is Michaels IP. So, the connection is as
>> follows:
>>
>> 24. 117.214.36 - sigmond (Google)
>> 24. 117.214.36 - Michaels mail to Mackay (Google)
>> 24. 117.214.4 - sigmond (Google)
>> 24. 117.214.4 - Michaels post to another group. (Google)
>
> Those IP's are from public labs... that does not make them my IP.
That does make sigmond you, unless you can prove that someone else at these
labs conveniently showed up ini the same newsgroup as you posting stupid things
about your opponents.
> As far as the e-mail, that is *not* the IP the e-mail was sent from.
Incorrect. I have verified the email in Steves inbox at hotmail. This is hard
fact.
> The e-mail posted to csma and referenced by you has a forged header.
Incorrect. Or rather - prove it.
> When
> I asked to see the actual e-mail, I was told I could not. The only
> "evidence" ever provided was a screen shot - one that had been edited.
> Your failing to mention that is dishonest.
The evidence is through me - I was given the password to the email inbox and
reviewed the email myself. Remember though, that at the time, I didn't have
anything against you at all. I hadn't participated in any of your trollings up
til that point and was an "innocent bystander".
>> There is no doubt what so ever that this is Michaels IP. These are
>> facts, not opinions.
>
> You have never accounted for the comments above. Your "evidence" has
> been shown to be faulty.
The "comments above" are totally void from any proof or substantiation, they
are just empty claims - as opposed to the facts in the FAQ.
>> Is Michael lying?
>>
>> Yes, he is. Given the actual proof found above, he stills deny that
>> he created sigmond as a sock puppet, which means he is a liar.
>
> Um, whatever. Your piling of lies on top of each other does not
> support your case, even a little.
I not the lack of any supporting evidence for you position.
>> Has Michael countered any of this proof?
>>
>> In short, no he hasn't.
>
> That is clearly a lie. The evidence has been countered repeatedly.
As I've said - nothing have been countered. You have made some wild unsupported
claims, but you haven't actually proved anything.
>> He has constructed some far fetched conspiracy theories about sigmond
>> which can be found in (Google)
>
> I notice you do not comment on the points in the post you link to in
> any meaningful way. That is dishonest on your part.
Of course not, the reader is supposed to read the link themselves. I only offer
the facts, not any opinion or speculation.
>> where the only point that tries to counter these facts is that he is
>> pointing to the fact that there has been a poster by the name "Steve
>> Sigmond" and implied that that means Steve Carroll is sigmond, even
>> though that this "Steve Sigmond" hasn't posted since 1993 and never
>> to csma, and never used the IP in question.
>>
>> One of his latest comments were: "As far as the "evidence" against
>> me, I can not say I can explain it all or even care to... I have made
>> guesses, and if my guess has been shown to not be 100% correct the
>> mere fact that I have guessed has been held against me. All I need to
>> know is my own actions." (Google)
>
> Exactly. I have lost track of the lies. If someone wants to prove a
> lie, then they need to prove it. It is not my responsibility to keep
> track of their lies. You seem to be kind enough to compile many of
> the lies in one place. Thanks.
Not a single lie can be found in the FAQ, only substantiated facts.
> They have been fully countered... here and elsewhere. Will you and
> the Group Think Steve's now admit your error? Of course not! So you
> will try to push the idea over and over.
Not a single shred of proof or supporting evidence in this post, just claims -
and you think it has been countered? That's funny.
>> He will ignore posts containing these facts as much as he can.
>
> Another clear lie on your part.
Incorrect, given your dodging the latest few days.
>> He fails to realize that this FAQ is a collection of substantiated
>> facts, not speculations.
>
> Care to count the number of lies I have caught you in so far?
Of course - 0.
> This "FAQ" is a collection of lies.
Incorrect, given that every claim is substantiated with references and proof.
>> He has also, during the course of these events, changed his story
>> about the IP address in question. When first confronted with it, he
>> jokingly said that this sigmond person must have broken into his
>> house (Google), but verified that the IP belonged to the same network
>> he uses.
>
> The same ISP... a fairly large provider... main high speed connection
> for
>
> * hundreds* of thousands of people and public labs.
Irrelevant, given that you have used the IP yourself in posts.
>> He then changed his story and claimed that Steve had access to the IP
>> in question (Google) and not him (this is the ludicrous and totally
>> illogical conspiracy theory Michael constructed from thin air).
>
> When did I claim to not have access to cableone.net?
Irrelevant, the FAQ never claims that you have claimed that.
> I notice you have no link to this claim...
It's right there.
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BC9D9CA5.4839F%25snit%40nospam-cableone.ne
t>
> because you made it up. How many lies
> do I need to catch you in before you would drop this? Oh, that is
> right... you and the Group Think Steve's have no intention of dropping
> your silly claim... nor will you post the "Sandman Trolling FAQ" on
> your biased site.
You need to actually prove things wrong before you can conclude they are wrong,
Michael. You have done nothing of the sort.
>> Recently he did however verify that the IP (24.117.214.4) belongs to
>> a "lab" he has used to post to usenet from (Google) - presumably at
>> his school.
>
> Once it was pointed out that a post I posted from a lab came from that
> IP... uh, yeah, then that lab must have had that IP. What a shock!
> Where did you get the idea it was a school lab? Another baseless
> assumption on your part. Another lie. It gets tiring.
No lie - it is clearly labeled as an assumption. The whereabouts of the lab is
irrelevant to the FAQ.
>> He claims that all machines there shares this IP, but doesn't mention
>> if it is dynamic or not.
>
> Chances are all machines in that lab are on the same external IP. I
> have no idea if it is dynamic or static. Who cares?
Not I.
>> This latest admission ties the IP to him more than anyone else in
>> csma, so any made up conspiracy theory is noow out the window.
>
> But you also tie it to an e-mail where I sent from a computer with a
>
> * different* IP. Your whole story revolves around one faked e-mail.
Incorrect, the mmail has been verified.
>> But you can fake IP addresses, right?
>>
>> Yes, you can. Plus, you can compromise the security of the servers
>> related to these messages, such as hotmail, google, cableone
>> mailservers and such. But what would the point be for a malicious
>> user to fake an IP address of a user whose IP address is unknown?
>
> It is very easy to cut and paste an e-mail and then substitute another
> IP. That is *all* that seems to have happened here.
You are working from the assumption that the email is the only evidence against
you. that just isn't so. The FAQ would prove you to be sigmond even without
that mail.
> Maybe the Steve's
> did more? Who knows. Maybe they figured our how to fake header info
> on an e-mail... not hard to do. Friends and I use to do that in
> college long ago. We would get e-mail from the Whitehouse or
> wherever. You act like that is a huge challenge.
Unless you have any supporting proof, you're not countering anything, only
speculating - as opposed to the FAQ, where everything is supported by facts.
>> At the time, no one knew what IP address Michael had, since he used
>> SuperNews,
>
> Wait... look above. Part of your "evidence" is a post from me with
> that IP. Your story has changed. Seems you are lying again.
Incorrect, it is clearly labeled "at the time" given that the post where you
used the IP was from another group and before you even started posting in csma.
Only after it was suspected that you were sigmond did Elizabot find that post.
>> so there wouldn't be a point to post with any IP to try to "frame"
>> Michael.
>
> Do you not see how you are talking in circles? Create your time
> line... your story makes no sense.
Yes, it does.
> I posted to Usenet with an IP. Later a forged e-mail was shown with
> that IP.
No, it wasn't. The connection is in the FAQ. The IP in the mail is not the same
as the IP in your old post. The IP in the mail was 24.117.214.36, which was the
same ip as sigmond had posted from. Your old ip was 24.117.214.4, which ALSO
was a IP that sigmond had posted from.
There are two IP that you and sigmond share, not one. Even if the email would
be removed from the FAQ, the connection is still there.
> But here you claim nobody knew my IP. How can you say nobody knew
> when your evidence is based on your "knowing"?
At the time, nobody knew your IP. Only after sigmond started posting did
Elizabot find it in an earlier, unrelated post.
>> Not until he mailed Mackay (Google) was his IP known.
>
> Anyone can cut and paste an IP. So what? We still have not even
> shown that
> * anything* more was done than that - not that it is out of the realm of
> possibility that more was done.
Note lack of support for your claim.
>> And while one could create a conspiracy theory involving Mackay
>> spoofing this IP, it would be in vain since it was later found that
>> Michael himself had posted to usenet with that very IP, long before
>> all of this ever took place.
>
> Here you admit that the IP was available "long before"... but above
> claim it was not (At the time, no one knew what IP address Michael
> had).
>
> Make up your mind.
"it was later found" - "long before".
> There... fully and completely refuted. I have shown at least 23
> deceptions (or outright lies) in the sigmond FAQ.
Incorrect.
> I am sure you will apologize and pull it from your web site very soon.
> :)
Of course not. I welcome any -substantiated- facts you have to add to the FAQ
though. But since you are a proven liar, your wild claims and speculations
doesn't weigh much in all of this.
> Or maybe you will look at each of my accusations of lying and try to
> find some way to explain them. I look forward to seeing you touch on
> all 23 of your deceptions.
Done.
> More likely, however, you will simply claim they are not relevant or
> that they are not accurate, even though I clearly document just about
> every thing I say.
You haven't documented anything. The only thing you referenced was a couple of
posts regarding the timeline of when you were exposed, and you didn't get that
completely right either.
> In short... your claim has been shown to be a lie. More than that...
> it has been shown to be twenty three lies... plain and simple.
Incorrect. There can be no lies in a collection of substantiated facts unless
the one trying to counter these facts can show supporting, opposing evidence
that is more reliable than the one already present.
This was a very poor attempt to "counter" the FAQ. It was sad to see that you
had to focus on irrelevant stuff like "I have no idea if it is dynamic or
static" just to add what you call a "Sandman Deception" under it - as if you
actually countered anything! Very funny indeed.
--
Sandman[.net]
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
mostly just by ignoring it, but occasionally by snipping it and then
responding to of context bits and pieces.
It is clear he will never respond... but he will keep trolling...
--------------
Examination of Sandman's dishonest Sigmond FAQ
> Who is sigmond?
>
> sigmond was a poster that appeared in csma for a brief period of time in
> January of 2004. sigmond appeared in a debate between Michael and a number of
> other posters.
I believe sigmond appeared in more debates centering around Steve Carroll.
To leave Steve's name out of this is dishonest and inaccurate.
Sandman Deception 1
Someone by the name of sigmond has been referenced as far back as the
*charter* for csma.
Aug 10 1992: "pollbook" of votes received in the comp.sys.mac.advocacy new
group poll
Sandman Deception 2
> sigmond had no earlier posting history to usenet prior to that
> and disappeared quickly when it was claimed he was a sock puppet of Michael.
First recent posting I can find referenced... sigmonds posts are
conveniently removed from Google... is from Jan 6:
Jan 6: Steve Carroll responds to comments. Sigmond refers to Snit and Steve
as "dumbshits".
First claim that sigmond is a sockpuppet
http://smallurl.com/?i=15395
Jan 6: Elizabot already "knows" sigmond is a sock puppet. Funny how she
"knew" that before she had any evidence. The "evidence" appeared later.
Quite strange.
The claim came after the first or second posting by sigmond. Claiming that
sigmond disappearance had anything to do with the original claim is
dishonest, or at least based on information that has not been presented.
Sandman Deception 3
> sigmond also posted a specifically poor taste post about another poster in
> csma, Elizabot. sigmond has since then removed his posts from Google in what
> appears as an attempt to hide his origin. This means that no references to his
> actual posts can be made, only to replies to them. (Google) is a reply to the
> poor taste post from sigmond.
>
>
> Who is Michael (Snit)?
If this is a "sigmond FAQ", then information about me is irrelevant. If you
are trying to "prove" sigmond is me, then you are doing so in a faulty way -
assuming the conclusion without any support.
Sandman Deception 4
> Michael is an Mac advocate and a frequent poster to csma and has been since
> 2003-10-07 when he posted his first csma post (Google). Since then he has been
> deemed a troll by the majority of the people he has been engaged in argument
> with, including but not limited to, the general group of people that usually
> are found arguing with the trolls in the group.
Just about everyone has been called a troll. I have also been called the
only true Mac advocate... a fact you disingenuously leave out.
Sandman Deception 5
> What is this about a IP?
>
> Michael posts via SuperNews, which doesn't append a NNTP-Posting-Host header
> to posts posted through their service, making the posters anonymous, hence the
> IP of Michael isn't shown in posts he has made through SuperNews. sigmond
> posted through Google, which does include the NNTP-Posting-Host header and
> sigmonds IP was 24.117.214.4 and 24.117.214.36. Other IP's that sigmond posted
> from were:
>
> 24.117.41.8
>
> 24.117.43.83
>
> 24.119.230.189
>
> 24.117.214.36
>
> 24.116.66.89
I notice you have absolutely no evidence of this, nor do you have any reason
to believe my house IP is anything - being that I post from Supernews.
Sandman Deception 6
> Is 24.117.214.4 and 24.117.214.36 Michaels IP?
>
> Yes, it is. He has posted to usenet with this very IP (Google) and sent an
> email to Steve Mackay (Google) which was verified by Sandman (who was given
> the password to Steves mail account) (Google). There is no doubt that this is
> Michaels IP. So, the connection is as follows:
>
> 24.117.214.36 - sigmond (Google)
>
> 24.117.214.36 - Michaels mail to Mackay (Google)
>
> 24.117.214.4 - sigmond (Google)
>
> 24.117.214.4 - Michaels post to another group. (Google)
Those IP's are from public labs... that does not make them my IP. As far as
the e-mail, that is *not* the IP the e-mail was sent from. The e-mail
posted to csma and referenced by you has a forged header. When I asked to
see the actual e-mail, I was told I could not. The only "evidence" ever
provided was a screen shot - one that had been edited. Your failing to
mention that is dishonest.
Sandman Deception 7
> There is no doubt what so ever that this is Michaels IP. These are facts, not
> opinions.
You have never accounted for the comments above. Your "evidence" has been
shown to be faulty.
Sandman Deception 8
> Is Michael lying?
>
> Yes, he is. Given the actual proof found above, he stills deny that he created
> sigmond as a sock puppet, which means he is a liar.
Um, whatever. Your piling of lies on top of each other does not support
your case, even a little.
Sandman Deception 9
> Has Michael countered any of this proof?
>
> In short, no he hasn't.
That is clearly a lie. The evidence has been countered repeatedly.
Sandman Deception 10
> He has constructed some far fetched conspiracy theories about sigmond which
> can be found in (Google)
I notice you do not comment on the points in the post you link to in any
meaningful way. That is dishonest on your part.
Sandman Deception 11
> where the only point that tries to counter these facts is that he is pointing
> to the fact that there has been a poster by the name "Steve Sigmond" and
> implied that that means Steve Carroll is sigmond, even though that this "Steve
> Sigmond" hasn't posted since 1993 and never to csma, and never used the IP in
> question.
>
> One of his latest comments were: "As far as the "evidence" against me, I can
> not say I can explain it all or even care to... I have made guesses, and if my
> guess has been shown to not be 100% correct the mere fact that I have guessed
> has been held against me. All I need to know is my own actions." (Google)
Exactly. I have lost track of the lies. If someone wants to prove a lie,
then they need to prove it. It is not my responsibility to keep track of
their lies. You seem to be kind enough to compile many of the lies in one
place. Thanks.
They have been fully countered... here and elsewhere. Will you and the
Group Think Steve's now admit your error? Of course not! So you will try
to push the idea over and over.
Ok... good joke. It was funny. Ha ha... the Steve's faked an e-mail or
something... so what?
> What does Michael say to all of this?
>
> Nothing, really.
Clearly a lie. :)
Sandman Deception 12
> He will ignore posts containing these facts as much as he can.
Another clear lie on your part.
Sandman Deception 13
> He will either snip all of the facts away or try to counter it with something
> irrelevant, like trying to deem this collection of facts as trolling.
Wow.... when I call your trolling "trolling" you get bent out of shape.
Poor troll.
> He fails to realize that this FAQ is a collection of substantiated facts, not
> speculations.
Care to count the number of lies I have caught you in so far? This "FAQ" is
a collection of lies.
Sandman Deception 14
>
> He has also, during the course of these events, changed his story about the IP
> address in question. When first confronted with it, he jokingly said that this
> sigmond person must have broken into his house (Google), but verified that the
> IP belonged to the same network he uses.
The same ISP... a fairly large provider... main high speed connection for
*hundreds* of thousands of people and public labs.
Sandman Deception 15
> He then changed his story and claimed that Steve had access to the IP in
> question (Google) and not him (this is the ludicrous and totally illogical
> conspiracy theory Michael constructed from thin air).
When did I claim to not have access to cableone.net? I notice you have no
link to this claim... because you made it up. How many lies do I need to
catch you in before you would drop this? Oh, that is right... you and the
Group Think Steve's have no intention of dropping your silly claim... nor
will you post the "Sandman Trolling FAQ" on your biased site.
Sandman Deception 16
> Recently he did however verify that the IP (24.117.214.4) belongs to a "lab"
> he has used to post to usenet from (Google) - presumably at his school.
Once it was pointed out that a post I posted from a lab came from that IP...
uh, yeah, then that lab must have had that IP. What a shock! Where did you
get the idea it was a school lab? Another baseless assumption on your part.
Another lie. It gets tiring.
Sandman Deception 17
> He claims that all machines there shares this IP, but doesn't mention if it is
> dynamic or not.
Chances are all machines in that lab are on the same external IP. I have no
idea if it is dynamic or static. Who cares?
Sandman Deception 18
> This latest admission ties the IP to him more than anyone else
> in csma, so any made up conspiracy theory is noow out the window.
But you also tie it to an e-mail where I sent from a computer with a
*different* IP. Your whole story revolves around one faked e-mail.
Sandman Deception 19
> But you can fake IP addresses, right?
> Yes, you can. Plus, you can compromise the security of the servers related to
> these messages, such as hotmail, google, cableone mailservers and such. But
> what would the point be for a malicious user to fake an IP address of a user
> whose IP address is unknown?
It is very easy to cut and paste an e-mail and then substitute another IP.
That is *all* that seems to have happened here. Maybe the Steve's did more?
Who knows. Maybe they figured our how to fake header info on an e-mail...
not hard to do. Friends and I use to do that in college long ago. We would
get e-mail from the Whitehouse or wherever. You act like that is a huge
challenge.
Sandman Deception 20
> At the time, no one knew what IP address Michael had, since he used SuperNews,
Wait... look above. Part of your "evidence" is a post from me with that IP.
Your story has changed. Seems you are lying again.
Sandman Deception 21
> so there wouldn't be a point to post with any IP to try to "frame" Michael.
Do you not see how you are talking in circles? Create your time line...
your story makes no sense.
I posted to Usenet with an IP.
Later a forged e-mail was shown with that IP.
But here you claim nobody knew my IP. How can you say nobody knew when your
evidence is based on your "knowing"?
Sandman Deception 22
> Not until he mailed Mackay (Google) was his IP known.
Anyone can cut and paste an IP. So what? We still have not even shown that
*anything* more was done than that - not that it is out of the realm of
possibility that more was done.
Sandman Deception 23
> And while one could create a conspiracy theory involving Mackay spoofing this
> IP, it would be in vain since it was later found that Michael himself had
> posted to usenet with that very IP, long before all of this ever took place.
Here you admit that the IP was available "long before"... but above claim it
was not (At the time, no one knew what IP address Michael had).
Make up your mind.
Sandman Deception 24
----------------
There... fully and completely refuted. I have shown at least 24 deceptions
(or outright lies) in the sigmond FAQ.
The one that has been most vehemently argued is the idea that an IP I posted
from *must* have been from my house. Look at posts from Elizabot, Ed, and
Sandman on this topic. *No* support is made, some really silly claims are
made from all three of them, and not one admits that they can not support
the claim.
I am sure you will apologize and pull it from your web site very soon. :)
Or maybe you will look at each of my accusations of lying and try to find
some way to explain them. I look forward to seeing you touch on all 24 of
your deceptions. If you talk about one an hour you can be done in a day.
:)
More likely, however, you will simply claim they are not relevant or that
they are not accurate, even though I clearly document just about every thing
I say.
In short... your claim has been shown to be a lie. More than that... it has
Snit
on 8/12/04 11:32 PM:
>> Examination of Sandman's dishonest Sigmond FAQ
>
> Nothing dishonest about it.
Then why do you not address the 24 known deceptions in it without snipping?
Hmmm, I wonder if we should count that snipping as the 25th known deception.
No... it is not *directly* in the deceptive FAQ you made, it is just one way
you avoid dealing with your deceptions.
Hmmmm....
Sandman
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in mr-E6DFBA.08...@individual.net
> on 8/12/04 11:32 PM:
>
> >> Examination of Sandman's dishonest Sigmond FAQ
> >
> > Nothing dishonest about it.
>
> Then why do you not address the 24 known deceptions in it without snipping?
> Hmmm, I wonder if we should count that snipping as the 25th known deception.
>
> No... it is not *directly* in the deceptive FAQ you made, it is just one way
> you avoid dealing with your deceptions.
>
> Hmmmm....
Note: complete lack of any counter of the sigmond FAQ.
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> The following has been posted several times. Sandman refuses to respond -
> mostly just by ignoring it, but occasionally by snipping it and then
> responding to of context bits and pieces.
He did respond... he just didn't address all your irrelevant delusions.
--
"I may just be the primary topic of this group"
"You really need to learn the whole concept of context"
Krinkle Frys
Your comments are made solely to offend, though they are at least supported.
Krinkle Frys
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in mr-E6DFBA.08...@individual.net
> on 8/12/04 11:32 PM:
>
>
>>>Examination of Sandman's dishonest Sigmond FAQ
>>
>>Nothing dishonest about it.
>
>
> Then why do you not address the 24 known deceptions in it without snipping?
> Hmmm, I wonder if we should count that snipping as the 25th known deception.
>
> No... it is not *directly* in the deceptive FAQ you made, it is just one way
> you avoid dealing with your deceptions.
>
> Hmmmm....
>
Your comments are made solely to offend.
Krinkle Frys
> In article <BD42E1DC.5C369%snit-...@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>
>>The following has been posted several times. Sandman refuses to respond -
>>mostly just by ignoring it, but occasionally by snipping it and then
>>responding to of context bits and pieces.
>
>
> He did respond... he just didn't address all your irrelevant delusions.
>
forge
Krinkle Frys <sp...@stop.com> wrote:
> Your comments are made solely to offend.
All together now... aaaaaaaAAHHHH PLONK-aaaaahhhhh!!!